There are no women's rights, states rights, only individual rights. You can't pick and choose "rights", and this is the issue. As someone that is "pro-choice" as well as pro-LGBT, I'm extremely disappointed that the Left picks and chooses which freedoms are ok and which are not.
The right to abortion ensures a woman can exercise her individual freedom over her own body. Without it, the government controls a deeply personal choice, effectively denying her equal autonomy. True individual rights mean everyone should be free to make choices about their own lives and bodies, without interference."
It can be disappointing, but at least it's not as bad as on the right which has it that basically no freedoms are OK, most everything is only by explicit permission. They don't have a problem with taxation, they don't have any problem with interfering with individual decisions of any type. We do need to have a more explicit conversation on exactly what individual freedom is, and why it's essential to life.
@@treyjohnson2542 The correct position is Evictionnism. If Individual Rights are supreme, then the infant, baby or foetus, as a unique life of an Individual has the right to not be terminated. I agree that the woman has the right to her body, but she has no right to dismember or poison the child. He should be evicted and ideally, were the Government not banning the use of artificial womb on humans, we could have adoption centers that combine eviction centers for woman who desire to terminate the pregnancy whilst not killing the child, by evicting him into an Artificial womb. Whether he survives or not, is not relevent. What is relevent is the direct killing of the baby which is trespass over his right to own his own body too.
@@Luke-lb2cv True. But why prejudice some services over others? Especially since protecting abortion yields better social consequences (fewer single moms, fewer unwed parents, fewer back alley abortions, fewer welfare dependents, etc.).
It was initiated by a Pope in the early 1900s. The entire concept that a fetus is a human, and therefore has the right to life, is nonsensical, and runs in absolute, diametric opposition to Christianity and Catholicism. It is INTENDED to ERADICATE the concept of rights. Starting by obliterating the meaning of "life". And ensuring anyone who accepts a fetus "right to life" has by default accepted slavery, ownership of the Mother by the collective society to be a position in favor of "human rights". It is a brilliant and devious attack on the concept of rights. Which the church absolutey rejects. (If man had the rigt to life, then he can invoke this right to Gods face and easily avoid hell, which is eternal death). The right to life is literally blasphemy in Judeo-Christian-Catholic-Muslim ideology. The Christian/Catholic religion states that ALL HAVE SINNED and fallen short of the glory of god. That everyone inherits guilt from Adam and Even through their parents. ("Original sin"). The only way to "be saved" is to accept Jesus as gods perfect human, child, sacrifice. (Salvation is to be forgiven by god: if you can call having someone innocent be executed instead of you, for your crimes, to be in any way associated with "forgiveness". Which it is not, being a simple direct transfer of guilt, transfer of punishment, onto someone who didn't deserve it. Therefore, literally means NOT forgiven, by every dictionary definition of the meaning "Forgiveness" ... Which is a concept completely and absolutely lacking in all Judeo-Christian-Muslim ideology. In spite of their claim to be the only source of forgiveness). They simply have a very different, contorted, perverted meaning of the phrase intended to eradicate the concept of forgiveness from the human conscience. To keep people feeing "guilty" for some existential evil they inherited from Adam and Eve. While some disagree about original sin: (Protestants in the States, mostly). That idiotic position is simply incompatible with their own belief system, because if people were not born sinners, they would not need salvation in the first place. And if an unborn baby was unable to live due to abortion, and was not inherently a sinner, then it would go directly to heaven. And therefore to save the maximum number of people they should have to abort everyone. What is hilarious is these idiots will preach from the pulpit against Abortion as the right to life is an inalianable right bestowed by god, the same god who said everyone is condemned to eternal death simply due to their own egregious act of living in the first place, and they will also hold that original sin is not valid. (In protestant christianity). They contradict themselves. It is in incompatible ideology. Their excuse is blind mysticism: Man mind cannot grasp gods infinite understanding. Contradictions are simply your failure to understand gods mystical ways. So do as I say or burn!
It was initiated by a Pope in the early 1900s. The entire concept that a fetus is a human, and therefore has the right to life, is nonsensical, and runs in absolute, diametric opposition to Christianity and Catholicism. It was INTENDED to ERADICATE the concept of rights. Starting by obliterating the meaning of "life". Ensuring anyone who accepts a fetus' "right to life" has by default also accepted slavery, that is ownership of the Mother by the collective society, while also believing themselves hold a position in favor of "human rights". It is a brilliant and devious attack on the concept of rights. Which the church absolutey rejects: (If man had the right to life, then he can rightfully invoke this right to Gods face and avoid hell; which is defined as eternal death). If man has the inalienable right to life, who is god to kill him for all eternity? And if god can send him to hell, then he clearly has no rights to anything. Let alone his own life. The "right to life" is literally blasphemy in Judeo-Christian-Catholic-Muslim ideology. (Interestingly, this is the "unforgivable sin" and therefore any Christian who cites the right to life in the affirmative, is a blasphemer, someone who boldly claims something in diametric opposition to gods own word. Therefore is condemned to hell with no chance of salvation. Not even through faith in Jesus. Per the bible, from cover to cover). The Christian/Catholic religion states that ALL HAVE SINNED and fallen short of the glory of god. That everyone inherits guilt from Adam and Even through their parents. ("Original sin"). The only way to "be saved" is to accept Jesus as gods perfect human, child, sacrifice. Unto himself. To appease his own anger at the world he himself created out of nothing from his own imagination. (Salvation is equivalent to being forgiven of your sins by god): If one can call having someone innocent, executed instead, for your crimes, to be in any way associated with "forgiveness". Which it is not, Jesus' death sentence being a direct transfer of guilt, transfer of punishment, onto someone who didn't deserve it. Therefore, sinners were literally NOT forgiven, by every dictionary definition of the meaning "Forgiveness" ... Which itself is a concept completely and absolutely lacking in all Judeo-Christian-Muslim ideology. In spite of their claim to be the only source of forgiveness. (They simply have a very different, contorted, perverted meaning of the phrase intended to eradicate the concept of forgiveness from the human conscience). Why? To keep people feeing "guilty" for some existential evil they inherited from Adam and Eve. Ayn Rand absolutely NAILED this assumed collective guilt as the evil it is. While some believers disagree about original sin: (Protestants in the States, mostly). Their position is simply incompatible with their own belief system, because if people were not born sinners, they would not need salvation in the first place. This is a contradiction of the entire bible once again, cover to cover. And if an unborn baby was unable to live due to abortion, and if it was not inherently a sinner, and could never live to the "age of reason" (another of their confiscated and obliterated terms). Then the unborn abortion would go directly to heaven. And therefore, logically; to save the maximum number of people they should have to abort everyone. Because this would simply prevent them from ever becoming sinners in need of "gods grace and forgiveness through Jesus christ" in the first place. What is hilarious is these people will preach from the pulpit against Abortion; claiming it the right to life is an inalianable right bestowed by god. The same god who said everyone is condemned to eternal death simply due to their own egregious act of living in the first place, and they will also hold that original sin is not valid. But if it was not valid, then the perfect snd blameless fetus should be aborted in every case to prevent it from sinning in the first place. Thereby teleporting directly into eternal life in heaven with god. They contradict themselves. It is an incompatible ideology. Incompatible with reality, as well as itself. Their excuse is blind mysticism: Mans mind cannot grasp gods infinite understanding. Contradictions are simply your failure to understand gods mystical ways. So do as I say or ... (insert witch joke).
Why? If you think Abortion is something moral enough to be legal in the first place, why discourage it? What’s so awful about Abortion that women must be discouraged from pursuing it?
The thing to be discouraged was/is unprotected intercourse. Of course. But this makes this practice just another "forbidden" fruit, and therefore more likely to occur. Ayn Rand had it right, if most Men (Women) had high self esteem, from a philosophy of rational-egoism. And they only pursued partners who shared similar values, then there would almost certainly be a reduction in indiscriminate and/or unhealthy sex practices, Including rapid fire swipe hookups every weekend, not to mention outright prostitution. Abortion is a "woman's right", because only women can have babies. Neither the Man nor the Fetus have any right to enslave the woman, and force her to breed and care for a child, to confiscate by force, her one and only chance at creating a fulfilled life on her own terms.
@@soupycask Suppose you win a million dollar lottery. Should it be legal to burn it? Yes. Should people be encouraged to burn it? Obviously not. Children are the million dollar lottery, so to speak. While there will be rare cases where it's necessary, a healthy culture wouldn't encourage it over raising children. Some people like Ayn Rand are exceptionally productive or creative and can derive sufficient meaning and happiness from it. For most people, it's a balance between career, relationships (including starting a family), hobbies, and investment in one's health. But, again, it should be legal.
For or against abortion, it's up to the States. The Supreme Court does not create law. Since we all agree we live in a Republic, the job of creating law falls fully with the Legislature. Talk to your representative if you want to create or change a new law. Also, I personally wish they would stop referring to "Reproductive Rights". I don't know of any law that stops any person from reproducing. If you want to create a law concerning unborn fetuses, first you have to reconcile the laws that say murdering a pregnant woman is murdering two people, otherwise in that case, calling an unborn fetus NOT human holds no meaning.
It would make sense to treat them as two people if the woman intended to birth the fetus. It is a serious loss to one’s planning, time spent, expectations, and happiness of a woman even though the fetus does not have rights. The woman has invested and so far intended to bring new life into the world which is a very valuable thing if she has good reason to believe having a child will be compatible with the other aspects of her life she wants to live and she would be a good parent to the child. Taking the value of the mother’s decision to bring new life into this world ought to be punished by a comparable disvalue to the criminal, such as charging him with double homicide. There is no necessary contradiction for the pro-abortionists who also support double homicide for criminals would like a woman and her fetus. We believe in the FREEDOM to abort, not that someone can force a woman to abort.
The Supreme Court does not create law, yes, it does interpret it though, and they interpreted the Law (The Constitution) as protecting Abortion. Nothing wrong with that. This whole idea that Congress or States should decide what are and aren’t fundamental rights is a ludicrous one, and goes entirely contrary to the ideals of the Founders. What you want is a parliamentary system with a civil legal code, not a Common-Law Republic like we have in America. I’m glad we have a Supreme Court that can defend our rights and liberties, and not an all powerful Legislature that decides all, like they have in the rest of the world.
"The States" are not independent theocracies or dictatorships. The Governments rightful and just function is the protect life, liberty, and property. To defend and protect individual rights. No lesser government has Veto power over this basic function. Even the founding fathers structured the Federal government, her Constitution and the Bill of Rights to trump states constitutions. And all state constitutions are not permitted to contradict the Bill of Rights.
@@TheJustinJ AMENDMENT X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
@@soupycask The people in the states decide what laws they want or don't want by using the officials they elected in that state. Furthermore: AMENDMENT X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
@19:00 Ben says most people would vote to retain Roe vs. Wade, but last night Nebraskans passed Prop 434 and defeated Prop 439. Religion rules too much in some places.
in germany: A "nasciturus" (Latin for "one who will be born") is an unborn foetus, i.e. a conceived but not yet born child. According to Section 1923 para. 2 BGB, such a child is deemed to have been born before the inheritance if it was conceived but not yet born at the time of the inheritance. If it is then born alive, it is eligible to inherit and may even be entitled to a compulsory portion as the disinherited child of a testator..
Thank you for being principled and consistent! I know there are quite a few conservatives who follow Ayn Rand and are pro-life. Thank you for not compromising what you believe in to accommodate this political base!
@@72dodge340 As apposed to enslaving millions of woman to begrudgingly mother an unwanted child. The hallmark of a hallmark happily life for her or the child. Misery and despair purveyed to the tenth generation. Just as god intended.
I support protecting abortion, only I would go even further and advocate subsidizing abortions (at least equivalent to the extent that other health services are subsidized).
In The United States, there are laws that prevent hospitals from rejecting patients in an emergency based on ability to pay. This was not even a political movement, it is part of the philosophy the hospitals were founded on here. Most were charitable organizations, funded in part by nominal fees from patients. But also donations from same, after a positive outcome, or from large donors out of the goodness of their heart (and perhaps the larger desire to have their name and legacy preserved).
Nobody has the right to enslave another. An unborn, unthinking, un-knowing fetus does not have a claim on any living, breathing, thinking, livings... and unwilling mother. That is slavery. It devalues women to livestock. Like the Muslim world.
10:13 I don't understand why you are critical of those who draw the line for abortion at the heartbeat, when you draw the line at exiting the womb. These are both just milestones in the developement of human life. I do understand your "individual liberty" argument, but you have to acknowledge the gray area. I don't see much difference between a mother who aborts her fetus the day before it is born and the mother who murders her day old child. Likewise, I see little difference in the woman who takes the morning-after pill and the woman who gets an abortion in the first week of pregnancy. I guess the real question is, do we value human life more than individual liberty? For people who value human life, it is quite easy to see why they care when life begins rather than when the individual begins.
You have to draw a line somewhere. I don’t see much of a difference between a 17 year old teenager and an 18 year old adult, but we need to draw a line for our age of majority somewhere. Also, when it comes to birth, it’s actually a much clearer line because birth is evidence that the “fetus” can survive as physically separate being naturally, which is what differentiates a baby from a fetus and why babies have the individual right to life. Prior to birth, a fetus is not able to live naturally as a physically separate being. That is a major difference in comparison to the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old and people obviously see the validity in calling the former a child and the latter adult.
@hellothere-hx5by Thanks for such a thoughtful and unemotional response. I didn't expect that with this topic. I agree that the line needs to be drawn somewhere, but that doesn't mean it needs to be drawn in the same place for all situations. Furthermore, since most babies will be able to survive if they're born before progressing to full term, I think you can see the argument for that line being drawn during pregnancy rather than after. My son was born 5 weeks early with no complications, and to think that others would support killing a fetus that is more developed than he was is very difficult for me to understand.
Being human is more than just having a beating heart, we can think, act, and reason. This is what differentiates us from the animals. A human fetus, for most of its development, cannot do any of these things. Now i can maybe accept that a fetus is a human person near the end of a pregnancy, and that a late-term abortion at that point could be morally questionable, but the fact remains that for most of its time in the womb, the fetus does not exhibit signs of personhood.
@@aolsonx1 No problem. We are here to learn the truth. Each fetus may vary in its development such that it can survive as a baby if it is separated from the mother at earlier or later times, so you can't necessarily assume that since your baby was developed enough earlier than normal, it also holds true for other older fetuses. Older fetuses may be less developed to or equally developed enough to survive as a baby (which is most likely why they were born later). Some fetuses may be ready for birth earlier or later than each other. You can't judge another fetus’s development or readiness to become a baby by your individual baby's particular development. And the evidence that a particular fetus is ready to be a baby given the variability in time for development among all fetuses is its birth because that is what birth's function is: to remove the fetus when it is ready to become a baby. The birth of your baby obviously showed that given it had no complications, yet you are ignoring that for older fetuses that haven't been born yet. What alternative standard of evidence would you use for determining if a particular fetus would live as a baby if it was removed it before birth? Also, most premature babies are not able to survive naturally as a physically separate being. Removal of a fetus from the womb is killing the fetus, meaning that the fetus cannot have a right to life and the woman has no obligation to care for the fetus, but she may decide to accept caring for the fetus after her act of killing it by reversing her act of killing if there is technology available to use to continue prenatal development (i.e. fetuses may survive artificially). It is like stabbing someone and bringing them to the hospital to save them: performing a killing act and then attempting to undo it. But if you are allowed to perform a killing act in the first place then the fetus can’t have a right to life nor could the woman have an obligation to care for the wellbeing of the fetus. It’s just a contradiction.
@soupycask I agree with you, but according to your definition of personhood, one could claim that a newborn infant is not a fully developed person and therefore justify some awful things. I just think we all should acknowledge that taking the life of a developing human becomes more reprehensible the further we get away from conception. I just don't see much difference between the fetus the day before birth and and the baby the day after birth.
Please, women, don't be stupid about this. We need you to look passed the abortion issue and see passed yourselves. Please. Do not vote for Democrats. Please just stay home if you can't stop.
“Don’t be stupid on this”, what’s stupid about wanting control over your own body and not having your Uterus be public property? Why would women vote for a party that openly despises abortion and revels in the idea of banning it in all 50 states? Women should vote for their own best interest, which many of us have determined is the party that sees us as humans responsible for our own bodies and healthcare, the Democrats.
@soupycask your uterus is not public property and you have been massively deceived. I voted to protect abortion rights in my state and we were successful. This issue has been presented to you in a dishonest manner and as a result you think many things that are simply not true. I personally feel that abortion is wrong but I recognize that it is necessary in many cases. Please, stop being emotional about this v and think. Every state will be able to make this decision for themselves and because of that this right will be harder to erase. If it sits at only the federal level then it can be wiped out in one vote. Please, please understand how your government works and don't vote Democrat. Please!
The founding fathers were only describing in such words as that was the dominant philosophy of the day. They were the initiators of the enlightenment period, and they lived in a world dominated by the church. The "right to life" is literally blasphemy in Judeo-Christian-Catholic ideology. The Christian/Catholic religion states that ALL HAVE SINNED and fallen short of the glory of god. That implies everyone inherits guilt from Adam and Even through their parents. ("Original sin"). The punishment for sin is eternal death. The only way to "be saved" is to accept Jesus as gods perfect human, child, sacrifice. Unto himself. To appease his own anger at the world he himself created with a propensity to sin, out of nothing, from his own imagination. Oh, and he cast the devil onto it. After creating the devil and every form of evil itself. (To say god did not create the devil, or evil, is to say something exists which god did not create, which implies another creator exists, which is again, blasphemy). "Salvation" is to be forgiven of your sins by god and allowed to live forever, instead of suffering eternal death. (If one can call having someone innocent be executed instead, to be in any way associated with "forgiveness". ... Which it is not, Jesus' death was a direct transfer of guilt onto an innocent, a transfer of punishment onto a sacrifice, onto someone who didn't deserve it). Therefore, sinners are literally NOT forgiven, by every dictionary definition of the meaning "Forgiveness" ... Which itself is a concept completely and absolutely lacking in all Judeo-Christian-Muslim ideology. In spite of the claim to be the only source of forgiveness. (Christians simply have a very different, contorted, perverted meaning of the phrase). While some believers disagree about original sin: (Protestants in the States, mostly). Their position is simply incompatible with their own belief system, because if people were not born sinners, they would not need salvation in the first place. A man who has the inalienable right to life could simply invoke his right to life in gods face on judgement day, and thereby avoid eternal death. If eternal death in hell is the default action against all humanity, then mankind has no right to life. This concept that the right to life came from god the creator is in diametric contradiction to the entire bible, cover to cover. Again, blasphemy. If an unborn baby was unable to live due to an abortion, and if it was not inherently a sinner, due to original sin, and it also could never live to the "age of reason" Then the unborn abortion would go directly to heaven. And therefore, logically; to save the maximum number of people, christians should be in favor to abort every unborn. Every. Single. One. Because this would simply prevent them from ever becoming sinners in need of "gods grace and forgiveness through Jesus christ" in the first place. What is hilarious, is people will preach from the pulpit against Abortion; claiming it the right to life is an inalienable right bestowed to humanity by god. The same god who said everyone is condemned to eternal death simply due to their own egregious act of living in the first place. And in most churches, they also hold that original sin is invalid. But if it was not valid, then the perfect and blameless fetus should be aborted in every case to prevent it from sinning in the first place. Thereby teleporting directly into eternal life in heaven with god. They contradict themselves. It is an incompatible ideology. Incompatible with reality, as well as itself. Their excuse is blind mysticism: Mans mind cannot grasp gods infinite understanding. Contradictions are simply your failure to understand gods mystical ways. So do as we say or ... (insert witch joke).
@@72dodge340”anti-intellectual absurdity”, seems like you’re the absurd anti-intellectual, refusing to listen to or even tolerate other ideas or perspectives that go against yours.
![ค้างคืนโรงเก็บกระสวยอวกาศร้างกลางทะเลทราย [Around The World Ep. 3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E5bWZQhABJE/mqdefault.jpg)
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
There are no women's rights, states rights, only individual rights. You can't pick and choose "rights", and this is the issue. As someone that is "pro-choice" as well as pro-LGBT, I'm extremely disappointed that the Left picks and chooses which freedoms are ok and which are not.
The right to abortion ensures a woman can exercise her individual freedom over her own body. Without it, the government controls a deeply personal choice, effectively denying her equal autonomy. True individual rights mean everyone should be free to make choices about their own lives and bodies, without interference."
It can be disappointing, but at least it's not as bad as on the right which has it that basically no freedoms are OK, most everything is only by explicit permission. They don't have a problem with taxation, they don't have any problem with interfering with individual decisions of any type. We do need to have a more explicit conversation on exactly what individual freedom is, and why it's essential to life.
@treyjohnson2542 rights shouldn't be about men and women, they are for all
@@treyjohnson2542it's not just your body when you're pregnant.
@@treyjohnson2542 The correct position is Evictionnism.
If Individual Rights are supreme, then the infant, baby or foetus, as a unique life of an Individual has the right to not be terminated.
I agree that the woman has the right to her body, but she has no right to dismember or poison the child. He should be evicted and ideally, were the Government not banning the use of artificial womb on humans, we could have adoption centers that combine eviction centers for woman who desire to terminate the pregnancy whilst not killing the child, by evicting him into an Artificial womb.
Whether he survives or not, is not relevent. What is relevent is the direct killing of the baby which is trespass over his right to own his own body too.
Another insightful New Ideal episode from Elan and Ben!
@@Luke-lb2cv True. But why prejudice some services over others? Especially since protecting abortion yields better social consequences (fewer single moms, fewer unwed parents, fewer back alley abortions, fewer welfare dependents, etc.).
Objectivist philosophy is the only philosophy I’ve seen so far that explains and disseminates the argument of pro choice flawlessly. Thank you. 🙏
The popularity of the topic is ominous by itself. It's a deeply personal issue, yet the public is so ready to impose it's judgement.
It was initiated by a Pope in the early 1900s. The entire concept that a fetus is a human, and therefore has the right to life, is nonsensical, and runs in absolute, diametric opposition to Christianity and Catholicism.
It is INTENDED to ERADICATE the concept of rights. Starting by obliterating the meaning of "life". And ensuring anyone who accepts a fetus "right to life" has by default accepted slavery, ownership of the Mother by the collective society to be a position in favor of "human rights".
It is a brilliant and devious attack on the concept of rights. Which the church absolutey rejects. (If man had the rigt to life, then he can invoke this right to Gods face and easily avoid hell, which is eternal death).
The right to life is literally blasphemy in Judeo-Christian-Catholic-Muslim ideology.
The Christian/Catholic religion states that ALL HAVE SINNED and fallen short of the glory of god. That everyone inherits guilt from Adam and Even through their parents. ("Original sin").
The only way to "be saved" is to accept Jesus as gods perfect human, child, sacrifice. (Salvation is to be forgiven by god: if you can call having someone innocent be executed instead of you, for your crimes, to be in any way associated with "forgiveness". Which it is not, being a simple direct transfer of guilt, transfer of punishment, onto someone who didn't deserve it. Therefore, literally means NOT forgiven, by every dictionary definition of the meaning "Forgiveness" ... Which is a concept completely and absolutely lacking in all Judeo-Christian-Muslim ideology. In spite of their claim to be the only source of forgiveness). They simply have a very different, contorted, perverted meaning of the phrase intended to eradicate the concept of forgiveness from the human conscience. To keep people feeing "guilty" for some existential evil they inherited from Adam and Eve.
While some disagree about original sin: (Protestants in the States, mostly). That idiotic position is simply incompatible with their own belief system, because if people were not born sinners, they would not need salvation in the first place.
And if an unborn baby was unable to live due to abortion, and was not inherently a sinner, then it would go directly to heaven. And therefore to save the maximum number of people they should have to abort everyone.
What is hilarious is these idiots will preach from the pulpit against Abortion as the right to life is an inalianable right bestowed by god, the same god who said everyone is condemned to eternal death simply due to their own egregious act of living in the first place, and they will also hold that original sin is not valid. (In protestant christianity).
They contradict themselves.
It is in incompatible ideology.
Their excuse is blind mysticism: Man mind cannot grasp gods infinite understanding. Contradictions are simply your failure to understand gods mystical ways. So do as I say or burn!
It was initiated by a Pope in the early 1900s. The entire concept that a fetus is a human, and therefore has the right to life, is nonsensical, and runs in absolute, diametric opposition to Christianity and Catholicism.
It was INTENDED to ERADICATE the concept of rights.
Starting by obliterating the meaning of "life". Ensuring anyone who accepts a fetus' "right to life" has by default also accepted slavery, that is ownership of the Mother by the collective society, while also believing themselves hold a position in favor of "human rights".
It is a brilliant and devious attack on the concept of rights. Which the church absolutey rejects: (If man had the right to life, then he can rightfully invoke this right to Gods face and avoid hell; which is defined as eternal death). If man has the inalienable right to life, who is god to kill him for all eternity? And if god can send him to hell, then he clearly has no rights to anything. Let alone his own life.
The "right to life" is literally blasphemy in Judeo-Christian-Catholic-Muslim ideology.
(Interestingly, this is the "unforgivable sin" and therefore any Christian who cites the right to life in the affirmative, is a blasphemer, someone who boldly claims something in diametric opposition to gods own word. Therefore is condemned to hell with no chance of salvation. Not even through faith in Jesus. Per the bible, from cover to cover).
The Christian/Catholic religion states that ALL HAVE SINNED and fallen short of the glory of god. That everyone inherits guilt from Adam and Even through their parents. ("Original sin").
The only way to "be saved" is to accept Jesus as gods perfect human, child, sacrifice. Unto himself. To appease his own anger at the world he himself created out of nothing from his own imagination.
(Salvation is equivalent to being forgiven of your sins by god): If one can call having someone innocent, executed instead, for your crimes, to be in any way associated with "forgiveness".
Which it is not, Jesus' death sentence being a direct transfer of guilt, transfer of punishment, onto someone who didn't deserve it.
Therefore,
sinners were literally NOT forgiven, by every dictionary definition of the meaning "Forgiveness" ... Which itself is a concept completely and absolutely lacking in all Judeo-Christian-Muslim ideology. In spite of their claim to be the only source of forgiveness. (They simply have a very different, contorted, perverted meaning of the phrase intended to eradicate the concept of forgiveness from the human conscience). Why? To keep people feeing "guilty" for some existential evil they inherited from Adam and Eve.
Ayn Rand absolutely NAILED this assumed collective guilt as the evil it is.
While some believers disagree about original sin: (Protestants in the States, mostly). Their position is simply incompatible with their own belief system, because if people were not born sinners, they would not need salvation in the first place.
This is a contradiction of the entire bible once again, cover to cover.
And if an unborn baby was unable to live due to abortion, and if it was not inherently a sinner, and could never live to the "age of reason" (another of their confiscated and obliterated terms).
Then the unborn abortion would go directly to heaven.
And therefore, logically; to save the maximum number of people they should have to abort everyone.
Because this would simply prevent them from ever becoming sinners in need of "gods grace and forgiveness through Jesus christ" in the first place.
What is hilarious is these people will preach from the pulpit against Abortion; claiming it the right to life is an inalianable right bestowed by god.
The same god who said everyone is condemned to eternal death simply due to their own egregious act of living in the first place, and they will also hold that original sin is not valid. But if it was not valid, then the perfect snd blameless fetus should be aborted in every case to prevent it from sinning in the first place. Thereby teleporting directly into eternal life in heaven with god.
They contradict themselves.
It is an incompatible ideology. Incompatible with reality, as well as itself.
Their excuse is blind mysticism: Mans mind cannot grasp gods infinite understanding. Contradictions are simply your failure to understand gods mystical ways. So do as I say or ... (insert witch joke).
abortion should not only be legal but, discouraged.
Why? If you think Abortion is something moral enough to be legal in the first place, why discourage it? What’s so awful about Abortion that women must be discouraged from pursuing it?
The thing to be discouraged was/is unprotected intercourse. Of course.
But this makes this practice just another "forbidden" fruit, and therefore more likely to occur.
Ayn Rand had it right, if most Men (Women) had high self esteem, from a philosophy of rational-egoism. And they only pursued partners who shared similar values, then there would almost certainly be a reduction in indiscriminate and/or unhealthy sex practices, Including rapid fire swipe hookups every weekend, not to mention outright prostitution.
Abortion is a "woman's right", because only women can have babies. Neither the Man nor the Fetus have any right to enslave the woman, and force her to breed and care for a child, to confiscate by force, her one and only chance at creating a fulfilled life on her own terms.
@@soupycask Suppose you win a million dollar lottery. Should it be legal to burn it? Yes. Should people be encouraged to burn it? Obviously not. Children are the million dollar lottery, so to speak. While there will be rare cases where it's necessary, a healthy culture wouldn't encourage it over raising children. Some people like Ayn Rand are exceptionally productive or creative and can derive sufficient meaning and happiness from it. For most people, it's a balance between career, relationships (including starting a family), hobbies, and investment in one's health. But, again, it should be legal.
@@soupycask decision should be made by parents as should the cost.
i dont want to be forced to pay for it.
@@TheJustinJ the decision should be up to the parents.
For or against abortion, it's up to the States. The Supreme Court does not create law. Since we all agree we live in a Republic, the job of creating law falls fully with the Legislature. Talk to your representative if you want to create or change a new law. Also, I personally wish they would stop referring to "Reproductive Rights". I don't know of any law that stops any person from reproducing. If you want to create a law concerning unborn fetuses, first you have to reconcile the laws that say murdering a pregnant woman is murdering two people, otherwise in that case, calling an unborn fetus NOT human holds no meaning.
It would make sense to treat them as two people if the woman intended to birth the fetus. It is a serious loss to one’s planning, time spent, expectations, and happiness of a woman even though the fetus does not have rights. The woman has invested and so far intended to bring new life into the world which is a very valuable thing if she has good reason to believe having a child will be compatible with the other aspects of her life she wants to live and she would be a good parent to the child. Taking the value of the mother’s decision to bring new life into this world ought to be punished by a comparable disvalue to the criminal, such as charging him with double homicide.
There is no necessary contradiction for the pro-abortionists who also support double homicide for criminals would like a woman and her fetus. We believe in the FREEDOM to abort, not that someone can force a woman to abort.
The Supreme Court does not create law, yes, it does interpret it though, and they interpreted the Law (The Constitution) as protecting Abortion. Nothing wrong with that. This whole idea that Congress or States should decide what are and aren’t fundamental rights is a ludicrous one, and goes entirely contrary to the ideals of the Founders. What you want is a parliamentary system with a civil legal code, not a Common-Law Republic like we have in America.
I’m glad we have a Supreme Court that can defend our rights and liberties, and not an all powerful Legislature that decides all, like they have in the rest of the world.
"The States" are not independent theocracies or dictatorships.
The Governments rightful and just function is the protect life, liberty, and property. To defend and protect individual rights.
No lesser government has Veto power over this basic function.
Even the founding fathers structured the Federal government, her Constitution and the Bill of Rights to trump states constitutions. And all state constitutions are not permitted to contradict the Bill of Rights.
@@TheJustinJ AMENDMENT X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
@@soupycask The people in the states decide what laws they want or don't want by using the officials they elected in that state. Furthermore: AMENDMENT X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
@19:00 Ben says most people would vote to retain Roe vs. Wade, but last night Nebraskans passed Prop 434 and defeated Prop 439. Religion rules too much in some places.
Surely, individual rights mean that people have to be responsible and that starts before sex, not after when they do not want the baby.
in germany: A "nasciturus" (Latin for "one who will be born") is an unborn foetus, i.e. a conceived but not yet born child. According to Section 1923 para. 2 BGB, such a child is deemed to have been born before the inheritance if it was conceived but not yet born at the time of the inheritance. If it is then born alive, it is eligible to inherit and may even be entitled to a compulsory portion as the disinherited child of a testator..
Thank you for being principled and consistent! I know there are quite a few conservatives who follow Ayn Rand and are pro-life. Thank you for not compromising what you believe in to accommodate this political base!
By literally throwing unborn human babies into the trash.
@@72dodge340
As apposed to enslaving millions of woman to begrudgingly mother an unwanted child.
The hallmark of a hallmark happily life for her or the child.
Misery and despair purveyed to the tenth generation. Just as god intended.
@@72dodge340fetuses aren’t alive.
I support protecting abortion, only I would go even further and advocate subsidizing abortions (at least equivalent to the extent that other health services are subsidized).
So, you want me to pay for your murder? Clearly immoral.
No health services should be subsidized.
In The United States, there are laws that prevent hospitals from rejecting patients in an emergency based on ability to pay.
This was not even a political movement, it is part of the philosophy the hospitals were founded on here.
Most were charitable organizations, funded in part by nominal fees from patients. But also donations from same, after a positive outcome, or from large donors out of the goodness of their heart (and perhaps the larger desire to have their name and legacy preserved).
Why does everyone else have an obligation to pay for that or any service?
Let the babies decide.
Nobody has the right to enslave another.
An unborn, unthinking, un-knowing fetus does not have a claim on any living, breathing, thinking, livings... and unwilling mother.
That is slavery.
It devalues women to livestock. Like the Muslim world.
Lol
10:13 I don't understand why you are critical of those who draw the line for abortion at the heartbeat, when you draw the line at exiting the womb. These are both just milestones in the developement of human life.
I do understand your "individual liberty" argument, but you have to acknowledge the gray area. I don't see much difference between a mother who aborts her fetus the day before it is born and the mother who murders her day old child. Likewise, I see little difference in the woman who takes the morning-after pill and the woman who gets an abortion in the first week of pregnancy.
I guess the real question is, do we value human life more than individual liberty? For people who value human life, it is quite easy to see why they care when life begins rather than when the individual begins.
You have to draw a line somewhere. I don’t see much of a difference between a 17 year old teenager and an 18 year old adult, but we need to draw a line for our age of majority somewhere.
Also, when it comes to birth, it’s actually a much clearer line because birth is evidence that the “fetus” can survive as physically separate being naturally, which is what differentiates a baby from a fetus and why babies have the individual right to life. Prior to birth, a fetus is not able to live naturally as a physically separate being. That is a major difference in comparison to the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old and people obviously see the validity in calling the former a child and the latter adult.
@hellothere-hx5by Thanks for such a thoughtful and unemotional response. I didn't expect that with this topic.
I agree that the line needs to be drawn somewhere, but that doesn't mean it needs to be drawn in the same place for all situations. Furthermore, since most babies will be able to survive if they're born before progressing to full term, I think you can see the argument for that line being drawn during pregnancy rather than after.
My son was born 5 weeks early with no complications, and to think that others would support killing a fetus that is more developed than he was is very difficult for me to understand.
Being human is more than just having a beating heart, we can think, act, and reason. This is what differentiates us from the animals. A human fetus, for most of its development, cannot do any of these things. Now i can maybe accept that a fetus is a human person near the end of a pregnancy, and that a late-term abortion at that point could be morally questionable, but the fact remains that for most of its time in the womb, the fetus does not exhibit signs of personhood.
@@aolsonx1
No problem. We are here to learn the truth.
Each fetus may vary in its development such that it can survive as a baby if it is separated from the mother at earlier or later times, so you can't necessarily assume that since your baby was developed enough earlier than normal, it also holds true for other older fetuses. Older fetuses may be less developed to or equally developed enough to survive as a baby (which is most likely why they were born later). Some fetuses may be ready for birth earlier or later than each other. You can't judge another fetus’s development or readiness to become a baby by your individual baby's particular development.
And the evidence that a particular fetus is ready to be a baby given the variability in time for development among all fetuses is its birth because that is what birth's function is: to remove the fetus when it is ready to become a baby. The birth of your baby obviously showed that given it had no complications, yet you are ignoring that for older fetuses that haven't been born yet. What alternative standard of evidence would you use for determining if a particular fetus would live as a baby if it was removed it before birth?
Also, most premature babies are not able to survive naturally as a physically separate being. Removal of a fetus from the womb is killing the fetus, meaning that the fetus cannot have a right to life and the woman has no obligation to care for the fetus, but she may decide to accept caring for the fetus after her act of killing it by reversing her act of killing if there is technology available to use to continue prenatal development (i.e. fetuses may survive artificially). It is like stabbing someone and bringing them to the hospital to save them: performing a killing act and then attempting to undo it. But if you are allowed to perform a killing act in the first place then the fetus can’t have a right to life nor could the woman have an obligation to care for the wellbeing of the fetus. It’s just a contradiction.
@soupycask I agree with you, but according to your definition of personhood, one could claim that a newborn infant is not a fully developed person and therefore justify some awful things. I just think we all should acknowledge that taking the life of a developing human becomes more reprehensible the further we get away from conception. I just don't see much difference between the fetus the day before birth and and the baby the day after birth.
Meteoric rise.
Please, women, don't be stupid about this. We need you to look passed the abortion issue and see passed yourselves. Please. Do not vote for Democrats. Please just stay home if you can't stop.
“Don’t be stupid on this”, what’s stupid about wanting control over your own body and not having your Uterus be public property? Why would women vote for a party that openly despises abortion and revels in the idea of banning it in all 50 states? Women should vote for their own best interest, which many of us have determined is the party that sees us as humans responsible for our own bodies and healthcare, the Democrats.
@soupycask your uterus is not public property and you have been massively deceived. I voted to protect abortion rights in my state and we were successful. This issue has been presented to you in a dishonest manner and as a result you think many things that are simply not true. I personally feel that abortion is wrong but I recognize that it is necessary in many cases. Please, stop being emotional about this v and think. Every state will be able to make this decision for themselves and because of that this right will be harder to erase. If it sits at only the federal level then it can be wiped out in one vote. Please, please understand how your government works and don't vote Democrat. Please!
The Founders told us our rights come from the Creator.
The founding fathers were only describing in such words as that was the dominant philosophy of the day. They were the initiators of the enlightenment period, and they lived in a world dominated by the church.
The "right to life" is literally blasphemy in Judeo-Christian-Catholic ideology.
The Christian/Catholic religion states that ALL HAVE SINNED and fallen short of the glory of god. That implies everyone inherits guilt from Adam and Even through their parents. ("Original sin").
The punishment for sin is eternal death.
The only way to "be saved" is to accept Jesus as gods perfect human, child, sacrifice. Unto himself. To appease his own anger at the world he himself created with a propensity to sin, out of nothing, from his own imagination. Oh, and he cast the devil onto it. After creating the devil and every form of evil itself. (To say god did not create the devil, or evil, is to say something exists which god did not create, which implies another creator exists, which is again, blasphemy).
"Salvation" is to be forgiven of your sins by god and allowed to live forever, instead of suffering eternal death.
(If one can call having someone innocent be executed instead, to be in any way associated with "forgiveness". ... Which it is not, Jesus' death was a direct transfer of guilt onto an innocent, a transfer of punishment onto a sacrifice, onto someone who didn't deserve it).
Therefore, sinners are literally NOT forgiven, by every dictionary definition of the meaning "Forgiveness" ... Which itself is a concept completely and absolutely lacking in all Judeo-Christian-Muslim ideology.
In spite of the claim to be the only source of forgiveness. (Christians simply have a very different, contorted, perverted meaning of the phrase).
While some believers disagree about original sin: (Protestants in the States, mostly). Their position is simply incompatible with their own belief system, because if people were not born sinners, they would not need salvation in the first place.
A man who has the inalienable right to life could simply invoke his right to life in gods face on judgement day, and thereby avoid eternal death. If eternal death in hell is the default action against all humanity, then mankind has no right to life.
This concept that the right to life came from god the creator is in diametric contradiction to the entire bible, cover to cover.
Again, blasphemy.
If an unborn baby was unable to live due to an abortion, and if it was not inherently a sinner, due to original sin, and it also could never live to the "age of reason" Then the unborn abortion would go directly to heaven.
And therefore, logically; to save the maximum number of people, christians should be in favor to abort every unborn.
Every. Single. One.
Because this would simply prevent them from ever becoming sinners in need of "gods grace and forgiveness through Jesus christ" in the first place.
What is hilarious, is people will preach from the pulpit against Abortion; claiming it the right to life is an inalienable right bestowed to humanity by god.
The same god who said everyone is condemned to eternal death simply due to their own egregious act of living in the first place.
And in most churches, they also hold that original sin is invalid. But if it was not valid, then the perfect and blameless fetus should be aborted in every case to prevent it from sinning in the first place. Thereby teleporting directly into eternal life in heaven with god.
They contradict themselves.
It is an incompatible ideology.
Incompatible with reality, as well as itself.
Their excuse is blind mysticism: Mans mind cannot grasp gods infinite understanding.
Contradictions are simply your failure to understand gods mystical ways. So do as we say or ... (insert witch joke).
Unsubscribed today
Its not an airport no need to announce your departure
I'm sick of this organization's anti-intellectual absurdity. It's been well known for literally decades how out of touch ARI is.
@@72dodge340”anti-intellectual absurdity”, seems like you’re the absurd anti-intellectual, refusing to listen to or even tolerate other ideas or perspectives that go against yours.
These two guys (and sadly Ayn Rand herself) are ghouls. And I'm moderately pro-choice.