I know it's been a long time since you posted this, but I'm sorry for your loss. Hearing and reading things like this really cuts me to pieces, it's such a painful thing to experience, I can only imagine. I hope you and your wife are doing well, and are healing or have healed (as much as is possible when having lost a child). May God watch over you both.
The only instance I can see is a tubal pregnancy where if it ruptures, the mother will likely die due to peritonitis. Even if they save her, she will have to have a total OHE and never have children. But if the tubal pregnancy is removed early enough, they can salvage the uterus and the second ovary, giving her a chance at both life and the possibility of producing children again. I am talking here, of course, about a woman who WANTS children.
@@watchgoose A lot of pro-life people don't even consider that an abortion. Generally when people say that no abortion is justified, they mean elective abortions, so, terminating the life of the fetus/baby for reasons that have nothing to do with saving the mother's life. If it's TRULY necessary, then it's not only morally permissable, but morally required (in a lot of these "medically necessary" cases are not actually life-threatening OR, there's another way to save the mother besides killing the baby.) If the mother's life is genuinely in danger due to the pregnancy and there's no way the baby could survive outside the womb and the doctor does nothing, then they will both die. If the only choices are saving one of them or letting them both die, you have to at least save the mother. And in ectopic pregnancies, *most* of the time, the baby dies by the time the tubal pregnancy is even discovered (usually about 7 weeks), so that's not abortion at all. But in the relatively rare cases where the baby is discovered in the fallopian tube AND is still alive, then yes, removing the baby is necessary. And as far as I know, they're technically not willfully killing the baby, they simply remove it and it does as a result. Performing any life-facing treatment/procedure where the baby dying is an indirect/unfortunate side effect, but not the actual direct intent, that's not abortion. Like if you had to give a woman chemo, the purpose of the chemo is saving her life, and the baby dying is a result, but not the purpose, that wouldn't be abortion. So yeah, basically every single pro-lifer wants then to save a woman's life, even if the baby dies in the process, as long as there is no other option where the baby could be saved.
In cases where the mother's life is in danger, and separation of mother and baby is necessary, the goal should be to save both lives if possible. If it is early in pregnancy (first trimester) then this might be impossible as we do not have the medical technology to support an embryo's life outside the womb (yet), but in later stages of pregnancy, especially after 21 weeks, the fetus should be separated from the mother and then doctors should do everything they can to save both people. No need to kill the baby first.
@@ea-tr1jh if you think god is good, merciful and more powerful than the best human medicine, then why don't you place your trust in god to help the mother and unborn baby to survive, instead of modern medicine?
@@nastyHarry God can work through modern medicine. Not doing so is foolish and the concept of doing nothing and just "letting God" is not found in the Bible. Yes, we should trust God, but that it not what is meant when we "trust God".
This video is already several years old, but the information here is still very much useful. Recently got into a discussion about abortion, so I started doing some of my own studies, and the Lord lead me here. Thanks for sharing Mike. Keep up the great work.
Hey, Mike. On the topic of performing a surgery that can kill a child, I was born 4 months premature. My mom was very sick and could have easily died having me. The doctors urged her to have an abortion. She refused deciding to leave it in God's hands. After a c-section, with which I came out looking like a Smurf, they didn't give me a day. But at 1 pound 3 ounces, and the mighty hand of God moving there, we're still both here 22 years later. But my mom could have easily died so to say the least, I was a little disheartened by your statement. Still loved the video though and thought I should share my story. Keep doing what you're doing, Kind Sir.
My daughter was born at 24 weeks, 1 lb 3 Oz, too. I'm not sure what you found disheartening in the video but I always found it useful to draw a line between early delivery which is sometimes medically necessary (I was bleeding out internally and on the way to eclampsia) and abortion which intentionally kills a unique human life. You can still value and protect the life of the mother and give the child the best chance possible since the doctors have two patients to care for, not just one. I was also told I should consider abortion with both of my children and had to get additional risky tests to rule out certain conditions that would make her "non viable". She is now advanced in several areas as a 3 yr old, behind in others, and a joy in our lives. God is good, and I've been saying that the whole time.
Excellently formed argument. Great job Mike. I've had this debate so many times now, and it's terribly exhausting. Often times they try to move the goalposts or devolved into pure apathy. The last 2 responses I got were "well, it's none of my business anyway". But hey 1 of those guys took my advice and has started watching some of your videos. Who knows, maybe he will be one of those changed hearts.
Orion's Finest ALL babies deserve to be born to or adopted by loving stable caring wanting nurturing parent(s). Society as a whole deserves and needs this to create a happier more harmonious one. This is LIFE. Not some abstract biological view of what a bunch of cells may become. Life is more than existing. Destroying a bundle of cells is FAR less evil than preventing a baby from being wanted and loved and populating society with such neglected humans. There is FAR more at stake.
@@xxsageonexx8910 You have presumed that every child killed in the womb is to be and will remain unwanted and/or unloved. I have known many who have lived very full and happy lives as the children of foster parents or as orphans. And I have known many that lived the opposite. If you are proposing we indiscriminately kill unborn children based on assumptions and flight of fancy you are living a delusional and inconsistent life. You would never apply such standards to other aspects of life. Have you actually watched the video and engaged these ideas? Or are you just here to rage?
Orion's Finest No. I presume that there ARE IN FACT babies right now as it is who are neglected. (As you just admitted). MY POSITION IS: A L L babies deserve not to be neglected. This greatly impacts society. I am looking at the reality of what ALL babies SHOULD BE at a minimum born into and what the overall outcome of this behavior will impact society. Arguing that there are some that may have not been neglected does not refute my argument at all.
So you're here to rage then. It appears you dont understand the implications of your argument. If you can't see why it's wrong to kill an innocent human based on the fact that there are sad people in the world then this cannot be a productive discussion. Since you didn't answer my previous question, I'm going to assume you did not watch the video. I suggest you do so.
Orion's Finest If you can’t see why it’s wrong to allow babies to be birthed and not wanted and the impact this has on society, we can not have a productive discussion.
Babies dont use the mothers body,if you dont want to have a baby then be mature and smart and take the necessary precautions or for goodness sake dont have sex.
I agree but I avoid using this argument because the response will just be “what about rape cases” every time. Instead of saying “if you don’t want a baby be responsible” I just say “if you have a baby and your life is not in danger, you cannot kill it” and the warning that people should have sex responsibly is just implied.
@@alexandria1663 bc this is what scripture says? Or this is what you feel is right? Notice how Mike doesn’t use scripture to support his arguments here.
@@tookie36 I’m not sure I get the question. I use this strategy because it’s avoids the “what about rape cases” debate altogether. How to argue against abortion isn’t specifically outlined in scripture so I don’t know what you mean.
@@alexandria1663 what I’m trying to get at is that Christians aren’t using scripture for their argument. I think they have been used by political leaders to point to abortion as a voting issue instead of other major issues. The overwhelming majority of religious Jew are pro choice. They look to scripture and that is what they interpret. On the other hand Christians don’t point to scripture on this bc the arguments are way too weak
This is the best; most well thought out and dispassionately rationally presented pro-life argument. I hope it reaches many pro-choice folks and the human rights of the unborn is brought home to them. Thanks for sharing Mike.
@@xxsageonexx8910 I was saying that Mike's video might move the pro-abortion/ pro-choice people to see the humanity and value of the life of babies in the womb and change their thinking so they will become pro-life in their thinking and their actions.
Helen Bonnett ALL babies deserve to be born to or adopted by loving stable caring wanting nurturing parent(s). Society as a whole deserves and needs this to create a happier more harmonious one. This is LIFE. Not some abstract biological view of what a bunch of cells may become. Life is more than existing. Destroying a bundle of cells is FAR less evil than preventing a baby from being wanted and loved and populating society with such neglected humans. There is FAR more at stake.
Tory Nickerson First of all, Any comparison to those who are already alive is a false equivalency. Second, by mentioning the foster system you help prove my point. Moron.
You are right, Mike. Moreover, when they are not born yet, they need MORE protection and even when they are born they need even more protection then any other developed human being.
Thanks for this. I was in tears just this morning about New Yorks abortion bill they have. I'm a mother of three and have in the past defended abortion saying "I could never do it but I can't judge someone else's decision. Obviously that changed once I honestly asked myself WHY I couldn't have an abortion myself....bc it's a baby no matter how you split the hairs. I also argued for very very early abortion bc it was the only way I thought I could justify that choice. Specifically bc in the first couple weeks of development the zygote includes cells for the placenta and whatnot therefore the cell was only different building blocks, not a baby. But that's wrong too bc under that justification, none of us are all human....bc I include hair cells and skin cells that will just be used and fall off...so finally I had to be honest with myself. Abortion, no matter how early, is wrong
Okay but don’t you think a ban on abortion is just going to worsen it? Expanded sex education would be far more effective in eliminating abortion because those women would never get pregnant in the first place. What will happen if RvW is overturned is that abortion rates will increase, the number of unlicensed physicians will increase, and as a result there will be more loss of life and greater suffering than if nothing was done in the courts at all. But of course, greater sex ed would violate conservative values about vanilla, heterosexual, postmarital sex, and we can’t have that.
They completely lied about the case that got abortion legalized on a federal level, making it a "right". Claimed she was gang raped, a crime so horrible that the emotional reaction could make people believe that you couldn't POSSIBLY force a woman to carry the child of such a traumatic event. Then they lied about not knowing when life begins. EVERYONE, even a sophomore in high school, knows it begins at conception, that's when ALL the characteristics of what defines life, come into play, all the cell processes including growth and division. After establishing that smokescreen to get people to accept it, they then pushed the woman's rights narrative for DECADES. Only after DECADES had passed and they could no longer keep up the ruse about the baby not being alive and human, did they finally admit that life begins at conception. But by then the damage was done, the people were so brainwashed into believing a woman's right to choose trumped the life of another, that fact no longer mattered. The people would have NEVER accepted such a monstrous belief when it initially got rubber stamped through SCOTUS. So, the plan worked! Funny how the side that is always calling the other side Nazis is the very side that does exactly what the Nazis did, both in their rise to power and once they got in power. Use violence to ascend to power, then dehumanized entire categories of people to allow for their wholesale slaughter. America has killed 10X the numbers Hitler did.
I love that you put Embryology in here❤❤. People NEED to learn Anatomy & Physiology, because it proves life and that it each are individuals from conception and beyond. Heck in Embryology it gives rise to various tissues, organs, and systems. Mesothelioma, a cancer of the Connective Tissues in fact has root in Embryology. In development the Mesothelial cells are anything from your bones to muscles. Each of which have different functions which also create diffent tissues giving rise to differnt sysyems. In the order of how development goes, in college[Anatomy] I learned this: atom->molceule->cell->tissue->organ->system->organism. The first things to develop per systems are the Circulatory and Nervous System.
Great video. It’s interesting to me that a lot of those whom are “PRO CHOICE” object to the death penalty but yet would kill an incident child it blows my mind. I Can honestly say that I felt my son’s presence within me within the first few weeks after conception. I felt him grow from almost the beginning.........now how could I kill such a precious gift.
Shaunalea 82 ALL babies deserve to be born to or adopted by loving stable caring wanting nurturing parent(s). Society as a whole deserves and needs this to create a happier more harmonious one. This is LIFE. Not some abstract biological view of what a bunch of cells may become. Life is more than existing. Destroying a bundle of cells is FAR less evil than preventing a baby from being wanted and loved and populating society with such neglected humans. There is FAR more at stake.
@@xxsageonexx8910 My God, this copypasta is ridiculous and insulting to ALL foster kids. If you were to poll foster kids, how many do you think would say they wish they had been aborted? Your argument is that if a child is not born into a loving, stable, caring family then their life is not worth living and it is better to kill them in the womb. This is scary, dangerous, twisted thinking dressed up in language that makes it sound compassionate. So again I ask, how often do you tell foster kids that they would be better off if they had been aborted?
@@xxsageonexx8910 poll would be 100 % affirmative. What is your point? Are you saying that they WOULD prefer to be aborted if they can't be raised in a stable, loving home?
Another thing I'll NEVER get is how 99.9999% of Pro Choice Advocates will protest for Animal Rights, but they'll demand their right to murder the baby. THE biggest reason NO true Christian can vote for a Pro Choice candidate , with a clear conscience.
I have a friend who used to be very pro life. Then she had a miscarriage her doctor referred to as a "spontaneous abortion". (She does not plan on going to her again.) She was very upset and still is but now she says things like "I'm pro life and pro choice", "miscarriage and abortion is pretty much the same thing" and "I don't want to bring a child into this world if abortion isn't allowed." I don't know what to do. She is a nice girl and it breaks my heart that she feels this way and also never really grieved for her baby.
Wow, that's such a tough topic to approach. Maybe you could mention gently to her that there is a difference between miscarriage and abortion in that she apparently did not intend for her child to die, whereas a selective abortion is done with the intent of killing a baby. Many women do suffer emotional consequences after having an abortion, however that does not change the fact that they intentionally killed their child, which differentiates them from women who have suffered miscarriages. You may be able to help her find some consolation in that "spontaneous abortion" is simply a medical term used to describe a miscarriage and is not related to the practice of selective abortion. (Usually doctors will not use such terms for the sake of understanding and sensitivity with their patients, and the term is only used in paperwork.) It's often difficult to find out why a baby is lost to a woman, but she may find comfort in that most early miscarriages are due to genetic disorders that are incompatible with life. Some women find this information to be both painful and healing, knowing that in the end their baby was not considered viable by the natural processes of her body or passed away naturally due to an issue with the babies biology. This can also be used to remind her that a majority of selective abortions are performed on healthy babies who would have survived and been born strong and healthy if not for the unnatural abortion. If she hasn't grieved her child properly, maybe you can gently suggest she take action to do that. It may help if she can name her lost baby. You and your friend can host a personal funeral or remembrance ceremony together where she can choose a symbolic spot for a grave or even bury something she chooses to symbolize her baby. Before any of this, it may be best to try to have a conversation where you really listen to her and try to understand why her views have changed. Once you understand you will be able to come up with effective and gentle arguments to her reasoning. I pray that she will find her way back through healing because this sounds like a defensive response to protect her emotional wellbeing, rather than a genuine shift in viewpoints. Blessings to you both, I can't know the situation in depth so my advice may be completely useless, but I hope you can take at least one tidbit of help from it that can in turn be used to help your friend.
@@BasedZoomerI really really wish that in the medical world, they would stop using that term to describe miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, etc. Abortion is elective. Miscarriage is not. I realize that many medical terms are like this, but they don't need to use that word with it's heavy implication that a mother in that situation had a choice, when she does not. I had a stillborn baby, and I had no choice. The word has a meaning now that implies choice in the matter, so I wish they'd stop using it in cases where choice doesn't exist.
I wish you crazy psychos realized that an abortion is a simple five-minute procedure that lets a woman go about her normal life. She’s not going to burn in hell for all eternity because she didn’t want to give up her life to raise a child she doesn’t want in the first place.
@@jordanbernard1732 and your objection was just a simple ad hominem attack mixed with a euphemistic description of abortion. You didn’t respond to a single point made in the video, most of which came from medical doctors, some being pro choice. Sure, the mother can go about the rest of her life (assuming she doesn’t deeply regret her decision like many do), but the baby can’t. And if you watched the video you would know that it is undeniably a baby. But please continue to try and justify this to yourself. And for the record, any Christian who is actually read on their beliefs won’t say a woman will go to hell for abortion. We actually encourage them to repent and turn to Christ because He will forgive them of their sins. You don’t go to hell just for your sins, You go to hell for rejecting Christ.
50:50 - An Amish woman in my community was pregnant and had cancer. She refused cancer treatment, gave birth, and died not too long after (her choice). I think this question is that of a priority. Save Mom or Save Baby? When hubby and I first married, I told him the lives of our babies come before mine. I never thought of the consequences of that but hubby having to raise our child without me would be very hard for him (he passes crying baby to me frequently because I'm the crying cure). On the flip side, I've had my chance at life. Give Baby best possible chance to live and hope I can survive treatments later but if I don't, at least Baby can have life.
Hi👋 I'm from Hungary! 🇭🇺 Tomorrow in my school we are going to argue about abortion. I'm pro-life but my classmates are pro-choice so I came here to prepare and listen what Mike says about it. Pray for them, perhaps some of my mates will change their view.
Ectopic tubal pregnancies do happen. It happened to a young couple I knew back in college, and they didn’t need to operate to save the mothers life. That’s ok. Tragic, but morally correct.
4:42 Actually, no, there's nothing weird in wanting abortion rare, because abortions are potentially invasive procedures, procedures with rare but possible side effects. If there are ways to manage pregnancy issues with lesser side effects, then, rationally speaking, we should push for these being used more. And contraception seems to have even less side effects than abortion. So it is perfectly rational to want abortion safe, legal, and rare.
@@PierreThierryKPH This analogy is weak. Abortions are relatively low risk for the mothers. It is performed in an outpatient, clinic setting. Back surgery carries significantly more risk than the typical abortion procedure, in addition to costing significantly more.
@@sandrahanson8316 it's a number's game: if you do a billion times a procedure that has 1 to a million odds of being lethal, you'll still kill a thousand times. So anyone really rational will want any invasive medical procedure as rare as possible.
Who is here in early July 2022 where the US Supreme Court ruled on the Dobbs case, overturning Roe V. Wade? Now the voters in each state will decide on abortion law, by state.
Careful with the Abe Liincoln quotes..... he didn't enact the Emancipation Proclamation until two years into the War, and it was only applicable to the slaves in Southern States. He also said if he could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do so.
But he also said if he could free every slave without collapsing the union he would do so. Context matters, the point he was trying to make was that he was in a tough spot and at that point there was nothing that could be done for the sake of the greater good without incurring a negative outcome. The country was already so divided a war was inevitable, no matter what he did. The reason the emancipation proclamation was for the southern states was because the northern states had by and large already abolished slavery, they didn't need to be told "hey you need to abolish slavery and free your slaves, I don't care if you've already done so." I mean, why would he tell the north, who were already fighting and dying for abolition and for the preservation of the union, that they needed to abolish slavery? Had they not already proved their passion for abolition? Lincoln may have been a flawed man, as we are all flawed and fall short of the glory of God, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the good he did. I mean, he was literally murdered for it, if that's not enough I don't know what is.
Hi Pastor Mike, I’ve been thinking about the topics of abortion, marriage, and other issues that are politically hot buttons. I’m wondering if pushing for Christian values in politics actually means I’m fighting for a theocracy rather than a democracy. If we believe in separation of church and state, is it wrong to try and subject everyone to God’s standards? If same-sex partners want to get married and have the same rights as me, does it really matter? My view is that it’s wrong, but for those who are not even believers, is it right for me to vote for policies that would subject them to biblical values? Even those who claim to be Christian, do we have the right to fight against how they want to live? They’re ultimately judged by God, not us. I view abortion as murder, but on the other hand, we are overpopulated, and I can’t guarantee that the child will have a good life. Fighting for EVERY child to be born might actually be condemning them to a horrible existence. If I believe that those aborted babies go to heaven, couldn’t we argue that it’s best to let the abortions happen? Wouldn't it be a blessing to bypass this life and go straight to heaven?
This is an extremely surprising viewpoint coming from a (presumably) Protestant Christian. 99% seem comfortable with not only voting heavily to Christian values but also for actively sabotaging the democratic aspects of our republic in order to accomplish their goals of a theocratic dictatorship. And your stance on abortion is one of my two main rebuttals to prolifers, the other being “banning abortion will not decrease abortion rates but will increase death and suffering, increase sex ed if you hate abortion”.
The thing is, we can't know that child's future. Therefore, we cannot assume the child will have a terrible life, and that death would be better. Also, even if the child were to have a really hard life, that doesn't mean death would be better. There are people who have went through Hell and back and are so grateful to be alive. There are people who have found beauty and meaning despite the pain and hardships they've been through. There are those who help others in a special way who are going through the same things because they went through it and know how it is. God can take what the enemy meant for evil and turn it for good. And also, even if death were a better option, someone else should not choose that on their behalf when they cannot speak for themselves. Yes, Heaven is a much better place than earth, but we don't use this reasoning with people who have already been born, for example, a four year old dying. I believe that four year old would go to Heaven. But I don't believe I have the right to end their life because they may reject God down the line and not go to Heaven. That's not my decision to make. It's God's alone. If He wanted to take that person to Heaven right then and there, He would. If He did not, that means He still wants them to live in this world. Also we don't know who will accept Jesus or not because we don't know the future. Abortion isn't specifically a Christian issue. It is a moral one.
Separation of church and state is an often misused quote. The founders of this nation had lived a life under a monarchy, where the state was heavily involved in the church. So, it follows that they did not want that here. That phrase is meant to keep the state out of the church. As far as same sex marriage, I disagree with it because marriage is literally of the church. They can have civil union, as far as I'm concerned, for legal purposes, financial purposes, but, when it comes to marriage, that's a different thing altogether because marriage is a part of religion and the church. Marriage is not, or should not be, a simple civil union. It's a bit more than that, and sanctioned by God. If we followed the logic, or lack of, of "live and let live", then should we use the same logic in the case of murder, rape, theft? We have made many laws against many things that people simply shouldn't do. Many are based in biblical principles. That doesn't make us a theocracy by any stretch.
Great video. This is a subject that family and friends, as well as myself, are very passionate about. I hope I will be able to use these points to bring others to the truth about what abortion really is. Once again, thank you and great video.
21:56 The women, duh. Also, "because it turns out there are two different people involved in the abortion, there's a women, and there's a child" WRONG. There are three people involved in the abortion, the women, the child, and the abortionist. I know I'm nit picking, but I wanted to point that out.
Dear Mike. I am a humanist. I think your heart is in the right place and I am glad you care about human rights. I am glad you think children is innocent and not born sinful. Abortion is a hard and difficult topic. The best thing is to prevent the situation accuring through proper sex education, family planning and easy access/education in how to use birthcontrol. Also the women that go through the pregnacy strong economic support and safety net all the years til the child becomes an adult. You forget the rights and life of the woman. With your logic the unborn child has more rights than the born.
Northern Light - Both have rights...I think the difference is the nature of those rights. Right to life v right to not being inconvenienced/income/education etc. Can any right trump the right to life?
@@davidjennings1256 not any right but a persons body are their own and for women its their right to control what they want to use their life and body for. If we should force women against their will to give birth and risk their life/health then we should also force the father to donate a kidney, heart or other organs if the child should need it. Even if it means the death of the person. The peril and sacrifice should be equal.
@@northernlight8857 If they have equal right then, not being killed is more important then having to give birth. Especially if it's not the case of rape and the woman chose to have sex.
@@guitarplayer2032 i see your point. The only thing is that childbirth is today still heavily impacting the womans body. It will never be the same and many get ailments . Some die. Its risky
This is the best and my favorite video on the internet. Thank you Mike. May God bless you and your ministry. Please never give up. People like me need your videos 🙏🇺🇸
Hey Mike Been finding your videos super helpful especially in regards to the JWs and how to love them ect, I’m super passionate about the topic of abortion as well and I find myself getting super emotional and overwhelmed because it is devastating 😭 but I thank you for your video. Love the quotes 🙏🙌🏼 Trying to figure out the best way to reach people about this issue, thanks for the information. May the Lord bless your ministry and keep you in check.
Where are you a JW? I was. I left the organization because of false prophecy, changing, child molestation and not reporting it to the proper authorities. There are over 30,000 child abuse claims against JW’s and it’s all covered up.
It is admirable that you are tackling such controversial and heated topics at such a young and impressionable age. Keep on and know the Lord is with you in whatever you do. :) Have a lovely day/night.
I agree it is murder, and amoral. Living in a nation of diverse beliefs and understandings means compromise even if some of us feel it amoral and all we can do it try and sway government via vote, lobby, speech, press... and choose to contine(and pressure) or move away from a nation you so adimately disagree with.
@Stephen Burrows just a little help with terms. Amoral is defined as without morals or morality. I think you meant to say immoral which would be bad morals. It helps for the occasion when you get the person that tries to hang you by any and all words that you say or use.
You know... Mike... I came to you hoping you would have something... scriptural to say about this topic. 22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. Now [e] is "has a miscarriage." So in OT law, if a guy basically causes an abortion it is NOT treated the same as if a regular person has died. Look... it is possible for reasonable people to disagree about whether an abortion should be legal. I don't like abortion at all. But I don't think it should be illegal. And if you aren't going to use scripture right off the bat to make your case that you are right... what on Earth are you doing? Also... the problem with outlawing abortion is that the problem of so many unwanted children is not because women love sex so much and are going out of their way to get pregnant and have abortions... the problem is with men, not women. Look- you want to outlaw abortion, fine. Make every pro-birth family have to adopt a kid. Make men who cause unwanted pregnancies get a vasectomy. And do something about family leave issues and all the problems women have in going through with a pregnancy. You aren't solving the real problem by outlawing abortion. You are just creating more problems that will have to be solved later by people ill-equipped to solve them in an inhospitable environment where they get little help with dealing with the new baby. Also, while you are at it, make it illegal for unmarried men to have sex without using a condom. All of these ideas are needed in a country that thinks women should be forced to carry their baby to term. A LOT of unwanted pregnancies could have been prevented if men were just willing to use a condom. Women love it when the guy uses a condom. It's men that don't like them, and THAT is the real reason so many abortions happen in this country... BECAUSE MEN DON'T LIKE USING CONDOMS.
Hey thought police, it turns out that addressing the issue of abortion using human rights and reason without referencing The Bible is a thing you're allowed to do.
Outlawing abortion does solve part of the real problem inasmuch as it decreases the number of abortions that occur. This is already happening real time in America right now. Of course it does not solve all the problems. But just because a solution is not completely comprehensive ( No solution is) Does not mean it must be rejected.
@@moretac Why the hell are you calling me The Thought Police?!? It just turns out the Bible has something to say on the topic. Wouldn't it behoove a pastor to consider the Bible before spouting his own opinions on the matter? He LOVES the Bible... why doesn't he use it in situations like this? Because the Bible's opinion is apparently irrelevant when it appears to have a slightly different opinion on the matter? Everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, if you are going to make an argument that other Christians should follow, obviously our faith is based on the Bible, and we should consult that first and foremost. Why even have the Bible if we're just going to say what we want to say? Seriously. Do you listen to Pastor Mike for his opinions that are solely based on what he wants to believe, or do you listen to him because his beliefs are backed by the Bible? It's not "the thought police" that says you should base your beliefs on scripture. Any person who wants to follow Jesus should base what they believe on scripture. As someone who follows Jesus, I consider the Bible to be key to my faith in Christ. I don't know where YOU are getting your inputs on how you follow Jesus, but the Bible is pretty foundational to my beliefs, and if it disagrees with mainstream Christianity, I got to follow the Bible rather than the crowds. Go ahead and follow the crowds though- that's your prerogative.
Most of your points in the final paragraph are about preventing conception: Vasectomies, Unmarried men having sex, men not using condoms. But this is illogical since the government has a right to prevent murder but does not have a right to prevent sex between consenting adults. Also, you seem to be unaware just how effective hormonal birth control is.
Karl Yes! ALL babies deserve to be born to or adopted by loving stable caring wanting nurturing parent(s). Society as a whole deserves and needs this to create a happier more harmonious one. This is LIFE. Not some abstract biological view of what a bunch of cells may become. Life is more than existing. Destroying a bundle of cells is FAR less evil than preventing a baby from being wanted and loved and populating society with such neglected humans. There is FAR more at stake.
Hi Mike, I think I may have not understood the concept of what you meant in 49:59 . “Don’t pray for them.” I genuinely believe you didn’t mean anything bad from it I may have just misunderstood the context so some clarity would be appreciated!
Carla - My issue with your logic is that you are saying the child was better off dead than living on the streets ? I grew up in a very harsh home. There was a lot of pain but I am still grateful to be alive! As you go about your day you probably interact with several people who have dealt with terrible upbringings but that does not mean they deserve death. That would be like going into an orphanage and deciding all those children would be better off if they weren't created. I do agree we can be better about showing love towards the sweet mothers, families , and children that are neglected in this world. Absolutely! Yet I disagree that you have to have a wonderful childhood to deserve basic human rights to exist.
@@CarmenH-e3l I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough but this is not my logic, I made the question because that's the argument that I sometimes encounter with some people and I wanted a clear perspective for an appropriate answer.
Have you seen that movie, Goshnell: America's biggest serial killer? It was well done and extremely accurate to the events. Whatever you believe on the issue it should really open your eyes to the issue and what goes on. Its not about women's health....It's the murder of infants out of convenience and greed. Any other point is only an attempt to reframe the debate. The issue is clear. It was a well made picture. ❤ @mikewinger
Your timing couldn’t be better! This is a sensitive issue for mother’s who had an abortion in the past and have since come to Christ. This comment is not to you. Be blessed in knowing you’ve been forgiven, you’ll be in the presence of God, and no doubt, see your loved one(s) one day. But for all others who think abortion is the right thing to do, you should meet my 34 y/o birth-daughter, a wife and mother of four, whom I was able to spend time with for the second time on Jan 12th...she was two days old the last time I held her. Along with Christ, if she couldn’t change your mind, no one ever will. 🕊
This is useful Mike, as I'm trying to argue for pro life at the moment. Being in Northern Ireland we recently had an abortion clause added out of our government's control allowing for any reason and our government have been discussing and arguing about it ever since (thankfully it's a little more obstructive now but still not strong enough as it allows for downs syndrome or even cleft lip). Our pro-life charities are hard at work with polls and I have been discussing with strangers over FB about this issue. I have found no good arguments from them but they are closed to what I'm saying and then attack my integrity saying I'm a bad Christian judging others. I'm not bothered by this and know how to respond, but how can you get enough people to listen to allow for change?
I'm from Northern Ireland too and I find it so sad that my country is now being defiled by abortion. Particularly that we have the most liberal laws in the UK. For anyone who doesn't know: In the rest of the UK there is abortion for a wide range of grounds up to 24 weeks unless for disability in the foetus or health of the mother. That is up to birth In Northern Ireland it is on demand for 12 weeks, wide range of grounds up to 24 weeks and up to birth for disability and health of the mother. It could have been on demand for 14 weeks, but thankfully that didn't happen.
Certain birth controls are meant to stop fertilization but sometimes end up ejecting an embryo. Be educated in birth control when you decide to use it. I’ll be back to edit this once I refresh myself on which ones, and share that here.
(I am prolife, not prochoice! I agree with pretty much all of your argument, just saw this little mistake.) The rare-part in 'save, legal and rare', does make sense if you want to make that people won't 'need' abortions. (Which doesn't really make sense, because no one actually needs abortion.) Like when you said that you don't want pulling out teeth to be rare, you could want that to be rare, focussing on preventing the tooth from dying.
The unfortunate thing is that even making abortion illegal does not create a value of the life of the other within people, does not create love. You take away one evil here and another evil will replace it. We cannot turn the unloving and selfish into the loving and nurturing. So, all I see is broken, sinbound people being the reason why we have to discuss this in the first place. There is also the issue that it is always a problem for the woman. Men can talk a lot about that. At the end of the day, they are not pregnant. Historically women have been shamed a lot because they had extramarital sex (willing or unwilling). Once you are pregnant everyone can tell. For men it is always hidden, noone can tell, noone shames them over them losing their virginity. That shaming can turn people bitter and create fear. And I think they are right now studying how fears can also be inherited because traumatic events change your DNA or so. Even I - although I am married and settled and everything is fine - have to battle a weird panic of getting pregnant. I asked God for peace and it's good now. The fear is gone. But I understand what it feels like. Also, I think, the problem is not realizing that abortion is a way of killing. It is just a legalized form of killing. The same goes for war, for example. War is the legalized murder of your fellow human beings. Why do Christians in America discuss abortion that much, but are happy to join the army? Why is the soldier who went and killed hundreds celebrated as a hero and the woman who killed one regarded as a murderer? Double standards. Another form of legalized killing is killing intruders on your property. And a lot of people have guns for that reason. More double standards.
kadda1212 I just have one question for you. As an EMT/Firefighter I am trained on many different aspects of life saving treatments and one of the areas of study is dealing with pregnant women who are involved in a trauma or medical emergency. My question for you is that if you believe that it is not a baby and that it is your choice to terminate the child then why is it that if I have a pregnant patient it is considered two patients (both mother and unborn baby)? Why is it also if a pregnant woman dies it is considered two deaths (both mother and unborn baby)? Why is it If a pregnant woman is killed in any way then the person who killed them is charged with double homicide (both mother and unborn baby)? The laws state in all of these aspects that there is two separate people both the mother and the unborn child.
And also a person who joins the military is helping protect the country from foreign and domestic threats and if you kill an intruder you are protecting yourself from a threat so unless the unborn baby is a physical threat to your life then your argument is null and void. If you wanted to say that an abortion should still be allowed if the unborn baby is a physical threat to the mothers life then I would have agreed with you.
@@cr9636 If you think that I am pro-choice then you have simply misunderstood me. I am against abortion. I recognize an unborn child as a human being. I am merely looking at the debate pro life vs. pro choice, and looking historically at how part of our culture evolved to radically accept abortion. I am trying to look at the big problem, the lack of love, the selfishness... So, read what I wrote again, and don't assume I am trying to defend abortion morally. I am explaining it and pointing out moral double standards that some people have.
@@cr9636 I could say that people subjectively decide what they consider threatening. I would say that a lot of wars that were waged in world history were not as a means of defense against some threat. But the motivation was some other: power, greed, etc. Then soldiers get fed with propaganda to believe they are doing something good. In the end it remains a dirty business and a legalized form of killing your fellow human beings. Also, there are other ways of protecting your own life apart from killing whoever is threatening you. To me, you defending these things is just as weird as when I listen to people defending abortion. The question is, is killing a human ever good? I don't think so. I think as people who are set free from sin we should find other ways of dealing with threats.
@@kadda1212 I agree the problem of this world is that we are missing love more specifically we are missing the love of our creator, because we as humans choose sin (evil as you said). But this is an issue that's too big for us to solve... Because this world is ruled by evil. And when God saw this he sent his only Son to help us get away from sin and evil and save us. His death is the true sign off how big the fathers love for us. An yet this evil world is blind to notice it. They don't want the light because than they have to realize how dark they are. But the only way to defeat evil is to spread love to tell people that there's an other way and show them that God is love. But don't be surprised if they'll hate you for it... I totally get your point but you can't fight evil by yourself... You need to first accept love who is God into your heart. God bless you and I'm glad you realised the truth :)
How can you miss this? Abortion is wrong because - human rights. vs. Abortion is wrong because - the Bible said humans are made in the image of God, to destroy that is to violate God's image in another person, and more simply DO NOT MURDER. To do so is to violate God's command. I think, that if you can't see this relation as a CHRISTIAN PASTOR you should be ashamed. "My case right now for this issue of abortion IS NOT BASED UPON THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. Now it is consistent with the Christian faith but it's based upon human rights as being [a] valuable thing." 1:45 If you don't start with the Bible as God's word as the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY then you're saying something else (in this case your reasoning and knowledge Pastor Winger) usurps what God has said. HATH GOD SAID! Please bring Sye Ten Bruggencate back on to help you understand this fundamental concept.
@DJ you act like all those people were innocent, when the Bible clearly states from our conception that we were wicked and enemies of God. Where did they take child wives? The Israelites were commanded to kill the Canaanites (which they didn't btw) because they were supposed to be separated from the wickedness of the people in the land, by that I mean child sacrifice. I don't see what the purpose is with drawing Roman Catholics into this?
Hi pastor Mike thank you for this video glory to God. My husband and I went through ectopic pregnancy earlier this year. The doctor had to give me a shot to kill the baby that was growing in my right tube and I’ve been so conflicted about this because It really does feel like I willingly killed an innocent life. I would have chosen to die if there was even a slight a possibility that the baby would survive. I’m glad that someone asked that question and you answered so thoughtfully. God heard my prayers and answered through this video today. Thank you again. ✝️✝️✝️
I pray God blesses you and heals your mother heart. I'm so glad you found comfort thru that video. I was lucky to go thru 4 "regular" pregnancies, but allways with a feeling of fear that such a drama could happen (or a miscarriage) and so relieved and thankfull it didn't. So that I think I can (a little) understand... Num 24:26
The people that deny that it’s even a human (usually they mean person) makes me shake my head. They literally have to lie to themselves justify that they aren’t killing human beings.
BB2K 7 You didn’t answer my question, what species is it? You’re a bunch of cells too. What is the one thing that makes something uniquely human that can not be contributed to any other thing?
The argument that abortion is morally wrong, in my opinion, unequivocally stands true. However, even if this is totally agreed upon, what do we do with women who simply object to carry and give birth to a child? The people I have encountered argue that even if abortion is killing a life and wrong, it is somehow just as, if not more, wrong to force a woman to host the new developing human being against her will, from a human rights perspective. Pro-choice people I know have said they are pro-choice because they believe that a woman’s choice to kill the human being inside of her is the right they support in favour of the supporting the fact that this new human being has a right to be born and live a life. The fact that the right to choose to kill someone is somehow supported than someone’s right to not be killed. How can I make this case to those who truly believe that?
What if you were put in the situation where a lapse in judgement on your part (or a simple accident) resulted in, say, a comatose person's life being dependent on sharing the functions of your organs for 9 months? Not only that, but after those 9 months, the person regained consciousness and you were required to either financially/emotionally/educationally support them for the next 18+ years, or turn them over to the state to attempt to provide that support? What case would you make to justify forcing someone to go through all of that against their will, when the alternative is to let the comatose person die, having never regained consciousness?
It's important to distinguish between undercutting defeaters and rebutting defeaters. There are two undercutting defeaters available from a secular POV, another one available for Christians too, and two rebutting defeaters which I also believe are available to Christians. First of all, we can challenge the existence of human rights as some inviolable code set in stone. The only way to try to ground human rights is to adopt deontological ethics, so that's an underlying assumption you need to justify first, because otherwise, if you have a different moral theory like rule utilitarianism for example, you can make the case that human rights are just like any other law, and therefore should be formulated and modified in accordance to what benefits society most in general (then you would basically have to justify how banning abortion benefits society more). The second one is to accept the existence of rights, but question that "human rights" as they are currently formulated are the true rights. This opens the possibility that the true correct ones have some qualifier that allows for @bortion, and the pro-lifer needs to first justify why they think human rights as they are currently formulated are the true correct ones. The third undercutting defeater (this one is available to Christians too) is to point out that there's a difference between moral permissibility and what ought to be legal. For example, cheating on your wife or getting drunk may be immoral/sinful, but we can still agree that they should carry no legal punishment. The Bible doesn't really say that we should strive to make these things illegal, only that they are immoral. Likewise, forgetting to turn on your headlights while driving at night may not be immoral/sinful, but we can agree that it should carry legal repercussions. This shows they are two separate things, so the pro-lifer needs to appeal to something more than just morality/sinfulness to reach the conclusion that we should make it illegal. They need to provide the criteria for something to justifiably be made illegal and show how @bortion fits this definition, and of course, they need to justify the criteria too. Now for the rebutting defeaters (available for Christians too), The first one is to say that the criteria for making something justifiably illegal is basically a political rule utilitarianism (rule utilitarianism applied to legality as opposed to ethics). So basically, a law should only be implemented if it maximizes satisfaction and reduces suffering overall in society. If we allow abortions, we prevent women from dying by getting self induced and underground abortions. If we ban abortions, we allow for more of these women to die, but we _may_ prevent more fetuses from dying (we actually don't, but I'll get to that in my next argument). There is a dichotomy here regarding which to prevent, and we need to chose whichever one most likely maximizes satisfaction/reduces suffering overall in society. We have good evidence showing a fetus can't feel pain prior to 5 months as it lacks a nervous system, nor does it have a brain developed enough to feel distress, and we have good evidence showing correlation between brain state and mind, so we can also conclude that it has no will to violate at that stage. On the other hand, a woman dying by attempting to get an @bortion will feel pain and distress, and she has a will. It is clear then that we ought to prioritize the women over the fetuses if we want to maximize satisfaction and minimize suffering. So we can conclude that @bortion (prior to when the fetus can feel pain) should be legal, even if we think it's immoral/sinful to have one. My second rebuttal is that all research shows that banning @bortion doesn't minimize abortions, it just sends them underground. This means that even if any suffering was inflicted during an @bortion (which I argued above that there is none), it would remain the same regardless of the ban. The only difference is that there is more with the ban, because it also involves more women dying. So again, we can conclude that allowing it reduces suffering, and we shouldn't ban it. Mike claimed that we couldn't trust the numbers in the research because of difficulty obtaining the data and some methodology errors that have been corrected, but it's not as questionable when you consider there are similar surveys for use of illegal substances which have results that seem to accurately describe their use in real life. People are also more likely to DENY having had an underground @bortion than to admit it, so the numbers could even be larger. Even if a study had errors in its methodology, that doesn't extend to all the other studies that have found similar results. In any case, it is the best evidence we have at this point, and since this is not a matter in which we can remain neutral, it seems most reasonable to make a choice based on this. Mike also appealed to morality to claim that we shouldn't help these women if they are killing fetuses, but my third undercutting defeater and my first rebuttal address this, because immoral doesn't necessarily equal "ought to be illegal," and you need more than a moral argument to arrive to that conclusion, namely, you need to show that the law you're proposing actually maximizes satisfaction/reduces suffering in society (and fetuses simply do not suffer). So again, you can believe it's immoral (based on the bible or whatever other moral code) while still believing it should be legal.
Your argument is deeply flawed. You are predicting future satisfaction and future suffering. However you conveniently decide to ignore all of the future satisfaction that every single aborted fetus loses. The absolute Quantity of satisfaction lost by the much larger group of aborted fetuses Over the course Their future lives far outweighs any other factor in your equation. Still, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to lay out your thoughts.
Just gonna say, since I didn't read all of your novel, and stopped when I got to this particular part, that one would never use that logic when it comes to murder in general. We would never say that making murder illegal only leads to "underground" murder. Of course, it does lead to more underground, or illegal murder, because all murder is illegal. So if one makes something illegal, then all cases of it are then "underground " or illegally done. As far as getting drunk, it's not illegal but drunk driving is, because it can take the life of an innocent person who had nothing whatsoever to do with the mistake of getting drunk. Cheating in marriage does not usually lead to death of an innocent person, though it possibly can through murder which is already illegal.
@@moretacIn terms of what is good, the avoidance of future suffering outweighs the possibility of future satisfaction for the non existent. Think about Mars. We can say that it's a good thing that there aren't any beings there who are suffering. If there were sentient beings like us there, and they were constantly experiencing a ton of suffering, we would be saddened and think it to be very unfortunate. But we don't look at Mars and feel deeply saddened by all the pleasure that some non existent beings are missing out on. These non existent beings are, after all, non existent, so they don't really long for any pleasure or satisfaction.
@@Crystal-iy4si My point regarding being drunk and divorce is that they are both things that the Bible says are sinful/immoral, and yet, people should still have the freedom to do those. What they could lead to by adding other factors like driving is completely irrelevant to my point. Basically, immorality/sinfulness ≠ ought not be legal. I'm going to be charitable with your murder objection, as it's formulated in an odd manner. My point is not that there will be more underground abortions than there are currently. My point is that the number of abortions will stay the same regardless of if it's legal or not. The difference between murder and abortion is that moving abortions underground has additional suffering involved, as it means more women dying from improper procedures. More women dying is bad of society, and if we want to minimize suffering, we should prioritize them. Moving murders underground doesn't add additional suffering.
Would you please address the issue of rape, molestation that results in pregnancy. It happens 32,000 times a year that rape ends in pregnancy. These 32,000 end up giving birth, because they choose to have the child. Then the rapist can file for child rights against the woman, so he can insert his control over the woman. Then the courts hand over a child to the rapist or molester. STUPID BEYOND REASON. No rapist or molester should ever get custody rights to a Child. These are real happenings and documented. In the USA a woman is raped every 2 minutes...... I personally, think rape and molestation is not taken seriously and disreguarded, because women are not respected in society. So, how about we work on dealing with the rapist and molesters. I have looked and looked for the biblical response for rapist or molesters. The only one instance I found was in reference to King Davis. Tamar is a figure described in 2 Samuel in the Hebrew Bible. In the biblical narrative, she is the daughter of King David, and sister of Absalom. In 2 Samuel 13, she is raped by her half-brother Amnon Amnon was also David's eldest son. After the rape, Absalom waited two years, and then avenged Tamar by sending his servants to murder a drunken Amnon at a feast, to which Absalom had invited all the king's sons (2 Samuel 13). So, why is there no accounting for rape or molestation? The only person I found in the bible that stood against rape is Absalom. It is as if this despicable is ignored, it is something that bothers me a great deal. King David, ignored the issue with his daughter, she was held in shame for the actions of a rapist! He did nothing, then his son Absalom took it in his own hands. So why is rape not delt with in the bible? Why does it appear to excuse this behavior in men? I am asking because it bothers me and I want to know if I am not finding scriptures to have a better view than what I have presently. My personal view, is rape is a death penalty offence, and at the very least given a colostomy bag for life. When a rape victim is raped, they have a life sentence, and the predator walks free with little if any time served. This has gone on far too long. Women are blamed for the actions of rapist. I am very tired of this ignorant attitude.
It appears to me that the arguments here against abortion rest on the idea of intrinsic human worth and value, predicated on a deotalogical notion of morality rooted in the Christian concept of God. But this may be unpersuasive to anyone who doesn't share the same notion of intrinsic human value. What would you say to a utilitarian, or a consequentialist, or a moral reletivist with whom your arguments would hold little weight?
Jared Craig moral relativism is trash. how can they say things are bad or evil like that killing and racism are wrong they can’t. because “morality is relative” gross.
At 39:30 ish, in the context of a conception by rape, that its not ok to kill a child for the sin of the father. How does this principle apply to your understanding of the Genesis story Mike? Genuinely curious :-)
Mike, can you please help me for a better understanding of expdus 21:22? It seems to support the devaluation of life before birth ... I'm sure there's something I'm missing.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16 Only Jesus Christ is the way to Heaven and be saved from hell. "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 Have you believed in your heart that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins, was buried, and rose from the grave? You must believe that Jesus is the one who paid for your sins and rose again to be saved from eternal damnation and instead go to heaven "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Romans 10:9 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7
Jeremiah Tassinari I don’t do hangouts. And don’t take that as a victory, I have been interacting on here with Christians for years and you all exude the same dishonest behaviors. It should be easy to answer. WHY should I be concerned avoiding hell?
@@xxsageonexx8910 Its simple, because you will go to hell if you do not believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins, was buried, and rose from the grave. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16
Mike, I love the logical argument you make here. Very well thought out, and I completely agree. But this is Bible Thinker...can you address the issue in Numbers 5:11-31 that says a woman can be cursed into miscarriage for adultery? Would this practice call into question the right to life and condone abortion? Or am I misunderstanding the phrase "causing her abdomen to swell and her womb to miscarry"?
I have a study Bible that actually addresses these verses. The keynote says when a married woman was suspected of sexual infidelity, God's personal judgment was to be sought in the matter. The punishment for such unfaithfulness was death (Lev 20:10). This passage describes the method by which the priest was to ask God to reveal whether an accused woman was guilty or innocent. Hope that helped a bit! Interesting separate little factoid I recently learned. Only adultery and murder did not have any sacrifice instructions out of all the mosaic laws. The point of the sacrifice was to get forgiveness from God, so only God's grace would give forgiveness for these in the OT. So yeah, God really hates adultery and really hates murder.
I'm hoping for an answer because I sincerely would like to learn even though I'm pretty late to the video here. I believe that a human being is only fully human when he/she gains consciousness as an embryo at 22 gestation weeks and after, which is why the limit of legal abortion at 22-24 weeks in many countries makes sense. If the definition of a human is to have human DNA and to be "alive", is it then also wrong for Christians to switch off life support for a person who is brain dead since a brain dead person's body cells can be kept alive? Is switching off life support of a brain dead person or aborting an unconscious embryo wrong even though doing the opposite could surely cause many other's to struggle badly? ("struggle" being either financially, emotionally, socially etc.).
You can't justify murder because Letting someone live means someone else has to struggle. Consciousness is also a very random and artificial point at which to give people rights. How do you even know exactly when consciousness starts?
@Moqlnkn thanks for the reply. That question needs to be clarified. Can an embryo before 22 gestation weeks be considered a person? Can a brain-dead person be considered a person? If so, what makes them people? Because if they are conscious people, then no, i do not think people should kill them. But if not, taking away life support or aborting them can actually have positive impact on people (for example, females who did not ask to be impregnated from rape)
@Moqlnkn maybe something else to consider about the idea of killing -- Killing is not murder. The Bible does have instances of lawful and (i guess) moral killings by the people of Israel. Where then do we draw the line of what we can kill with the intention of helping others? I'm not saying "therefore, let's all go kill embryos". It's a little of a separate topic, but it may, for many people, contribute to the idea that abortion cannot be considered murder.
In the USA, where nearly half of pregnancies are unintended and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion [1] , there are over 3,000 abortions per day. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies in the USA (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. [2]
At 46:30 you say "you don't kill people for what their parents do". It seems like god doesn't agree with you because god ordered babies to be slaughtered in Numbers 31 because of the evil that their parents did. Mike, I'm sure you will delete this comment, but that's okay because it was only meant for you
sure, whatever is in the womb may be alive or human, but let's set that aside. What I ask you is why value the 'life' of what's in the womb over the happiness, health and life of the woman. The woman has a life, she has friends, a family, perhaps a career or hobbies. She has a favourite food or book or place, she has a life. Why value something that won't even have any memory for at least 3 months (and even at that it's just pictures or colours, ect...) over her?
So should we kill people if they don't have those things listed? What about an elderly person who grew up as an orphan, all their friends have already passed and they have alzheimers. This hypothetical elderly person does not have friends, family, or memories and is a burden on the taxpayer. Should we kill that elderly person? Not to mention, your argument places the value of one human over another, which as we have discovered during the holocaust and the trans-Atlantic slave trade, is a dangerous position to hold. The anti-abortion argument values both lives equally. The woman will not lose her friends, family, memories, hobbies, and career over the course of nine months. She can simply have the baby and place it with an adoptive family. Done deal, she never has to think about it again if she doesn't want to, and then she's right back on with her life. 9 months is not a long time.
@@iainpattison903 I’ve heard all kinds of craziness. I am PTO choice but it’s because I’m a man. It’s none of my business. As much as I do t want there to be any abortions, at he very least life of the mother is a good reason for abortion. I give money to adoption charities to try to help but it’s sad.
@@GatorbeauxAs a woman, I'll tell you, you should never say that you don't have any say or opinions because you're a man. My grown son and I just had this discussion and it was because I'd heard a man say that women shouldn't talk or have any opinions or say about war, because though women do serve now, they are not even close to the majority that serve in combat. It's very much majority men. But, women do suffer in war. I have three military age sons, a husband, and a brother. We have fathers, uncles, etc. We do suffer when they die. Not to mention the economic suffering that can occur during war, the destruction, etc. War causes both sexes to suffer, mainly because of death, much like abortion does. Men do suffer the death of a baby. If you saw the death of an infant, it would affect you, and probably badly. So, you do have a voice in it, or you should. Never believe you don't because you're a man. Your sex does not dictate whether you can have valuable insight into any situation. Again, I have three grown sons, and I get pretty tired of hearing that I should have no opinion on whether they should potentially lose their life in a war because I'm a woman, and I get really tired of hearing that they should have no opinion on the life of what would be their own child, just because they are men. Both are seriously flawed ways of thinking.
I perceive a bit of tap dancing at 51:42, right after Mike clearly reiterates his definition of abortion at 50:30. I think the most consistent wording would be that he is in favor of abortion as defined when there is a high probability of the loss of the mothers life. This "procedure" as stated would fall within the criteria of *abortion* as defined, because it would be the intentional killing of an innocent human's life. The justification (saving the mothers life) for the "procedure" (abortion) would not determine or alter the deffinition. Thoughts?
I think what he is saying is if the mother is going to die ie encoptic pregnancy like my friend had vs killing the baby just because they don't want it. It's different to say I had sex got knocked up and just don't want the baby than say I'm going to die having this baby thus both die anyway. I hope I understood your question right.
I saw this video when it was new. It popped up again after an amendment to Kentucky's state constitution failed. The amendment wasn't even to make abortion illegal, it was just to state that abortion isn't a right guaranteed by the state. Kinda like the reversal of Roe vs Wade. I had hope that Kentucky would at least take that very small step to protect the lives of children. That hope is gone. It's very upsetting. I'll rewatch this video and try to spread the knowledge gained.
In the case of conjoined twins, wouldn't agree that it would be moral to separate them unless a) if the operation doesn't happen both will die or b) the twin who will die during the operation is old enough to knowingly consent to their death. Otherwise, I see that as a violation of rights. One twin isn't owed his sibling's death merely because it will make his own life more comfortable. That would be the same as the most common pro-abortion argument I hear (that a woman has a right to separate herself from her unborn child, even though he/she will die, because the baby's existence makes her life more difficult.)
I have a (tough) question for Mike. You make a strong logical case that from conception on you're dealing with a human being with the same rights as any other human being. The question I have is another syllogism... If aborting an unborn child is killing a human being, and if the sentence for killing a human being is the death penalty or life imprisonment, then should a mother who intentionally kills her fetus or hires someone else to kill it, be given the death penalty or life sentence?
My two cents is that this is a tricky situation. I think many young women and even the population in general have been lied to, from "experts", that what they are doing is not murder and is simply removing some cells from a body. I think there needs to be grace towards all of those who have been brainwashed and lied to from the pro-abortion camp. That being said, if/when America has overturned Roe vs. Wade and the truth is made known to all what the science actually says, at that point we need to begin holding abortion mills and women accountable as murders if they do indeed end a human life. It will likely be a messy transition with much confusion at first but it needs to happen
Moreover, there are some women who get abortions because they have too many children to care for. If abortion is murder, and she's sentenced to life in prison, who takes care of the other kids? The father? he'll likely get jail time too for not stopping his wife from getting an abortion, wouldn't he?
Keegan Kidder The prohibiting of abortion has FAR greater moral implications and impacts on societal well being than destroying a bundle of cells. ALL babies deserve to be born into a loving, stable, nurturing environment.
@@xxsageonexx8910 Your "bundle of cells" argument is a bad argument and based off bad science from 30 years ago and has been thoroughly refuted. That being said, we don't get to murder human beings based off our subjective speculation of how their life may or may not turn out. But if that is seriously your standard for being allowed to murder, than can we murder anyone we deem to not be loved, stable, and nurtured?
Keegan Kidder 1. You did not make a case that destroying the cells is more evil than allowing neglected , unwanted children and it’s overall impact it would have on the well being of society. There is no comparison and you’ve stated nothing to refute this. 2. Abortion is not murder. Murder means UNLAWFUL killing. Abortion is LEGAL. 3. It is a false equivalency to compare killing those that have been born to those who have only developed to a bundle of cells. 4. Your response to mine is shortsighted and devalues life. It misses the bigger picture and advocates that not all babies deserve BEING BORN INTO at least, previously mentioned environment. And does not consider the OVERALL IMPACT raising the number of unwanted children has on society.
What is your response to the hypothetical question, “If I was holding a 3 month old baby in one hand and a Petri dish full of embryos in the other, and I had to drop one, which would you choose?” As if this is some sort of realistic scenario, but I’ve never been able to respond in a way that they really see my point.
Hi, paramedic here. This is a triage situation that has no good outcome. This is the stuff that causes PTSD and worse in first responders. Change the situation to where you’re holding a baby in each arm. Or you can only rescue on person from a situation and you have to chose between a toddler and a 60 year old woman. Or you’re trying to evacuate a children’s hospital (did you know they have special vests with baby-sized pockets so a single person can carry 4 babies in an evacuation? Because this stuff really happens and we try so hard not to have to choose) These choices do not dehumanize those you are rescuing. But in triage, you are trying to do the most with the resources you have, and sometimes that involves leaving behind those you cannot save. But that doesn’t mean you can live with yourself after you’ve been forced to make that decision.
Hi Mike! I'm a pro-life Christian, and I can defend against most objections. But there is one (type of) argument that is a bit hard for me. It goes something like this: "Even if life begins at conception, a fetus has no right to live in a woman’s body without her consent." Could you help me with this argument and similar ones?
This objection isn't as smart as it sounds. It falls apart when you affirm parental duties. If a random stranger hooks their body up to yours such that pulling the plug will kill them, you may morally pull the plug. They violated your body to save their own life. A child is unique because intentionally or unintentionally, every child is created by their parents. In that physical act, the parents assume a duty to care for that child. In the case of women, they have a duty to house the child that their body created (again, regardless of intent). A woman's kidney was made for her body. A woman's uterus was made for her child's body. For anyone who rejects parental duties, simply transfer the conversation to born children. If a mother hates her 2 year old son, can she leave him in the crib until he starves to death? Can she mimic the ancient Romans and leave the son outside to be eaten by dogs? If we agree that this is child neglect, you are acknowledging that the act of neglecting a child is wrong and is not a liberty. That is, in the case of children, the state may and should overrule the bodily autonomy of the parents and compell them to actively care for the child. Removing a child from your uterus to preserve your liberty at the expense of their life is in principle no different than failing to actively care for a born child to preserve your liberty at the expense of their life.
what about pain? I think a fetus is a baby when it feels pain. It's immoral to hurt someone, therefore, it's immoral to abort a fetus that has developped a nervous system. Is an advanced AI robot with conscience and emotion a human? no, it doesn't feel pain (no nervous system). Also, IF a zygote is a human, does that make identical twins less of a human if the zygote split?
I’m paralyzed from the waist down. I can’t feel my legs. Would it be ok for someone to cut my leg off since I can’t feel it and therefore wouldn’t feel any pain?
@@Randyrenae My premise is that the development of the nervous system makes us human (ability to feel pain). Pain is subjective, so that's why I'm saying you need nerves (nervous system), which means the posibility of pain. How would I know that if someone cuts your legs, you wouldn't feel pain (even the slightest) since they have nerves. Second of all, if someone cuts your legs, it still makes you human. You still feel pain elsewhere (body, brain, etc).
I am pro life. I have not had too many problems justifying my beliefs except when it comes to dependancy. I still don't think it justifies killing the child, but I often have problems standing up to pro-choicers when it comes to this: until the fetus reached a point where it is viable outside the womb by medicine, doctors, or others, the ONLY person who can give that child life is the mother. Your argument is that this is defendable because a child up to many years old is dependent on others for its survival, which makes sense, but the sole person the baby depends on while in the womb is the mother, not all the other people it could rely upon like a born child in your explanation. If it's outside the womb it has an entire world it can depend on for survival, but until then, it is totally reliant on the mother. Does this change the argument at all? How would you respond to pro-choicers when they bring this fact up?
It doesn't change the argument. The point is the child is dependent and needs care for some years outside the womb, the number of people caring for it is irrelevant in the argument.
Hey, brother Mike. I know I'm late to the party here, but I think one of your premises is a little off: I don't think we have any reason to believe the embryo or zygote is a "whole" human being; that is, the essential element of what it means to be human (personhood) is not present. I know this is just a TH-cam comment that you'll probably never even see, so I'll try to be concise with two syllogisms here and wanted to see what you think: Syllogism 1: 1.) A "person" is a self-conscious or rationale being 2.) Consciousness in humans is not possible until the neurons in the brain develop 3.) Neurons in the brain do not develop until 15-20 weeks gestation 4.) Therefore, humans do not gain the status of "person" until after 15-20 weeks gestation This leads into syllogism 2: 1.) Abortion is objectionable only on the basis that a person is killed 2.) A fetus is not a person prior to 15-20 weeks gestation 3.) 92-99% of all abortions take place prior to 15-20 weeks gestation 4.) Therefore, nearly all abortions (92-99%) are not objectionable. The split between your syllogism and mine is that you use the term "human being" while I use the term "person." Even a corpse can be biologically "human," but we don't charge people with murder for disposing of it, because it lacks personhood; it's not a person. Same thing with an embryo or zygote prior to 15-20 weeks gestation. I greatly respect your thoughts and would be interested in comparing notes with you here.
Mike, I would appreciate some clarity of one of your answers to a question you got. You said it isn't abortion if a mother's life is trying to be saved. Did you mean it isn't abortion if the measures taken to save a mother's life unintentionally kill the baby (like chemo or a surgery)? Or did you mean it isn't abortion if you actually remove the baby from the mother's womb to save her life?
@@davidjennings1256 I'm assuming he means in the case of taking measures to save the mother's life even if that will seemingly cause the death of the baby. That would not be intentional killing of the child aka abortion. Hopefully he responds though!
I do have a scripture passage that seems difficult on this subject: Exodus 21: 22-25. It seems like this law does handle the death or mishap to the woman differently than the death of the unborn child. How should we interpret this text in the light of this discussion?
Mike, as this issue has come up again recently in the media, I am curious your stans on the argument of "women's rights" and the authority she has or not over her body. A common sign you see held by women now is "get out of my uterus" meaning women want to choice of what to do with her body. How do handle the woman who doesn't want to host the life?
The answer is you don't have the right to do what you want with your own body. Try running around naked in public. You'd get arrested. Why? Because you don't have a right to do what you want with your body.
Kathryn Mary Pro life and anti abortion are NOT synonymous. If you are anti abortion you do not value life. ALL babies deserve to be born to or adopted by loving stable caring wanting nurturing parent(s). Society as a whole deserves and needs this to create a happier more harmonious one. This is LIFE. Not some abstract biological view of what a bunch of cells may become. Life is more than existing. Destroying a bundle of cells is FAR less evil than preventing a baby from being wanted and loved and populating society with such neglected humans. There is FAR more at stake.
XxSage OneXx I disagree that abortion is just killing a bunch of cells. That is sociopathic. It is life, and deserves to live that life. I am anti abortion because I AM pro life. Hence the veganism... There are always people out there wishing to adopt. People can drop their baby off at a hospital if they don’t value it’s life... no excuse for murder.
Liberalism is a Cult I have yet to be refuted. So I will keep doing it until someone refutes me or acknowledges it. Calling them weak without refuting them is just plain stupid.
I always think... if people who rescues cats and dogs that are filling our shelters are worth saving, why are we not aborting their "mass of cells" they are pregnant with... but then those same people are willing to abort human children. I don't understand the logic! Great points... hot topic with my high schoolers who need more sound logic that they can use to argue without saying, "cuz the Bible says so" and for that I'm so grateful for your brilliant content. TY TY!
I say this all the time! I had a stray cat have kittens on my back porch, and my son held one, and said "if I can't even imagine taking this baby's life, then how could I imagine taking a human baby's life, but some would argue to save this baby, but not a human baby." It's very odd.
The baby is only a zygote for 5 days. When it implants, it is called an embryo. So a woman isn't even technically pregnant until it is embryo. The term zygote can't even be used in this discussion...
Since, I'm pro-choice at the moment, I'm always trying to be swayed by the opposite view (If it's true, I really wanna be convinced). I currently see it as a situation where you're faced with "I'm well within MY rights" vs "chasing the uncomfortable good." (Sorta like turn the other cheek) I personally cannot look at a woman and say that she HAS to surrender her rights to the whims of life, but it's definitely uncomfortable not to see a life preserved. I can't point a finger even though I dont praise abortion. If I am wrong I really need to find a conscience clear way to truth. I tried to not be too dis-analogous "Imagine you wake up after being kidnapped and the man next to your hospital bed explains that his friends kidnapped you in order to hook you up to supporting his life. His friend's kidnapped you as a surprise to him who's draining your blood, taking some of the food you intake, and just overall leeching off your internal organs so that he can live. You see him thank his friends for this gift (you). This process wont kill you BUT it will take around 9 months or so, so you'll get well acquainted. You can disconnect the tubes and cables, and he'll die, or you can stay there for 9 months and he'll live." Does that man have a right to live off of you? (This represents the instance of rape.) "Imagine a married couple who are going through the toughest time of life. They BARELY have enough money to keep lights on and food on the table for their kids, and work is horrible. They seek a sense of relief and refuge from their misery with one another, using a condom, yet they become pregnant again. They have no idea how they're going manage and they wife doesn't want to bear the guilt of giving up her child for adoption." (Represents failed contraception. Please dont respond with "dont have sex bc you know the consequences thereof" They're married and werent looking to be pregnant. It would be like me telling a woman "you know the risks of walking at night to get home, even if you do have mace" (as if she deserved it)). Has the wife given the zygote/fetus rights to her body, considering the use of condom? (The preemptive rebuttal is designed to encompass rape and failed contraception. Condoms aren't 100% effective. Abstinence isn't 100% either bc rape is a thing.) I noticed you used the word "harm." Does the time at which sentience arises play a factor in abortion? Any feedback is appreciated, but be prepared to defend. (I hope you win!)
Da'Shaun Jefferies ALL babies deserve to be born to or adopted by loving stable caring wanting nurturing parent(s). Society as a whole deserves and needs this to create a happier more harmonious one. This is LIFE. Not some abstract biological view of what a bunch of cells may become. Life is more than existing. Destroying a bundle of cells is FAR less evil than preventing a baby from being wanted and loved and populating society with such neglected humans. There is FAR more at stake.
@@xxsageonexx8910 Thank you for taking the time to reply, but in all honesty, it's never been abt WHAT it is for me. I know that it can be nothing aside from human life which is why I gave the examples. The question I'm trying to discern in the scenarios I gave (which would be helpful if you'd answer and give rationale) is: Is the killing UNJUST when defending one's own rights to their body? I actually have ramifications (though they do seem somewhat subjective) and limits that I havent mentioned only bc rape and saving the mother's life have been mentioned. For now, I'd just like to see how ppl would react in the scenarios I gave and why.
If it was about the right of the mother over HER body then she would die. My children have a different blood type to me, therefore they are very definitely NOT my body, even at cell stage, therefore I would not be making a choice for my body, I am damaging a body that is NOT mine enough for it to die
To your first analogy: 1.) The baby's blood does not mix with the mother's. 2.) In this scenario your body was not made for that other person. Your blood was not made for him, your organs functions were not made for him, this is why we cannot harvest organs without consent, even between a parent and child organ donation cannot be compelled. However, this is a very big however, the uterus of a woman was made for a single function: to house and grow infant life. The uterus was made FOR the baby, and everything within the uterus is formed of the baby's own systems (with the exception being the placenta, if I recall correctly, which is made from both the baby's and the mother's tissues). 3.) An abortion cannot really be equated to "removing tubes and cables". The baby is killed and then removed from the environment that was made by God, or nature if that's your dig, specifically for the baby. There is no other function of the uterus within the body other than the production of female sex hormones which contribute to the same processes. In the case of the analogy you gave the individual would first disconnect and tube and cables, then the man would most likely die. This is more similar to a scenario in which the mother must give birth to the baby preterm for some reason or another and the baby still has a chance at life thanks to our modern technology. Besides, this scenario is completely hypothetical and would not happen in real life, whereas abortions do happen in real life and are not hypothetical. 4.) To summarize: a stranger has no right to your body, hence why forced organ donation, rape, assault, and murder are all morally wrong. Your body was not made for the sake of strangers, however the uterus was made for the sake of the growing baby. The baby has rights over their own bodily autonomy, which is violated in an abortion, the man in the analogy is not having his bodily autonomy violated when the individual chooses the disconnect from him. However he is violating the individual's bodily autonomy by compelling them to allow him to use their bodily systems that were not made for his sake, for him. A baby is not violating a woman's bodily autonomy because the uterus was made for the purpose of supporting that baby's life and the rest of the tissues within the uterus are of the baby. (Not to mention an adult male requires 2000 calories daily, and growing baby requires about 300. That's a day and night difference, and other than some calories, the baby doesn't rely much on the mother's bodily systems besides the fact that the mother has to be living for the baby to also continue living.) To further emphasize the point that the woman's bodily autonomy is not being violated during a pregnancy, the scenario you gave would bring the individual's life to a complete halt, unable to complete any daily tasks that they were previously able to do. A woman experiencing a pregnancy is not put in such a situation, most everything (with a few obvious exceptions like partying with drugs and alcohol, which is unnecessary in the first place) that woman was able to do before she was pregnant she can still do while she is pregnant. Many people like to portray pregnancy as something that brings is life to a halt, but the majority of pregnancies are not very taxing on the woman's body because the female body is made to support pregnancy. 5.) As a final mention, we have medical technology that allows us to filter and clean blood and to provide nourishment to those who may not be able to eat properly. For everything else, organ transplants and intensive care can usually do the trick. The situation you gave (in which I can only assume this man is undergoing spontaneous major organ failure) in which the man is dying a natural death and using another individual's body to prolong his own life cannot be compared to taking the life of another person intentionally, usually for convenience. You said that analogy was to symbolize a child conceived of rape, but the man who is compelling the individual is not innocent, whereas a child conceived of rape is.
I am going to say it like it is: As a law student the claim that you cannot ever kill an innocent human is not legally defensible and it demonstrates a collosal ignorance of the SAW franchise. Allow me to present the following scenario: There is a guy who has abducted your Dad and has taken him to a foreign place. You have managed to find out where your Dad is and you have to come to rescue him with your gun. However this man does not want to kill your Dad directly, no he wants to do it by using his blind brother: He tells his blind brother that he wants to teach him how to use a gun. For this purpose he has to shoot against a wall. In front of this wall he places your Dad whom he has tied up and gagged such that he cannot scream or warn the blind person. The blind person has no idea that he is about to shoot your Dad. You arrive at the scene and see that the guy is about to pull the trigger: You have no time to call the police or to warn the blind guy. The only way to rescue your Dad would be to shoot the innocent blind person. In that case it is fully permissible to kill an innocent human. And as far as SAW goes here is another example: th-cam.com/video/dGMLrfcESWM/w-d-xo.html (warning: not for the faint of heart). Anyways that's all I have to say concerning this issue. Your position may or may not be ethical but this particular claim is false and demonstrably so. Have a good day.
My wife and I held our 17-week old child for our one and only time last week. No one will ever convince me that he wasn't a human being.
@BB2K 7 I guess we can't all be as emotionless and lacking empathy as you. What a great thing to jump on here and comment a year later.
@BB2K 7 Whatever you need to justify it. Guess the Unborn Victims of Violence act really bothers you, too.
@BB2K 7 As I said, whatever you need to justify it.
I know it's been a long time since you posted this, but I'm sorry for your loss. Hearing and reading things like this really cuts me to pieces, it's such a painful thing to experience, I can only imagine.
I hope you and your wife are doing well, and are healing or have healed (as much as is possible when having lost a child).
May God watch over you both.
He wasn’t, but I am sorry for your loss.
Love the way Mike breaks it down in the beginning. "If it is a human being, no justification is adequate"!
The only instance I can see is a tubal pregnancy where if it ruptures, the mother will likely die due to peritonitis. Even if they save her, she will have to have a total OHE and never have children. But if the tubal pregnancy is removed early enough, they can salvage the uterus and the second ovary, giving her a chance at both life and the possibility of producing children again. I am talking here, of course, about a woman who WANTS children.
@@watchgoose A lot of pro-life people don't even consider that an abortion. Generally when people say that no abortion is justified, they mean elective abortions, so, terminating the life of the fetus/baby for reasons that have nothing to do with saving the mother's life. If it's TRULY necessary, then it's not only morally permissable, but morally required (in a lot of these "medically necessary" cases are not actually life-threatening OR, there's another way to save the mother besides killing the baby.)
If the mother's life is genuinely in danger due to the pregnancy and there's no way the baby could survive outside the womb and the doctor does nothing, then they will both die. If the only choices are saving one of them or letting them both die, you have to at least save the mother.
And in ectopic pregnancies, *most* of the time, the baby dies by the time the tubal pregnancy is even discovered (usually about 7 weeks), so that's not abortion at all. But in the relatively rare cases where the baby is discovered in the fallopian tube AND is still alive, then yes, removing the baby is necessary. And as far as I know, they're technically not willfully killing the baby, they simply remove it and it does as a result. Performing any life-facing treatment/procedure where the baby dying is an indirect/unfortunate side effect, but not the actual direct intent, that's not abortion. Like if you had to give a woman chemo, the purpose of the chemo is saving her life, and the baby dying is a result, but not the purpose, that wouldn't be abortion.
So yeah, basically every single pro-lifer wants then to save a woman's life, even if the baby dies in the process, as long as there is no other option where the baby could be saved.
@@zzevonplant, beautiful.
A foetus is not a human being though, it is sub-human.
@Iain Pattison kinda like a fertilized chicken egg is sub chicken.
In cases where the mother's life is in danger, and separation of mother and baby is necessary, the goal should be to save both lives if possible. If it is early in pregnancy (first trimester) then this might be impossible as we do not have the medical technology to support an embryo's life outside the womb (yet), but in later stages of pregnancy, especially after 21 weeks, the fetus should be separated from the mother and then doctors should do everything they can to save both people. No need to kill the baby first.
How come you don't just trust God and let him decide who lives and who dies?
Well put.
@@nastyHarry What do you mean?
@@ea-tr1jh if you think god is good, merciful and more powerful than the best human medicine, then why don't you place your trust in god to help the mother and unborn baby to survive, instead of modern medicine?
@@nastyHarry God can work through modern medicine. Not doing so is foolish and the concept of doing nothing and just "letting God" is not found in the Bible. Yes, we should trust God, but that it not what is meant when we "trust God".
This video is already several years old, but the information here is still very much useful. Recently got into a discussion about abortion, so I started doing some of my own studies, and the Lord lead me here. Thanks for sharing Mike. Keep up the great work.
Hey, Mike. On the topic of performing a surgery that can kill a child, I was born 4 months premature. My mom was very sick and could have easily died having me. The doctors urged her to have an abortion. She refused deciding to leave it in God's hands. After a c-section, with which I came out looking like a Smurf, they didn't give me a day. But at 1 pound 3 ounces, and the mighty hand of God moving there, we're still both here 22 years later. But my mom could have easily died so to say the least, I was a little disheartened by your statement. Still loved the video though and thought I should share my story. Keep doing what you're doing, Kind Sir.
Thank you! IF we REALLY believe God, then we will let God be God & trust His Will
I was born with a Smurf face to.
Which statement did you find disheartening?
My daughter was born at 24 weeks, 1 lb 3 Oz, too. I'm not sure what you found disheartening in the video but I always found it useful to draw a line between early delivery which is sometimes medically necessary (I was bleeding out internally and on the way to eclampsia) and abortion which intentionally kills a unique human life. You can still value and protect the life of the mother and give the child the best chance possible since the doctors have two patients to care for, not just one. I was also told I should consider abortion with both of my children and had to get additional risky tests to rule out certain conditions that would make her "non viable". She is now advanced in several areas as a 3 yr old, behind in others, and a joy in our lives. God is good, and I've been saying that the whole time.
Here after Roe v Wade was overturned. What an exciting time to be alive. May we continue to share this message and save ever more lives.
Excellently formed argument. Great job Mike. I've had this debate so many times now, and it's terribly exhausting. Often times they try to move the goalposts or devolved into pure apathy. The last 2 responses I got were "well, it's none of my business anyway". But hey 1 of those guys took my advice and has started watching some of your videos. Who knows, maybe he will be one of those changed hearts.
Orion's Finest ALL babies deserve to be born to or adopted by loving stable caring wanting nurturing parent(s). Society as a whole deserves and needs this to create a happier more harmonious one. This is LIFE. Not some abstract biological view of what a bunch of cells may become. Life is more than existing. Destroying a bundle of cells is FAR less evil than preventing a baby from being wanted and loved and populating society with such neglected humans. There is FAR more at stake.
@@xxsageonexx8910 You have presumed that every child killed in the womb is to be and will remain unwanted and/or unloved. I have known many who have lived very full and happy lives as the children of foster parents or as orphans. And I have known many that lived the opposite. If you are proposing we indiscriminately kill unborn children based on assumptions and flight of fancy you are living a delusional and inconsistent life. You would never apply such standards to other aspects of life. Have you actually watched the video and engaged these ideas? Or are you just here to rage?
Orion's Finest No. I presume that there ARE IN FACT babies right now as it is who are neglected. (As you just admitted). MY POSITION IS: A L L babies deserve not to be neglected. This greatly impacts society. I am looking at the reality of what ALL babies SHOULD BE at a minimum born into and what the overall outcome of this behavior will impact society.
Arguing that there are some that may have not been neglected does not refute my argument at all.
So you're here to rage then. It appears you dont understand the implications of your argument. If you can't see why it's wrong to kill an innocent human based on the fact that there are sad people in the world then this cannot be a productive discussion. Since you didn't answer my previous question, I'm going to assume you did not watch the video. I suggest you do so.
Orion's Finest If you can’t see why it’s wrong to allow babies to be birthed and not wanted and the impact this has on society, we can not have a productive discussion.
So, so good, as always. Love the way you tell it like it is, with such a gracious manner. God bless you and your ministry.
Babies dont use the mothers body,if you dont want to have a baby then be mature and smart and take the necessary precautions or for goodness sake dont have sex.
I always thought this way: Have sex responsibly, in a responsible relationship. If contraception fails, then okay, it's time to parent up!.
I agree but I avoid using this argument because the response will just be “what about rape cases” every time. Instead of saying “if you don’t want a baby be responsible” I just say “if you have a baby and your life is not in danger, you cannot kill it” and the warning that people should have sex responsibly is just implied.
@@alexandria1663 bc this is what scripture says? Or this is what you feel is right? Notice how Mike doesn’t use scripture to support his arguments here.
@@tookie36 I’m not sure I get the question. I use this strategy because it’s avoids the “what about rape cases” debate altogether. How to argue against abortion isn’t specifically outlined in scripture so I don’t know what you mean.
@@alexandria1663 what I’m trying to get at is that Christians aren’t using scripture for their argument. I think they have been used by political leaders to point to abortion as a voting issue instead of other major issues. The overwhelming majority of religious Jew are pro choice. They look to scripture and that is what they interpret. On the other hand Christians don’t point to scripture on this bc the arguments are way too weak
My dad was/is not a good person. My mom kept me! and My husband and kids are thankful for that!
This is the best; most well thought out and dispassionately rationally presented pro-life argument. I hope it reaches many pro-choice folks and the human rights of the unborn is brought home to them. Thanks for sharing Mike.
Helen Bonnett No, the opposite of pro choice is NOT pro life. One has to value life first to be pro life.
@@xxsageonexx8910 I was saying that Mike's video might move the pro-abortion/ pro-choice people to see the humanity and value of the life of babies in the womb and change their thinking so they will become pro-life in their thinking and their actions.
Helen Bonnett ALL babies deserve to be born to or adopted by loving stable caring wanting nurturing parent(s). Society as a whole deserves and needs this to create a happier more harmonious one. This is LIFE. Not some abstract biological view of what a bunch of cells may become. Life is more than existing. Destroying a bundle of cells is FAR less evil than preventing a baby from being wanted and loved and populating society with such neglected humans. There is FAR more at stake.
@@xxsageonexx8910 So how often do you tell foster kids that they would be better off if they had been aborted?
Tory Nickerson First of all, Any comparison to those who are already alive is a false equivalency.
Second, by mentioning the foster system you help prove my point.
Moron.
You are right, Mike. Moreover, when they are not born yet, they need MORE protection and even when they are born they need even more protection then any other developed human being.
Thanks for this. I was in tears just this morning about New Yorks abortion bill they have. I'm a mother of three and have in the past defended abortion saying "I could never do it but I can't judge someone else's decision. Obviously that changed once I honestly asked myself WHY I couldn't have an abortion myself....bc it's a baby no matter how you split the hairs. I also argued for very very early abortion bc it was the only way I thought I could justify that choice. Specifically bc in the first couple weeks of development the zygote includes cells for the placenta and whatnot therefore the cell was only different building blocks, not a baby. But that's wrong too bc under that justification, none of us are all human....bc I include hair cells and skin cells that will just be used and fall off...so finally I had to be honest with myself. Abortion, no matter how early, is wrong
Okay but don’t you think a ban on abortion is just going to worsen it? Expanded sex education would be far more effective in eliminating abortion because those women would never get pregnant in the first place. What will happen if RvW is overturned is that abortion rates will increase, the number of unlicensed physicians will increase, and as a result there will be more loss of life and greater suffering than if nothing was done in the courts at all. But of course, greater sex ed would violate conservative values about vanilla, heterosexual, postmarital sex, and we can’t have that.
They completely lied about the case that got abortion legalized on a federal level, making it a "right". Claimed she was gang raped, a crime so horrible that the emotional reaction could make people believe that you couldn't POSSIBLY force a woman to carry the child of such a traumatic event.
Then they lied about not knowing when life begins. EVERYONE, even a sophomore in high school, knows it begins at conception, that's when ALL the characteristics of what defines life, come into play, all the cell processes including growth and division.
After establishing that smokescreen to get people to accept it, they then pushed the woman's rights narrative for DECADES. Only after DECADES had passed and they could no longer keep up the ruse about the baby not being alive and human, did they finally admit that life begins at conception. But by then the damage was done, the people were so brainwashed into believing a woman's right to choose trumped the life of another, that fact no longer mattered. The people would have NEVER accepted such a monstrous belief when it initially got rubber stamped through SCOTUS. So, the plan worked!
Funny how the side that is always calling the other side Nazis is the very side that does exactly what the Nazis did, both in their rise to power and once they got in power.
Use violence to ascend to power, then dehumanized entire categories of people to allow for their wholesale slaughter.
America has killed 10X the numbers Hitler did.
I love that you put Embryology in here❤❤. People NEED to learn Anatomy & Physiology, because it proves life and that it each are individuals from conception and beyond. Heck in Embryology it gives rise to various tissues, organs, and systems. Mesothelioma, a cancer of the Connective Tissues in fact has root in Embryology. In development the Mesothelial cells are anything from your bones to muscles. Each of which have different functions which also create diffent tissues giving rise to differnt sysyems.
In the order of how development goes, in college[Anatomy] I learned this:
atom->molceule->cell->tissue->organ->system->organism.
The first things to develop per systems are the Circulatory and Nervous System.
Mike, tremendous job on this. Glory to God!
Look above, he didn't delete mine.
@@nastyHarry I hope not. I posted a respectful disagreement as well.
@@SuperExodus13 Ummm, I don't see it...
@@SuperExodus13 I don't see it.
Great video. It’s interesting to me that a lot of those whom are “PRO CHOICE” object to the death penalty but yet would kill an incident child it blows my mind. I Can honestly say that I felt my son’s presence within me within the first few weeks after conception. I felt him grow from almost the beginning.........now how could I kill such a precious gift.
Shaunalea 82 ALL babies deserve to be born to or adopted by loving stable caring wanting nurturing parent(s). Society as a whole deserves and needs this to create a happier more harmonious one. This is LIFE. Not some abstract biological view of what a bunch of cells may become. Life is more than existing. Destroying a bundle of cells is FAR less evil than preventing a baby from being wanted and loved and populating society with such neglected humans. There is FAR more at stake.
@@xxsageonexx8910 My God, this copypasta is ridiculous and insulting to ALL foster kids. If you were to poll foster kids, how many do you think would say they wish they had been aborted?
Your argument is that if a child is not born into a loving, stable, caring family then their life is not worth living and it is better to kill them in the womb. This is scary, dangerous, twisted thinking dressed up in language that makes it sound compassionate. So again I ask, how often do you tell foster kids that they would be better off if they had been aborted?
Tory Nickerson Ask them if they think they deserve to be wanted, in a STABLE, loving home and see what the polls say.
@@xxsageonexx8910 poll would be 100
% affirmative. What is your point? Are you saying that they WOULD prefer to be aborted if they can't be raised in a stable, loving home?
Another thing I'll NEVER get is how 99.9999% of Pro Choice Advocates will protest for Animal Rights, but they'll demand their right to murder the baby.
THE biggest reason NO true Christian can vote for a Pro Choice candidate , with a clear conscience.
I have a friend who used to be very pro life. Then she had a miscarriage her doctor referred to as a "spontaneous abortion". (She does not plan on going to her again.) She was very upset and still is but now she says things like "I'm pro life and pro choice", "miscarriage and abortion is pretty much the same thing" and "I don't want to bring a child into this world if abortion isn't allowed." I don't know what to do. She is a nice girl and it breaks my heart that she feels this way and also never really grieved for her baby.
Wow, that's such a tough topic to approach. Maybe you could mention gently to her that there is a difference between miscarriage and abortion in that she apparently did not intend for her child to die, whereas a selective abortion is done with the intent of killing a baby. Many women do suffer emotional consequences after having an abortion, however that does not change the fact that they intentionally killed their child, which differentiates them from women who have suffered miscarriages.
You may be able to help her find some consolation in that "spontaneous abortion" is simply a medical term used to describe a miscarriage and is not related to the practice of selective abortion. (Usually doctors will not use such terms for the sake of understanding and sensitivity with their patients, and the term is only used in paperwork.)
It's often difficult to find out why a baby is lost to a woman, but she may find comfort in that most early miscarriages are due to genetic disorders that are incompatible with life. Some women find this information to be both painful and healing, knowing that in the end their baby was not considered viable by the natural processes of her body or passed away naturally due to an issue with the babies biology. This can also be used to remind her that a majority of selective abortions are performed on healthy babies who would have survived and been born strong and healthy if not for the unnatural abortion.
If she hasn't grieved her child properly, maybe you can gently suggest she take action to do that. It may help if she can name her lost baby. You and your friend can host a personal funeral or remembrance ceremony together where she can choose a symbolic spot for a grave or even bury something she chooses to symbolize her baby.
Before any of this, it may be best to try to have a conversation where you really listen to her and try to understand why her views have changed. Once you understand you will be able to come up with effective and gentle arguments to her reasoning.
I pray that she will find her way back through healing because this sounds like a defensive response to protect her emotional wellbeing, rather than a genuine shift in viewpoints. Blessings to you both, I can't know the situation in depth so my advice may be completely useless, but I hope you can take at least one tidbit of help from it that can in turn be used to help your friend.
@@BasedZoomerI really really wish that in the medical world, they would stop using that term to describe miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, etc. Abortion is elective. Miscarriage is not. I realize that many medical terms are like this, but they don't need to use that word with it's heavy implication that a mother in that situation had a choice, when she does not. I had a stillborn baby, and I had no choice. The word has a meaning now that implies choice in the matter, so I wish they'd stop using it in cases where choice doesn't exist.
Bernard Nathanson became pro-life. The anti-abortion film "The Silent Scream" is his work. He died in 2011. TSS is well worth watching.
His books are excellent. He also became a baptized Catholic.
I wish you crazy psychos realized that an abortion is a simple five-minute procedure that lets a woman go about her normal life. She’s not going to burn in hell for all eternity because she didn’t want to give up her life to raise a child she doesn’t want in the first place.
@@jordanbernard1732 and your objection was just a simple ad hominem attack mixed with a euphemistic description of abortion. You didn’t respond to a single point made in the video, most of which came from medical doctors, some being pro choice. Sure, the mother can go about the rest of her life (assuming she doesn’t deeply regret her decision like many do), but the baby can’t. And if you watched the video you would know that it is undeniably a baby. But please continue to try and justify this to yourself.
And for the record, any Christian who is actually read on their beliefs won’t say a woman will go to hell for abortion. We actually encourage them to repent and turn to Christ because He will forgive them of their sins. You don’t go to hell just for your sins, You go to hell for rejecting Christ.
50:50 - An Amish woman in my community was pregnant and had cancer. She refused cancer treatment, gave birth, and died not too long after (her choice).
I think this question is that of a priority. Save Mom or Save Baby? When hubby and I first married, I told him the lives of our babies come before mine.
I never thought of the consequences of that but hubby having to raise our child without me would be very hard for him (he passes crying baby to me frequently because I'm the crying cure).
On the flip side, I've had my chance at life. Give Baby best possible chance to live and hope I can survive treatments later but if I don't, at least Baby can have life.
I hope ben shapiro watches this .
I put a link on his page for the last video. Hoping he responds and reaches out to mike.❤
Pretty sure Shapiro agrees with the Septuagint view of Exodus 21:22-23: Property vs. Person.
Hi👋
I'm from Hungary! 🇭🇺
Tomorrow in my school we are going to argue about abortion.
I'm pro-life but my classmates are pro-choice so I came here to prepare and listen what Mike says about it. Pray for them, perhaps some of my mates will change their view.
I hope it went well
It can be really hard to convince someone when they are purely fueled by emotion. Hopefully some of your classmates changed their minds.
Or hopefully they changed his mind.
Ectopic tubal pregnancies do happen. It happened to a young couple I knew back in college, and they didn’t need to operate to save the mothers life. That’s ok. Tragic, but morally correct.
4:42 Actually, no, there's nothing weird in wanting abortion rare, because abortions are potentially invasive procedures, procedures with rare but possible side effects. If there are ways to manage pregnancy issues with lesser side effects, then, rationally speaking, we should push for these being used more.
And contraception seems to have even less side effects than abortion.
So it is perfectly rational to want abortion safe, legal, and rare.
It's the same reason surgical operations on the spine are rare, even when people have back pain.
@@PierreThierryKPH This analogy is weak. Abortions are relatively low risk for the mothers. It is performed in an outpatient, clinic setting. Back surgery carries significantly more risk than the typical abortion procedure, in addition to costing significantly more.
@@sandrahanson8316 it's a number's game: if you do a billion times a procedure that has 1 to a million odds of being lethal, you'll still kill a thousand times. So anyone really rational will want any invasive medical procedure as rare as possible.
Human from conception.
what about using bitter water as stated in the bible?
I really like that he didn’t use the Bible. Non believers tend to dismiss Christians when they throw the Bible at the other person.
Appreciated the quotes on both sides, the unemotional rational look at the facts.
Who is here in early July 2022 where the US Supreme Court ruled on the Dobbs case, overturning Roe V. Wade? Now the voters in each state will decide on abortion law, by state.
I'm against abortion....Thank you for this teaching....God bless
“God bless.” Just like God allowed men to discover they could abort a fetus in the first place!
Careful with the Abe Liincoln quotes..... he didn't enact the Emancipation Proclamation until two years into the War, and it was only applicable to the slaves in Southern States. He also said if he could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do so.
But he also said if he could free every slave without collapsing the union he would do so.
Context matters, the point he was trying to make was that he was in a tough spot and at that point there was nothing that could be done for the sake of the greater good without incurring a negative outcome. The country was already so divided a war was inevitable, no matter what he did.
The reason the emancipation proclamation was for the southern states was because the northern states had by and large already abolished slavery, they didn't need to be told "hey you need to abolish slavery and free your slaves, I don't care if you've already done so."
I mean, why would he tell the north, who were already fighting and dying for abolition and for the preservation of the union, that they needed to abolish slavery? Had they not already proved their passion for abolition?
Lincoln may have been a flawed man, as we are all flawed and fall short of the glory of God, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the good he did. I mean, he was literally murdered for it, if that's not enough I don't know what is.
Hi Pastor Mike,
I’ve been thinking about the topics of abortion, marriage, and other issues that are politically hot buttons. I’m wondering if pushing for Christian values in politics actually means I’m fighting for a theocracy rather than a democracy. If we believe in separation of church and state, is it wrong to try and subject everyone to God’s standards?
If same-sex partners want to get married and have the same rights as me, does it really matter? My view is that it’s wrong, but for those who are not even believers, is it right for me to vote for policies that would subject them to biblical values? Even those who claim to be Christian, do we have the right to fight against how they want to live? They’re ultimately judged by God, not us.
I view abortion as murder, but on the other hand, we are overpopulated, and I can’t guarantee that the child will have a good life. Fighting for EVERY child to be born might actually be condemning them to a horrible existence. If I believe that those aborted babies go to heaven, couldn’t we argue that it’s best to let the abortions happen? Wouldn't it be a blessing to bypass this life and go straight to heaven?
This is an extremely surprising viewpoint coming from a (presumably) Protestant Christian. 99% seem comfortable with not only voting heavily to Christian values but also for actively sabotaging the democratic aspects of our republic in order to accomplish their goals of a theocratic dictatorship. And your stance on abortion is one of my two main rebuttals to prolifers, the other being “banning abortion will not decrease abortion rates but will increase death and suffering, increase sex ed if you hate abortion”.
The thing is, we can't know that child's future. Therefore, we cannot assume the child will have a terrible life, and that death would be better. Also, even if the child were to have a really hard life, that doesn't mean death would be better. There are people who have went through Hell and back and are so grateful to be alive. There are people who have found beauty and meaning despite the pain and hardships they've been through. There are those who help others in a special way who are going through the same things because they went through it and know how it is. God can take what the enemy meant for evil and turn it for good. And also, even if death were a better option, someone else should not choose that on their behalf when they cannot speak for themselves. Yes, Heaven is a much better place than earth, but we don't use this reasoning with people who have already been born, for example, a four year old dying. I believe that four year old would go to Heaven. But I don't believe I have the right to end their life because they may reject God down the line and not go to Heaven. That's not my decision to make. It's God's alone. If He wanted to take that person to Heaven right then and there, He would. If He did not, that means He still wants them to live in this world. Also we don't know who will accept Jesus or not because we don't know the future. Abortion isn't specifically a Christian issue. It is a moral one.
Laws are specifically for the lawless and unrighteous. You can read this in 1 Timothy 1.
Separation of church and state is an often misused quote. The founders of this nation had lived a life under a monarchy, where the state was heavily involved in the church. So, it follows that they did not want that here. That phrase is meant to keep the state out of the church. As far as same sex marriage, I disagree with it because marriage is literally of the church. They can have civil union, as far as I'm concerned, for legal purposes, financial purposes, but, when it comes to marriage, that's a different thing altogether because marriage is a part of religion and the church. Marriage is not, or should not be, a simple civil union. It's a bit more than that, and sanctioned by God. If we followed the logic, or lack of, of "live and let live", then should we use the same logic in the case of murder, rape, theft? We have made many laws against many things that people simply shouldn't do. Many are based in biblical principles. That doesn't make us a theocracy by any stretch.
Great video. This is a subject that family and friends, as well as myself, are very passionate about. I hope I will be able to use these points to bring others to the truth about what abortion really is. Once again, thank you and great video.
21:56 The women, duh.
Also, "because it turns out there are two different people involved in the abortion, there's a women, and there's a child" WRONG. There are three people involved in the abortion, the women, the child, and the abortionist. I know I'm nit picking, but I wanted to point that out.
Wrong...the father also
My friend had to get surgery for an encoptic pregnancy and it broke her heart cuz it was her first child
Dear Mike. I am a humanist. I think your heart is in the right place and I am glad you care about human rights. I am glad you think children is innocent and not born sinful. Abortion is a hard and difficult topic. The best thing is to prevent the situation accuring through proper sex education, family planning and easy access/education in how to use birthcontrol. Also the women that go through the pregnacy strong economic support and safety net all the years til the child becomes an adult. You forget the rights and life of the woman. With your logic the unborn child has more rights than the born.
Northern Light - Both have rights...I think the difference is the nature of those rights. Right to life v right to not being inconvenienced/income/education etc. Can any right trump the right to life?
@@davidjennings1256 not any right but a persons body are their own and for women its their right to control what they want to use their life and body for. If we should force women against their will to give birth and risk their life/health then we should also force the father to donate a kidney, heart or other organs if the child should need it. Even if it means the death of the person. The peril and sacrifice should be equal.
@@northernlight8857 If they have equal right then, not being killed is more important then having to give birth. Especially if it's not the case of rape and the woman chose to have sex.
@@guitarplayer2032 i see your point. The only thing is that childbirth is today still heavily impacting the womans body. It will never be the same and many get ailments . Some die. Its risky
@@guitarplayer2032 And some say that consent to sex isnt consent to pregnantcy
This is the best and my favorite video on the internet. Thank you Mike. May God bless you and your ministry. Please never give up. People like me need your videos 🙏🇺🇸
Hey Mike
Been finding your videos super helpful especially in regards to the JWs and how to love them ect, I’m super passionate about the topic of abortion as well and I find myself getting super emotional and overwhelmed because it is devastating 😭 but I thank you for your video. Love the quotes 🙏🙌🏼
Trying to figure out the best way to reach people about this issue, thanks for the information.
May the Lord bless your ministry and keep you in check.
Where are you a JW? I was. I left the organization because of false prophecy, changing, child molestation and not reporting it to the proper authorities. There are over 30,000 child abuse claims against JW’s and it’s all covered up.
As an 8 year old watching this I’m offended that you joked about my frontal lobe 😂😂
It is admirable that you are tackling such controversial and heated topics at such a young and impressionable age. Keep on and know the Lord is with you in whatever you do. :) Have a lovely day/night.
I agree it is murder, and amoral. Living in a nation of diverse beliefs and understandings means compromise even if some of us feel it amoral and all we can do it try and sway government via vote, lobby, speech, press... and choose to contine(and pressure) or move away from a nation you so adimately disagree with.
@Stephen Burrows just a little help with terms. Amoral is defined as without morals or morality. I think you meant to say immoral which would be bad morals. It helps for the occasion when you get the person that tries to hang you by any and all words that you say or use.
@@kennethgee2004 i guess it matters if they are or not true atheists or not lol but yes thanks for the correction 😉
There were people who said the same thing about slavery. Harming others should be illegal
You know... Mike... I came to you hoping you would have something... scriptural to say about this topic.
22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Now [e] is "has a miscarriage." So in OT law, if a guy basically causes an abortion it is NOT treated the same as if a regular person has died.
Look... it is possible for reasonable people to disagree about whether an abortion should be legal. I don't like abortion at all. But I don't think it should be illegal. And if you aren't going to use scripture right off the bat to make your case that you are right... what on Earth are you doing?
Also... the problem with outlawing abortion is that the problem of so many unwanted children is not because women love sex so much and are going out of their way to get pregnant and have abortions... the problem is with men, not women. Look- you want to outlaw abortion, fine. Make every pro-birth family have to adopt a kid. Make men who cause unwanted pregnancies get a vasectomy. And do something about family leave issues and all the problems women have in going through with a pregnancy. You aren't solving the real problem by outlawing abortion. You are just creating more problems that will have to be solved later by people ill-equipped to solve them in an inhospitable environment where they get little help with dealing with the new baby. Also, while you are at it, make it illegal for unmarried men to have sex without using a condom. All of these ideas are needed in a country that thinks women should be forced to carry their baby to term. A LOT of unwanted pregnancies could have been prevented if men were just willing to use a condom. Women love it when the guy uses a condom. It's men that don't like them, and THAT is the real reason so many abortions happen in this country... BECAUSE MEN DON'T LIKE USING CONDOMS.
Hey thought police, it turns out that addressing the issue of abortion using human rights and reason without referencing The Bible is a thing you're allowed to do.
You say the problem of outlawing abortions is the problem of unwanted children. No human loses their rights simply because they are not wanted.
Outlawing abortion does solve part of the real problem inasmuch as it decreases the number of abortions that occur. This is already happening real time in America right now. Of course it does not solve all the problems. But just because a solution is not completely comprehensive ( No solution is) Does not mean it must be rejected.
@@moretac Why the hell are you calling me The Thought Police?!?
It just turns out the Bible has something to say on the topic. Wouldn't it behoove a pastor to consider the Bible before spouting his own opinions on the matter? He LOVES the Bible... why doesn't he use it in situations like this? Because the Bible's opinion is apparently irrelevant when it appears to have a slightly different opinion on the matter?
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, if you are going to make an argument that other Christians should follow, obviously our faith is based on the Bible, and we should consult that first and foremost. Why even have the Bible if we're just going to say what we want to say? Seriously. Do you listen to Pastor Mike for his opinions that are solely based on what he wants to believe, or do you listen to him because his beliefs are backed by the Bible? It's not "the thought police" that says you should base your beliefs on scripture. Any person who wants to follow Jesus should base what they believe on scripture. As someone who follows Jesus, I consider the Bible to be key to my faith in Christ. I don't know where YOU are getting your inputs on how you follow Jesus, but the Bible is pretty foundational to my beliefs, and if it disagrees with mainstream Christianity, I got to follow the Bible rather than the crowds. Go ahead and follow the crowds though- that's your prerogative.
Most of your points in the final paragraph are about preventing conception: Vasectomies, Unmarried men having sex, men not using condoms. But this is illogical since the government has a right to prevent murder but does not have a right to prevent sex between consenting adults. Also, you seem to be unaware just how effective hormonal birth control is.
I believe there are 2 layers of problem: on on the societal level and th other on the individual level.
Karl Yes!
ALL babies deserve to be born to or adopted by loving stable caring wanting nurturing parent(s). Society as a whole deserves and needs this to create a happier more harmonious one. This is LIFE. Not some abstract biological view of what a bunch of cells may become. Life is more than existing. Destroying a bundle of cells is FAR less evil than preventing a baby from being wanted and loved and populating society with such neglected humans. There is FAR more at stake.
The abortion debate is the major reason I came back to Christ. This world is scary
So happy i found your channel :)
Hi Mike, I think I may have not understood the concept of what you meant in 49:59 . “Don’t pray for them.” I genuinely believe you didn’t mean anything bad from it I may have just misunderstood the context so some clarity would be appreciated!
We love you, Winger!!!
What about those children that end up living on the streets because their parents didn't wanted them but were forced to have them?
Carla - My issue with your logic is that you are saying the child was better off dead than living on the streets ?
I grew up in a very harsh home. There was a lot of pain but I am still grateful to be alive! As you go about your day you probably interact with several people who have dealt with terrible upbringings but that does not mean they deserve death. That would be like going into an orphanage and deciding all those children would be better off if they weren't created.
I do agree we can be better about showing love towards the sweet mothers, families , and children that are neglected in this world. Absolutely! Yet I disagree that you have to have a wonderful childhood to deserve basic human rights to exist.
@@CarmenH-e3l I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough but this is not my logic, I made the question because that's the argument that I sometimes encounter with some people and I wanted a clear perspective for an appropriate answer.
Have you seen that movie, Goshnell: America's biggest serial killer? It was well done and extremely accurate to the events. Whatever you believe on the issue it should really open your eyes to the issue and what goes on. Its not about women's health....It's the murder of infants out of convenience and greed. Any other point is only an attempt to reframe the debate. The issue is clear. It was a well made picture. ❤ @mikewinger
Your timing couldn’t be better! This is a sensitive issue for mother’s who had an abortion in the past and have since come to Christ. This comment is not to you. Be blessed in knowing you’ve been forgiven, you’ll be in the presence of God, and no doubt, see your loved one(s) one day.
But for all others who think abortion is the right thing to do, you should meet my 34 y/o birth-daughter, a wife and mother of four, whom I was able to spend time with for the second time on Jan 12th...she was two days old the last time I held her.
Along with Christ, if she couldn’t change your mind, no one ever will. 🕊
This is useful Mike, as I'm trying to argue for pro life at the moment. Being in Northern Ireland we recently had an abortion clause added out of our government's control allowing for any reason and our government have been discussing and arguing about it ever since (thankfully it's a little more obstructive now but still not strong enough as it allows for downs syndrome or even cleft lip). Our pro-life charities are hard at work with polls and I have been discussing with strangers over FB about this issue. I have found no good arguments from them but they are closed to what I'm saying and then attack my integrity saying I'm a bad Christian judging others. I'm not bothered by this and know how to respond, but how can you get enough people to listen to allow for change?
I'm from Northern Ireland too and I find it so sad that my country is now being defiled by abortion. Particularly that we have the most liberal laws in the UK.
For anyone who doesn't know:
In the rest of the UK there is abortion for a wide range of grounds up to 24 weeks unless for disability in the foetus or health of the mother. That is up to birth
In Northern Ireland it is on demand for 12 weeks, wide range of grounds up to 24 weeks and up to birth for disability and health of the mother.
It could have been on demand for 14 weeks, but thankfully that didn't happen.
Certain birth controls are meant to stop fertilization but sometimes end up ejecting an embryo. Be educated in birth control when you decide to use it. I’ll be back to edit this once I refresh myself on which ones, and share that here.
Thank you! This is really well put and thought out. Religion aside... Abortion is morally wrong. Period.
If abortion is so wrong, why was it even invented? Blame the men who discovered they could remove a fetus. Don’t blame us for getting it done.
@@jordanbernard1732 indeed it is invented, but it doesn't mean that you can ride in on who invented it- knowing too well that it is wrong!
What about cases of rape or incest?
(I am prolife, not prochoice! I agree with pretty much all of your argument, just saw this little mistake.) The rare-part in 'save, legal and rare', does make sense if you want to make that people won't 'need' abortions. (Which doesn't really make sense, because no one actually needs abortion.) Like when you said that you don't want pulling out teeth to be rare, you could want that to be rare, focussing on preventing the tooth from dying.
The unfortunate thing is that even making abortion illegal does not create a value of the life of the other within people, does not create love. You take away one evil here and another evil will replace it. We cannot turn the unloving and selfish into the loving and nurturing. So, all I see is broken, sinbound people being the reason why we have to discuss this in the first place.
There is also the issue that it is always a problem for the woman. Men can talk a lot about that. At the end of the day, they are not pregnant. Historically women have been shamed a lot because they had extramarital sex (willing or unwilling). Once you are pregnant everyone can tell. For men it is always hidden, noone can tell, noone shames them over them losing their virginity. That shaming can turn people bitter and create fear. And I think they are right now studying how fears can also be inherited because traumatic events change your DNA or so. Even I - although I am married and settled and everything is fine - have to battle a weird panic of getting pregnant. I asked God for peace and it's good now. The fear is gone. But I understand what it feels like.
Also, I think, the problem is not realizing that abortion is a way of killing. It is just a legalized form of killing. The same goes for war, for example. War is the legalized murder of your fellow human beings. Why do Christians in America discuss abortion that much, but are happy to join the army? Why is the soldier who went and killed hundreds celebrated as a hero and the woman who killed one regarded as a murderer? Double standards. Another form of legalized killing is killing intruders on your property. And a lot of people have guns for that reason. More double standards.
kadda1212 I just have one question for you. As an EMT/Firefighter I am trained on many different aspects of life saving treatments and one of the areas of study is dealing with pregnant women who are involved in a trauma or medical emergency. My question for you is that if you believe that it is not a baby and that it is your choice to terminate the child then why is it that if I have a pregnant patient it is considered two patients (both mother and unborn baby)? Why is it also if a pregnant woman dies it is considered two deaths (both mother and unborn baby)? Why is it If a pregnant woman is killed in any way then the person who killed them is charged with double homicide (both mother and unborn baby)? The laws state in all of these aspects that there is two separate people both the mother and the unborn child.
And also a person who joins the military is helping protect the country from foreign and domestic threats and if you kill an intruder you are protecting yourself from a threat so unless the unborn baby is a physical threat to your life then your argument is null and void. If you wanted to say that an abortion should still be allowed if the unborn baby is a physical threat to the mothers life then I would have agreed with you.
@@cr9636 If you think that I am pro-choice then you have simply misunderstood me. I am against abortion. I recognize an unborn child as a human being. I am merely looking at the debate pro life vs. pro choice, and looking historically at how part of our culture evolved to radically accept abortion. I am trying to look at the big problem, the lack of love, the selfishness...
So, read what I wrote again, and don't assume I am trying to defend abortion morally. I am explaining it and pointing out moral double standards that some people have.
@@cr9636 I could say that people subjectively decide what they consider threatening. I would say that a lot of wars that were waged in world history were not as a means of defense against some threat. But the motivation was some other: power, greed, etc. Then soldiers get fed with propaganda to believe they are doing something good. In the end it remains a dirty business and a legalized form of killing your fellow human beings.
Also, there are other ways of protecting your own life apart from killing whoever is threatening you.
To me, you defending these things is just as weird as when I listen to people defending abortion.
The question is, is killing a human ever good? I don't think so. I think as people who are set free from sin we should find other ways of dealing with threats.
@@kadda1212 I agree the problem of this world is that we are missing love more specifically we are missing the love of our creator, because we as humans choose sin (evil as you said). But this is an issue that's too big for us to solve... Because this world is ruled by evil. And when God saw this he sent his only Son to help us get away from sin and evil and save us. His death is the true sign off how big the fathers love for us.
An yet this evil world is blind to notice it. They don't want the light because than they have to realize how dark they are. But the only way to defeat evil is to spread love to tell people that there's an other way and show them that God is love. But don't be surprised if they'll hate you for it...
I totally get your point but you can't fight evil by yourself... You need to first accept love who is God into your heart.
God bless you and I'm glad you realised the truth :)
How can you miss this? Abortion is wrong because - human rights. vs. Abortion is wrong because - the Bible said humans are made in the image of God, to destroy that is to violate God's image in another person, and more simply DO NOT MURDER. To do so is to violate God's command. I think, that if you can't see this relation as a CHRISTIAN PASTOR you should be ashamed. "My case right now for this issue of abortion IS NOT BASED UPON THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. Now it is consistent with the Christian faith but it's based upon human rights as being [a] valuable thing." 1:45 If you don't start with the Bible as God's word as the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY then you're saying something else (in this case your reasoning and knowledge Pastor Winger) usurps what God has said. HATH GOD SAID! Please bring Sye Ten Bruggencate back on to help you understand this fundamental concept.
@DJ you act like all those people were innocent, when the Bible clearly states from our conception that we were wicked and enemies of God. Where did they take child wives? The Israelites were commanded to kill the Canaanites (which they didn't btw) because they were supposed to be separated from the wickedness of the people in the land, by that I mean child sacrifice. I don't see what the purpose is with drawing Roman Catholics into this?
@Mike Winger, I hope you understand I don't hate you. I enjoy listening. I just think you can do a lot better
Hi pastor Mike thank you for this video glory to God. My husband and I went through ectopic pregnancy earlier this year. The doctor had to give me a shot to kill the baby that was growing in my right tube and I’ve been so conflicted about this because It really does feel like I willingly killed an innocent life. I would have chosen to die if there was even a slight a possibility that the baby would survive. I’m glad that someone asked that question and you answered so thoughtfully. God heard my prayers and answered through this video today. Thank you again. ✝️✝️✝️
I pray God blesses you and heals your mother heart. I'm so glad you found comfort thru that video. I was lucky to go thru 4 "regular" pregnancies, but allways with a feeling of fear that such a drama could happen (or a miscarriage) and so relieved and thankfull it didn't. So that I think I can (a little) understand... Num 24:26
Mike thank you for sharing your gifts! So refreshing. I want to attend your church.
The people that deny that it’s even a human (usually they mean person) makes me shake my head. They literally have to lie to themselves justify that they aren’t killing human beings.
BB2K 7 What species is it?
BB2K 7 You didn’t answer my question, what species is it? You’re a bunch of cells too. What is the one thing that makes something uniquely human that can not be contributed to any other thing?
@BB2K 7 "ball of cells" isn't a species. Sentience makes something human, so does that mean dogs are human in your view?
The person you are arguing with, BB2K 7, deleted all their comments. So I can't even see how bad their position was.
Xeno Solarus “a fetus isn’t a baby...it’s a bunch of cells...it has to be sentient...” Something like that
The argument that abortion is morally wrong, in my opinion, unequivocally stands true.
However, even if this is totally agreed upon, what do we do with women who simply object to carry and give birth to a child? The people I have encountered argue that even if abortion is killing a life and wrong, it is somehow just as, if not more, wrong to force a woman to host the new developing human being against her will, from a human rights perspective.
Pro-choice people I know have said they are pro-choice because they believe that a woman’s choice to kill the human being inside of her is the right they support in favour of the supporting the fact that this new human being has a right to be born and live a life. The fact that the right to choose to kill someone is somehow supported than someone’s right to not be killed. How can I make this case to those who truly believe that?
What if you were put in the situation where a lapse in judgement on your part (or a simple accident) resulted in, say, a comatose person's life being dependent on sharing the functions of your organs for 9 months? Not only that, but after those 9 months, the person regained consciousness and you were required to either financially/emotionally/educationally support them for the next 18+ years, or turn them over to the state to attempt to provide that support?
What case would you make to justify forcing someone to go through all of that against their will, when the alternative is to let the comatose person die, having never regained consciousness?
Did you hear about NY's bill?
yes! Barbaric and now dumbo Cuomo wants to abolish the death penalty in New York state. Hey dumbo start with abortion!
It's important to distinguish between undercutting defeaters and rebutting defeaters. There are two undercutting defeaters available from a secular POV, another one available for Christians too, and two rebutting defeaters which I also believe are available to Christians.
First of all, we can challenge the existence of human rights as some inviolable code set in stone. The only way to try to ground human rights is to adopt deontological ethics, so that's an underlying assumption you need to justify first, because otherwise, if you have a different moral theory like rule utilitarianism for example, you can make the case that human rights are just like any other law, and therefore should be formulated and modified in accordance to what benefits society most in general (then you would basically have to justify how banning abortion benefits society more). The second one is to accept the existence of rights, but question that "human rights" as they are currently formulated are the true rights. This opens the possibility that the true correct ones have some qualifier that allows for @bortion, and the pro-lifer needs to first justify why they think human rights as they are currently formulated are the true correct ones.
The third undercutting defeater (this one is available to Christians too) is to point out that there's a difference between moral permissibility and what ought to be legal. For example, cheating on your wife or getting drunk may be immoral/sinful, but we can still agree that they should carry no legal punishment. The Bible doesn't really say that we should strive to make these things illegal, only that they are immoral. Likewise, forgetting to turn on your headlights while driving at night may not be immoral/sinful, but we can agree that it should carry legal repercussions. This shows they are two separate things, so the pro-lifer needs to appeal to something more than just morality/sinfulness to reach the conclusion that we should make it illegal. They need to provide the criteria for something to justifiably be made illegal and show how @bortion fits this definition, and of course, they need to justify the criteria too.
Now for the rebutting defeaters (available for Christians too), The first one is to say that the criteria for making something justifiably illegal is basically a political rule utilitarianism (rule utilitarianism applied to legality as opposed to ethics). So basically, a law should only be implemented if it maximizes satisfaction and reduces suffering overall in society. If we allow abortions, we prevent women from dying by getting self induced and underground abortions. If we ban abortions, we allow for more of these women to die, but we _may_ prevent more fetuses from dying (we actually don't, but I'll get to that in my next argument). There is a dichotomy here regarding which to prevent, and we need to chose whichever one most likely maximizes satisfaction/reduces suffering overall in society. We have good evidence showing a fetus can't feel pain prior to 5 months as it lacks a nervous system, nor does it have a brain developed enough to feel distress, and we have good evidence showing correlation between brain state and mind, so we can also conclude that it has no will to violate at that stage. On the other hand, a woman dying by attempting to get an @bortion will feel pain and distress, and she has a will. It is clear then that we ought to prioritize the women over the fetuses if we want to maximize satisfaction and minimize suffering. So we can conclude that @bortion (prior to when the fetus can feel pain) should be legal, even if we think it's immoral/sinful to have one.
My second rebuttal is that all research shows that banning @bortion doesn't minimize abortions, it just sends them underground. This means that even if any suffering was inflicted during an @bortion (which I argued above that there is none), it would remain the same regardless of the ban. The only difference is that there is more with the ban, because it also involves more women dying. So again, we can conclude that allowing it reduces suffering, and we shouldn't ban it. Mike claimed that we couldn't trust the numbers in the research because of difficulty obtaining the data and some methodology errors that have been corrected, but it's not as questionable when you consider there are similar surveys for use of illegal substances which have results that seem to accurately describe their use in real life. People are also more likely to DENY having had an underground @bortion than to admit it, so the numbers could even be larger. Even if a study had errors in its methodology, that doesn't extend to all the other studies that have found similar results. In any case, it is the best evidence we have at this point, and since this is not a matter in which we can remain neutral, it seems most reasonable to make a choice based on this. Mike also appealed to morality to claim that we shouldn't help these women if they are killing fetuses, but my third undercutting defeater and my first rebuttal address this, because immoral doesn't necessarily equal "ought to be illegal," and you need more than a moral argument to arrive to that conclusion, namely, you need to show that the law you're proposing actually maximizes satisfaction/reduces suffering in society (and fetuses simply do not suffer). So again, you can believe it's immoral (based on the bible or whatever other moral code) while still believing it should be legal.
Your argument is deeply flawed. You are predicting future satisfaction and future suffering. However you conveniently decide to ignore all of the future satisfaction that every single aborted fetus loses. The absolute Quantity of satisfaction lost by the much larger group of aborted fetuses Over the course Their future lives far outweighs any other factor in your equation. Still, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to lay out your thoughts.
Just gonna say, since I didn't read all of your novel, and stopped when I got to this particular part, that one would never use that logic when it comes to murder in general. We would never say that making murder illegal only leads to "underground" murder. Of course, it does lead to more underground, or illegal murder, because all murder is illegal. So if one makes something illegal, then all cases of it are then "underground " or illegally done. As far as getting drunk, it's not illegal but drunk driving is, because it can take the life of an innocent person who had nothing whatsoever to do with the mistake of getting drunk. Cheating in marriage does not usually lead to death of an innocent person, though it possibly can through murder which is already illegal.
@@moretacIn terms of what is good, the avoidance of future suffering outweighs the possibility of future satisfaction for the non existent. Think about Mars. We can say that it's a good thing that there aren't any beings there who are suffering. If there were sentient beings like us there, and they were constantly experiencing a ton of suffering, we would be saddened and think it to be very unfortunate. But we don't look at Mars and feel deeply saddened by all the pleasure that some non existent beings are missing out on. These non existent beings are, after all, non existent, so they don't really long for any pleasure or satisfaction.
@@Crystal-iy4si My point regarding being drunk and divorce is that they are both things that the Bible says are sinful/immoral, and yet, people should still have the freedom to do those. What they could lead to by adding other factors like driving is completely irrelevant to my point. Basically, immorality/sinfulness ≠ ought not be legal.
I'm going to be charitable with your murder objection, as it's formulated in an odd manner. My point is not that there will be more underground abortions than there are currently. My point is that the number of abortions will stay the same regardless of if it's legal or not.
The difference between murder and abortion is that moving abortions underground has additional suffering involved, as it means more women dying from improper procedures. More women dying is bad of society, and if we want to minimize suffering, we should prioritize them. Moving murders underground doesn't add additional suffering.
@@jd2981 I'm not talking about non-existent people. I'm talking about already conceived but unborn babies.
Would you please address the issue of rape, molestation that results in pregnancy.
It happens 32,000 times a year that rape ends in pregnancy. These 32,000 end up giving birth, because they choose to have the child.
Then the rapist can file for child rights against the woman, so he can insert his control over the woman. Then the courts hand over a child to the rapist or molester. STUPID BEYOND REASON. No rapist or molester should ever get custody rights to a Child.
These are real happenings and documented. In the USA a woman is raped every 2 minutes......
I personally, think rape and molestation is not taken seriously and disreguarded, because women are not respected in society.
So, how about we work on dealing with the rapist and molesters.
I have looked and looked for the biblical response for rapist or molesters. The only one instance I found was in reference to King Davis.
Tamar is a figure described in 2 Samuel in the Hebrew Bible. In the biblical narrative, she is the daughter of King David, and sister of Absalom. In 2 Samuel 13, she is raped by her half-brother Amnon
Amnon was also David's eldest son. After the rape, Absalom waited two years, and then avenged Tamar by sending his servants to murder a drunken Amnon at a feast, to which Absalom had invited all the king's sons (2 Samuel 13).
So, why is there no accounting for rape or molestation? The only person I found in the bible that stood against rape is Absalom. It is as if this despicable is ignored, it is something that bothers me a great deal. King David, ignored the issue with his daughter, she was held in shame for the actions of a rapist! He did nothing, then his son Absalom took it in his own hands. So why is rape not delt with in the bible? Why does it appear to excuse this behavior in men? I am asking because it bothers me and I want to know if I am not finding scriptures to have a better view than what I have presently.
My personal view, is rape is a death penalty offence, and at the very least given a colostomy bag for life. When a rape victim is raped, they have a life sentence, and the predator walks free with little if any time served.
This has gone on far too long. Women are blamed for the actions of rapist. I am very tired of this ignorant attitude.
It appears to me that the arguments here against abortion rest on the idea of intrinsic human worth and value, predicated on a deotalogical notion of morality rooted in the Christian concept of God. But this may be unpersuasive to anyone who doesn't share the same notion of intrinsic human value. What would you say to a utilitarian, or a consequentialist, or a moral reletivist with whom your arguments would hold little weight?
Jared Craig moral relativism is trash. how can they say things are bad or evil like that killing and racism are wrong they can’t. because “morality is relative” gross.
Brad Bowers literally
I'm a secular agnostic and I'm also pro-life.
Watch the rest of his videos and you might just become a believer in Truth 🙌🏽🙏🏽 awesome to hear you're pro life tho!
At 39:30 ish, in the context of a conception by rape, that its not ok to kill a child for the sin of the father.
How does this principle apply to your understanding of the Genesis story Mike?
Genuinely curious :-)
The same way you did romans can you do other books of the new testament?
Also could u do a video about if it was possible for Jesus to sin.
Satan tried to tempt Jesus into committing Gluttony which is eating bread when Jesus was starving
So consistent! Thanks.
God bless your work Mike!
Mike, can you please help me for a better understanding of expdus 21:22? It seems to support the devaluation of life before birth ... I'm sure there's something I'm missing.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16
Only Jesus Christ is the way to Heaven and be saved from hell.
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Romans 5:8
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6
Have you believed in your heart that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins, was buried, and rose from the grave? You must believe that Jesus is the one who paid for your sins and rose again to be saved from eternal damnation and instead go to heaven
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Romans 10:9
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7
Jeremiah Tassinari Can you tell me EXACTLY Why I should be concerned with avoiding hell?
@@xxsageonexx8910 Because if it exists, you should avoid it. Lets talk on a google hangout about it dude, its easier to talk there
Jeremiah Tassinari I don’t do hangouts. And don’t take that as a victory, I have been interacting on here with Christians for years and you all exude the same dishonest behaviors. It should be easy to answer. WHY should I be concerned avoiding hell?
@@xxsageonexx8910 Its simple, because you will go to hell if you do not believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins, was buried, and rose from the grave.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16
Jeremiah Tassinari Ok. I don’t believe in any of that. So what? What are the actual consequences?
Mike, I love the logical argument you make here. Very well thought out, and I completely agree. But this is Bible Thinker...can you address the issue in Numbers 5:11-31 that says a woman can be cursed into miscarriage for adultery? Would this practice call into question the right to life and condone abortion? Or am I misunderstanding the phrase "causing her abdomen to swell and her womb to miscarry"?
I have a study Bible that actually addresses these verses. The keynote says when a married woman was suspected of sexual infidelity, God's personal judgment was to be sought in the matter. The punishment for such unfaithfulness was death (Lev 20:10). This passage describes the method by which the priest was to ask God to reveal whether an accused woman was guilty or innocent. Hope that helped a bit! Interesting separate little factoid I recently learned. Only adultery and murder did not have any sacrifice instructions out of all the mosaic laws. The point of the sacrifice was to get forgiveness from God, so only God's grace would give forgiveness for these in the OT. So yeah, God really hates adultery and really hates murder.
woman always talk about her right to her body but thats the point! Its NOT just her body!!!!!!!!! wake up
Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.
Great video, I agree with you, you have to go to extreme lengths to justify abortion
But the extremes like rape and life risk is too rare to justify the others like inconvenience
Or you could just not want to give up your life, body, time, energy, sanity, career, hobbies, personal time, etc.
I'm hoping for an answer because I sincerely would like to learn even though I'm pretty late to the video here.
I believe that a human being is only fully human when he/she gains consciousness as an embryo at 22 gestation weeks and after, which is why the limit of legal abortion at 22-24 weeks in many countries makes sense. If the definition of a human is to have human DNA and to be "alive", is it then also wrong for Christians to switch off life support for a person who is brain dead since a brain dead person's body cells can be kept alive? Is switching off life support of a brain dead person or aborting an unconscious embryo wrong even though doing the opposite could surely cause many other's to struggle badly? ("struggle" being either financially, emotionally, socially etc.).
You can't justify murder because Letting someone live means someone else has to struggle. Consciousness is also a very random and artificial point at which to give people rights. How do you even know exactly when consciousness starts?
@moretac8l37 Thank you for the reply! I guess that's a question for me to think about. Could extend to some kind of ethics too
Are you morally allowed to kill unconscious people?
@Moqlnkn thanks for the reply. That question needs to be clarified. Can an embryo before 22 gestation weeks be considered a person? Can a brain-dead person be considered a person? If so, what makes them people?
Because if they are conscious people, then no, i do not think people should kill them. But if not, taking away life support or aborting them can actually have positive impact on people (for example, females who did not ask to be impregnated from rape)
@Moqlnkn maybe something else to consider about the idea of killing -- Killing is not murder. The Bible does have instances of lawful and (i guess) moral killings by the people of Israel. Where then do we draw the line of what we can kill with the intention of helping others?
I'm not saying "therefore, let's all go kill embryos". It's a little of a separate topic, but it may, for many people, contribute to the idea that abortion cannot be considered murder.
Jesus help us! And forgive them because they don’t know what they’re doing! 😥 the end is so near!!
In the USA, where nearly half of pregnancies are unintended and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion [1] , there are over 3,000 abortions per day. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies in the USA (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. [2]
At 46:30 you say "you don't kill people for what their parents do". It seems like god doesn't agree with you because god ordered babies to be slaughtered in Numbers 31 because of the evil that their parents did. Mike, I'm sure you will delete this comment, but that's okay because it was only meant for you
sure, whatever is in the womb may be alive or human, but let's set that aside. What I ask you is why value the 'life' of what's in the womb over the happiness, health and life of the woman. The woman has a life, she has friends, a family, perhaps a career or hobbies. She has a favourite food or book or place, she has a life. Why value something that won't even have any memory for at least 3 months (and even at that it's just pictures or colours, ect...) over her?
No, it doesn’t. At the minute it is a bundle of cells with no relationships, achievments, no job, no life, no talents YET.
So should we kill people if they don't have those things listed? What about an elderly person who grew up as an orphan, all their friends have already passed and they have alzheimers. This hypothetical elderly person does not have friends, family, or memories and is a burden on the taxpayer. Should we kill that elderly person?
Not to mention, your argument places the value of one human over another, which as we have discovered during the holocaust and the trans-Atlantic slave trade, is a dangerous position to hold. The anti-abortion argument values both lives equally. The woman will not lose her friends, family, memories, hobbies, and career over the course of nine months. She can simply have the baby and place it with an adoptive family. Done deal, she never has to think about it again if she doesn't want to, and then she's right back on with her life. 9 months is not a long time.
i agree 100%--Every pro choice argument fails until the Gop senators mistress gets knocked up-- lolol amirite??
I heard a report of an evangelical minister telling a girl who had been raped by another evangelical minister to get an abortion!
@@iainpattison903 I’ve heard all kinds of craziness. I am PTO choice but it’s because I’m a man. It’s none of my business. As much as I do t want there to be any abortions, at he very least life of the mother is a good reason for abortion. I give money to adoption charities to try to help but it’s sad.
@@GatorbeauxAs a woman, I'll tell you, you should never say that you don't have any say or opinions because you're a man. My grown son and I just had this discussion and it was because I'd heard a man say that women shouldn't talk or have any opinions or say about war, because though women do serve now, they are not even close to the majority that serve in combat. It's very much majority men. But, women do suffer in war. I have three military age sons, a husband, and a brother. We have fathers, uncles, etc. We do suffer when they die. Not to mention the economic suffering that can occur during war, the destruction, etc. War causes both sexes to suffer, mainly because of death, much like abortion does. Men do suffer the death of a baby. If you saw the death of an infant, it would affect you, and probably badly. So, you do have a voice in it, or you should. Never believe you don't because you're a man. Your sex does not dictate whether you can have valuable insight into any situation. Again, I have three grown sons, and I get pretty tired of hearing that I should have no opinion on whether they should potentially lose their life in a war because I'm a woman, and I get really tired of hearing that they should have no opinion on the life of what would be their own child, just because they are men. Both are seriously flawed ways of thinking.
I perceive a bit of tap dancing at 51:42, right after Mike clearly reiterates his definition of abortion at 50:30. I think the most consistent wording would be that he is in favor of abortion as defined when there is a high probability of the loss of the mothers life. This "procedure" as stated would fall within the criteria of *abortion* as defined, because it would be the intentional killing of an innocent human's life. The justification (saving the mothers life) for the "procedure" (abortion) would not determine or alter the deffinition.
Thoughts?
I think what he is saying is if the mother is going to die ie encoptic pregnancy like my friend had vs killing the baby just because they don't want it. It's different to say I had sex got knocked up and just don't want the baby than say I'm going to die having this baby thus both die anyway. I hope I understood your question right.
I saw this video when it was new. It popped up again after an amendment to Kentucky's state constitution failed. The amendment wasn't even to make abortion illegal, it was just to state that abortion isn't a right guaranteed by the state. Kinda like the reversal of Roe vs Wade. I had hope that Kentucky would at least take that very small step to protect the lives of children. That hope is gone. It's very upsetting. I'll rewatch this video and try to spread the knowledge gained.
In the case of conjoined twins, wouldn't agree that it would be moral to separate them unless a) if the operation doesn't happen both will die or b) the twin who will die during the operation is old enough to knowingly consent to their death. Otherwise, I see that as a violation of rights. One twin isn't owed his sibling's death merely because it will make his own life more comfortable. That would be the same as the most common pro-abortion argument I hear (that a woman has a right to separate herself from her unborn child, even though he/she will die, because the baby's existence makes her life more difficult.)
I have a (tough) question for Mike. You make a strong logical case that from conception on you're dealing with a human being with the same rights as any other human being. The question I have is another syllogism... If aborting an unborn child is killing a human being, and if the sentence for killing a human being is the death penalty or life imprisonment, then should a mother who intentionally kills her fetus or hires someone else to kill it, be given the death penalty or life sentence?
My two cents is that this is a tricky situation. I think many young women and even the population in general have been lied to, from "experts", that what they are doing is not murder and is simply removing some cells from a body. I think there needs to be grace towards all of those who have been brainwashed and lied to from the pro-abortion camp. That being said, if/when America has overturned Roe vs. Wade and the truth is made known to all what the science actually says, at that point we need to begin holding abortion mills and women accountable as murders if they do indeed end a human life. It will likely be a messy transition with much confusion at first but it needs to happen
Moreover, there are some women who get abortions because they have too many children to care for. If abortion is murder, and she's sentenced to life in prison, who takes care of the other kids? The father? he'll likely get jail time too for not stopping his wife from getting an abortion, wouldn't he?
Keegan Kidder The prohibiting of abortion has FAR greater moral implications and impacts on societal well being than destroying a bundle of cells. ALL babies deserve to be born into a loving, stable, nurturing environment.
@@xxsageonexx8910 Your "bundle of cells" argument is a bad argument and based off bad science from 30 years ago and has been thoroughly refuted. That being said, we don't get to murder human beings based off our subjective speculation of how their life may or may not turn out. But if that is seriously your standard for being allowed to murder, than can we murder anyone we deem to not be loved, stable, and nurtured?
Keegan Kidder 1. You did not make a case that destroying the cells is more evil than allowing neglected , unwanted children and it’s overall impact it would have on the well being of society. There is no comparison and you’ve stated nothing to refute this.
2. Abortion is not murder. Murder means UNLAWFUL killing. Abortion is LEGAL.
3. It is a false equivalency to compare killing those that have been born to those who have only developed to a bundle of cells.
4. Your response to mine is shortsighted and devalues life. It misses the bigger picture and advocates that not all babies deserve BEING BORN INTO at least, previously mentioned environment. And does not consider the OVERALL IMPACT raising the number of unwanted children has on society.
What is your response to the hypothetical question, “If I was holding a 3 month old baby in one hand and a Petri dish full of embryos in the other, and I had to drop one, which would you choose?”
As if this is some sort of realistic scenario, but I’ve never been able to respond in a way that they really see my point.
Look up Ben Shapiro destroys best pro abortion argument ever. It literally answers your question
The answer is neither. They are both a human life.
Hi, paramedic here.
This is a triage situation that has no good outcome. This is the stuff that causes PTSD and worse in first responders.
Change the situation to where you’re holding a baby in each arm.
Or you can only rescue on person from a situation and you have to chose between a toddler and a 60 year old woman.
Or you’re trying to evacuate a children’s hospital (did you know they have special vests with baby-sized pockets so a single person can carry 4 babies in an evacuation? Because this stuff really happens and we try so hard not to have to choose)
These choices do not dehumanize those you are rescuing.
But in triage, you are trying to do the most with the resources you have, and sometimes that involves leaving behind those you cannot save.
But that doesn’t mean you can live with yourself after you’ve been forced to make that decision.
Hi Mike! I'm a pro-life Christian, and I can defend against most objections. But there is one (type of) argument that is a bit hard for me. It goes something like this: "Even if life begins at conception, a fetus has no right to live in a woman’s body without her consent." Could you help me with this argument and similar ones?
This objection isn't as smart as it sounds. It falls apart when you affirm parental duties.
If a random stranger hooks their body up to yours such that pulling the plug will kill them, you may morally pull the plug. They violated your body to save their own life. A child is unique because intentionally or unintentionally, every child is created by their parents. In that physical act, the parents assume a duty to care for that child. In the case of women, they have a duty to house the child that their body created (again, regardless of intent). A woman's kidney was made for her body. A woman's uterus was made for her child's body.
For anyone who rejects parental duties, simply transfer the conversation to born children. If a mother hates her 2 year old son, can she leave him in the crib until he starves to death? Can she mimic the ancient Romans and leave the son outside to be eaten by dogs? If we agree that this is child neglect, you are acknowledging that the act of neglecting a child is wrong and is not a liberty. That is, in the case of children, the state may and should overrule the bodily autonomy of the parents and compell them to actively care for the child.
Removing a child from your uterus to preserve your liberty at the expense of their life is in principle no different than failing to actively care for a born child to preserve your liberty at the expense of their life.
what about pain? I think a fetus is a baby when it feels pain. It's immoral to hurt someone, therefore, it's immoral to abort a fetus that has developped a nervous system. Is an advanced AI robot with conscience and emotion a human? no, it doesn't feel pain (no nervous system). Also, IF a zygote is a human, does that make identical twins less of a human if the zygote split?
I’m paralyzed from the waist down. I can’t feel my legs. Would it be ok for someone to cut my leg off since I can’t feel it and therefore wouldn’t feel any pain?
@@Randyrenae My premise is that the development of the nervous system makes us human (ability to feel pain). Pain is subjective, so that's why I'm saying you need nerves (nervous system), which means the posibility of pain. How would I know that if someone cuts your legs, you wouldn't feel pain (even the slightest) since they have nerves. Second of all, if someone cuts your legs, it still makes you human. You still feel pain elsewhere (body, brain, etc).
I am pro life. I have not had too many problems justifying my beliefs except when it comes to dependancy. I still don't think it justifies killing the child, but I often have problems standing up to pro-choicers when it comes to this: until the fetus reached a point where it is viable outside the womb by medicine, doctors, or others, the ONLY person who can give that child life is the mother. Your argument is that this is defendable because a child up to many years old is dependent on others for its survival, which makes sense, but the sole person the baby depends on while in the womb is the mother, not all the other people it could rely upon like a born child in your explanation. If it's outside the womb it has an entire world it can depend on for survival, but until then, it is totally reliant on the mother. Does this change the argument at all? How would you respond to pro-choicers when they bring this fact up?
It doesn't change the argument. The point is the child is dependent and needs care for some years outside the womb, the number of people caring for it is irrelevant in the argument.
W
Thank for having/starting these difficult conversations. One edit I recommend: The “S” in SLED should stand for sentience.
Maybe add the "S" on the end and make SLEDS because Size is important as well.
Hey, brother Mike. I know I'm late to the party here, but I think one of your premises is a little off: I don't think we have any reason to believe the embryo or zygote is a "whole" human being; that is, the essential element of what it means to be human (personhood) is not present. I know this is just a TH-cam comment that you'll probably never even see, so I'll try to be concise with two syllogisms here and wanted to see what you think:
Syllogism 1:
1.) A "person" is a self-conscious or rationale being
2.) Consciousness in humans is not possible until the neurons in the brain develop
3.) Neurons in the brain do not develop until 15-20 weeks gestation
4.) Therefore, humans do not gain the status of "person" until after 15-20 weeks gestation
This leads into syllogism 2:
1.) Abortion is objectionable only on the basis that a person is killed
2.) A fetus is not a person prior to 15-20 weeks gestation
3.) 92-99% of all abortions take place prior to 15-20 weeks gestation
4.) Therefore, nearly all abortions (92-99%) are not objectionable.
The split between your syllogism and mine is that you use the term "human being" while I use the term "person." Even a corpse can be biologically "human," but we don't charge people with murder for disposing of it, because it lacks personhood; it's not a person. Same thing with an embryo or zygote prior to 15-20 weeks gestation. I greatly respect your thoughts and would be interested in comparing notes with you here.
Mike, I would appreciate some clarity of one of your answers to a question you got. You said it isn't abortion if a mother's life is trying to be saved. Did you mean it isn't abortion if the measures taken to save a mother's life unintentionally kill the baby (like chemo or a surgery)? Or did you mean it isn't abortion if you actually remove the baby from the mother's womb to save her life?
@@davidjennings1256 I'm assuming he means in the case of taking measures to save the mother's life even if that will seemingly cause the death of the baby. That would not be intentional killing of the child aka abortion. Hopefully he responds though!
In this scenario, both would die. Therefore, saving the mother at the expense of a child is okay since the child would die anyway.
I do have a scripture passage that seems difficult on this subject: Exodus 21: 22-25. It seems like this law does handle the death or mishap to the woman differently than the death of the unborn child. How should we interpret this text in the light of this discussion?
Cecily Haag are you still here?
I'm not pro-abortion but a question I have is what if a kid gets pregnant? Their bodies can't handle the stress of pregnancy as an adult can.
Mike, as this issue has come up again recently in the media, I am curious your stans on the argument of "women's rights" and the authority she has or not over her body. A common sign you see held by women now is "get out of my uterus" meaning women want to choice of what to do with her body. How do handle the woman who doesn't want to host the life?
The same way you handle anyone who murders.
The answer is you don't have the right to do what you want with your own body. Try running around naked in public. You'd get arrested. Why? Because you don't have a right to do what you want with your body.
As a young mother I am pro-life all the way! Also vegetarian/leaning progressive liberal most of the time ;)
Kathryn Mary Pro life and anti abortion are NOT synonymous. If you are anti abortion you do not value life. ALL babies deserve to be born to or adopted by loving stable caring wanting nurturing parent(s). Society as a whole deserves and needs this to create a happier more harmonious one. This is LIFE. Not some abstract biological view of what a bunch of cells may become. Life is more than existing. Destroying a bundle of cells is FAR less evil than preventing a baby from being wanted and loved and populating society with such neglected humans. There is FAR more at stake.
XxSage OneXx I disagree that abortion is just killing a bunch of cells. That is sociopathic. It is life, and deserves to live that life. I am anti abortion because I AM pro life. Hence the veganism... There are always people out there wishing to adopt. People can drop their baby off at a hospital if they don’t value it’s life... no excuse for murder.
Liberalism is a Cult I have yet to be refuted. So I will keep doing it until someone refutes me or acknowledges it. Calling them weak without refuting them is just plain stupid.
Liberalism is a Cult Still didn’t come close to refuting me. In fact, you actually helped make my case for me. 🤦♂️
I always think... if people who rescues cats and dogs that are filling our shelters are worth saving, why are we not aborting their "mass of cells" they are pregnant with... but then those same people are willing to abort human children. I don't understand the logic! Great points... hot topic with my high schoolers who need more sound logic that they can use to argue without saying, "cuz the Bible says so" and for that I'm so grateful for your brilliant content. TY TY!
I say this all the time! I had a stray cat have kittens on my back porch, and my son held one, and said "if I can't even imagine taking this baby's life, then how could I imagine taking a human baby's life, but some would argue to save this baby, but not a human baby." It's very odd.
Why is killing another human being such a bad thing? Most will just give a visceral response. Few will even think about it.
The baby is only a zygote for 5 days. When it implants, it is called an embryo. So a woman isn't even technically pregnant until it is embryo. The term zygote can't even be used in this discussion...
Since, I'm pro-choice at the moment, I'm always trying to be swayed by the opposite view (If it's true, I really wanna be convinced). I currently see it as a situation where you're faced with "I'm well within MY rights" vs "chasing the uncomfortable good." (Sorta like turn the other cheek) I personally cannot look at a woman and say that she HAS to surrender her rights to the whims of life, but it's definitely uncomfortable not to see a life preserved. I can't point a finger even though I dont praise abortion. If I am wrong I really need to find a conscience clear way to truth.
I tried to not be too dis-analogous
"Imagine you wake up after being kidnapped and the man next to your hospital bed explains that his friends kidnapped you in order to hook you up to supporting his life. His friend's kidnapped you as a surprise to him who's draining your blood, taking some of the food you intake, and just overall leeching off your internal organs so that he can live. You see him thank his friends for this gift (you). This process wont kill you BUT it will take around 9 months or so, so you'll get well acquainted. You can disconnect the tubes and cables, and he'll die, or you can stay there for 9 months and he'll live." Does that man have a right to live off of you? (This represents the instance of rape.)
"Imagine a married couple who are going through the toughest time of life. They BARELY have enough money to keep lights on and food on the table for their kids, and work is horrible. They seek a sense of relief and refuge from their misery with one another, using a condom, yet they become pregnant again. They have no idea how they're going manage and they wife doesn't want to bear the guilt of giving up her child for adoption." (Represents failed contraception. Please dont respond with "dont have sex bc you know the consequences thereof" They're married and werent looking to be pregnant. It would be like me telling a woman "you know the risks of walking at night to get home, even if you do have mace" (as if she deserved it)). Has the wife given the zygote/fetus rights to her body, considering the use of condom? (The preemptive rebuttal is designed to encompass rape and failed contraception. Condoms aren't 100% effective. Abstinence isn't 100% either bc rape is a thing.)
I noticed you used the word "harm." Does the time at which sentience arises play a factor in abortion?
Any feedback is appreciated, but be prepared to defend. (I hope you win!)
Da'Shaun Jefferies ALL babies deserve to be born to or adopted by loving stable caring wanting nurturing parent(s). Society as a whole deserves and needs this to create a happier more harmonious one. This is LIFE. Not some abstract biological view of what a bunch of cells may become. Life is more than existing. Destroying a bundle of cells is FAR less evil than preventing a baby from being wanted and loved and populating society with such neglected humans. There is FAR more at stake.
@@xxsageonexx8910 Thank you for taking the time to reply, but in all honesty, it's never been abt WHAT it is for me. I know that it can be nothing aside from human life which is why I gave the examples. The question I'm trying to discern in the scenarios I gave (which would be helpful if you'd answer and give rationale) is: Is the killing UNJUST when defending one's own rights to their body?
I actually have ramifications (though they do seem somewhat subjective) and limits that I havent mentioned only bc rape and saving the mother's life have been mentioned. For now, I'd just like to see how ppl would react in the scenarios I gave and why.
If it was about the right of the mother over HER body then she would die. My children have a different blood type to me, therefore they are very definitely NOT my body, even at cell stage, therefore I would not be making a choice for my body, I am damaging a body that is NOT mine enough for it to die
@@lellyt2372 the question was did the ppl using her get rights to do so? not can she do whatever bc it's her body
To your first analogy:
1.) The baby's blood does not mix with the mother's.
2.) In this scenario your body was not made for that other person. Your blood was not made for him, your organs functions were not made for him, this is why we cannot harvest organs without consent, even between a parent and child organ donation cannot be compelled. However, this is a very big however, the uterus of a woman was made for a single function: to house and grow infant life. The uterus was made FOR the baby, and everything within the uterus is formed of the baby's own systems (with the exception being the placenta, if I recall correctly, which is made from both the baby's and the mother's tissues).
3.) An abortion cannot really be equated to "removing tubes and cables". The baby is killed and then removed from the environment that was made by God, or nature if that's your dig, specifically for the baby. There is no other function of the uterus within the body other than the production of female sex hormones which contribute to the same processes. In the case of the analogy you gave the individual would first disconnect and tube and cables, then the man would most likely die. This is more similar to a scenario in which the mother must give birth to the baby preterm for some reason or another and the baby still has a chance at life thanks to our modern technology. Besides, this scenario is completely hypothetical and would not happen in real life, whereas abortions do happen in real life and are not hypothetical.
4.) To summarize: a stranger has no right to your body, hence why forced organ donation, rape, assault, and murder are all morally wrong. Your body was not made for the sake of strangers, however the uterus was made for the sake of the growing baby. The baby has rights over their own bodily autonomy, which is violated in an abortion, the man in the analogy is not having his bodily autonomy violated when the individual chooses the disconnect from him. However he is violating the individual's bodily autonomy by compelling them to allow him to use their bodily systems that were not made for his sake, for him. A baby is not violating a woman's bodily autonomy because the uterus was made for the purpose of supporting that baby's life and the rest of the tissues within the uterus are of the baby. (Not to mention an adult male requires 2000 calories daily, and growing baby requires about 300. That's a day and night difference, and other than some calories, the baby doesn't rely much on the mother's bodily systems besides the fact that the mother has to be living for the baby to also continue living.) To further emphasize the point that the woman's bodily autonomy is not being violated during a pregnancy, the scenario you gave would bring the individual's life to a complete halt, unable to complete any daily tasks that they were previously able to do. A woman experiencing a pregnancy is not put in such a situation, most everything (with a few obvious exceptions like partying with drugs and alcohol, which is unnecessary in the first place) that woman was able to do before she was pregnant she can still do while she is pregnant. Many people like to portray pregnancy as something that brings is life to a halt, but the majority of pregnancies are not very taxing on the woman's body because the female body is made to support pregnancy.
5.) As a final mention, we have medical technology that allows us to filter and clean blood and to provide nourishment to those who may not be able to eat properly. For everything else, organ transplants and intensive care can usually do the trick. The situation you gave (in which I can only assume this man is undergoing spontaneous major organ failure) in which the man is dying a natural death and using another individual's body to prolong his own life cannot be compared to taking the life of another person intentionally, usually for convenience. You said that analogy was to symbolize a child conceived of rape, but the man who is compelling the individual is not innocent, whereas a child conceived of rape is.
Not sure if you mentioned it but the Guinness Book world records of the earliest born full grown baby was 20 weeks
I am going to say it like it is:
As a law student the claim that you cannot ever kill an innocent human is not legally defensible and it demonstrates a collosal ignorance of the SAW franchise.
Allow me to present the following scenario:
There is a guy who has abducted your Dad and has taken him to a foreign place. You have managed to find out where your Dad is and you have to come to rescue him with your gun. However this man does not want to kill your Dad directly, no he wants to do it by using his blind brother: He tells his blind brother that he wants to teach him how to use a gun. For this purpose he has to shoot against a wall. In front of this wall he places your Dad whom he has tied up and gagged such that he cannot scream or warn the blind person. The blind person has no idea that he is about to shoot your Dad. You arrive at the scene and see that the guy is about to pull the trigger: You have no time to call the police or to warn the blind guy. The only way to rescue your Dad would be to shoot the innocent blind person.
In that case it is fully permissible to kill an innocent human. And as far as SAW goes here is another example:
th-cam.com/video/dGMLrfcESWM/w-d-xo.html
(warning: not for the faint of heart). Anyways that's all I have to say concerning this issue. Your position may or may not be ethical but this particular claim is false and demonstrably so.
Have a good day.
shoot his leg