Peter Singer says it’s OK to abort babies with Down’s syndrome
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ต.ค. 2024
- Full debate: • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
For more debates, updates and bonus content sign up at www.thebigconv...
Controversial moral philosopher Peter Singer debates Christian theologian Andy Bannister on ‘Do we need God to be good?’
In this excerpt Singer explains why he doesn’t think parents should feel bad for aborting a baby with Down syndrome.
How do you respond? Feel free to share comments below.
The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchri...
The Big Conversation series:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward - • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Peter Singer & Andy Bannister - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconv...
![The Wall Song ร้องข้ามกำแพง | EP.215 | พาเวล นเรศ - พูห์ กฤติน | 17 ต.ค. 67 [1/5]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IUzrjuf60P4/mqdefault.jpg)
For the full debate, updates & bonus content sign up at www.thebigconversation.show
Another fantastic topic for the comment section, thanks guys :)
To be fair to Peter Singer, he did say Downs syndrome is *not* a good example of being in favour of abortion, and elsewhere in the full interview he gave a much better example of a situation in which a fetus was known to have a severe disability of being in favour of abortion because the resulting pregnancy would be a baby/child/adult who would spend it's life suffering and in pain. Abortion will always be a contentious issue for society.
While he said it wasn't a good example, it does seem that he said it was justified.
@@bigfan1041 I think the video headline is attention grabbing, it sounds as if Peter is casually saying "Yeah, abort them", but in actual fact he's not saying that if you listen to him, I think he's simply making the argument that if you could choose to have a baby that didn't have downs syndrome and one that did, you'd want your child to be fit and healthy, that's why he said the downs syndrome argument wasn't a good one.. it isn't a black and white issue, the level of 'healthiness' is a massive grey area and one that needs to be talked about and taken on a case by case basis for the parents involved, ... there are so many variables to weigh up. Personally, if I knew my partner was pregnant with a downs syndrome, I'd have absolutely no issue with it, but, lets say she was pregnant with a fetus that had severe disabilities that would have a massive negative impact on it's future life, and impact on its wellbeing as a human being I'd have some serious thinking to do.
@@bonnie43uk I mean, you're describing how you interpret the headline and perhaps how you worry other people interpret the headline.
The headline is simply stating a fact about something Peter said in the interview.
And i'm sure it's selected because it's "attention grabbing" in the sense that they wouldn't pick a headline that people wouldn't find interesting. The important thing is wether it's factual or not.
@@bigfan1041 Unfortunately the people to whom the quote is labeled don't get a say in what the "headline" will be ... we all know an off the cuff reply by someone famous can be taken out of the context in which it was meant and splashed across a newspaper headline.
Yes, downs is probably the worst example since there are so many down syndrome people that people know and love who lead happy lives despite their disability, they have jobs, go to school, have passions ect ect But the one thing that should be mentioned that greatly affects the rate of abortions of down syndrome babies is that there is more to an individual child than just having down syndrome. The syndrome itself comes with a host of defects of varying degrees particularly heart and kidney defects. All of these things will be shown at the 18-20 week anatomy scan and often a specialist doctor will be able to tell a parent whether or not the particular child will have a chance of having a relatively long and happy life despite having down syndrome... I think it is less common these days for a late term abortion to happen if a specialist says the child is relatively healthy down syndrome child and then the parent is referred to a geneticist/counselor to discuss the possibilities of common mental disabilities and struggles, begin planning for the child's long life ahead. But then there are a whole bunch of families who will be told the option is to have a therapeutic abortion because the child has little chance of living past 48 hours or begin to plan for palliative care, where that particular baby will live a short life hooked up to machines. I think it is often common for many down syndrome babies to be born still birth or miscarriage's and that is due to the chance of more congenital defects happening than just the down syndrome gene.
Can’t believe this channel’s popularity hasn’t taken off yet. It’s coming I tell ya!
"Can’t believe this channel’s popularity hasn’t taken off yet. It’s coming I tell ya!"
- just like the invisible sky-fairy ? pathetic
@@michaelanderson7715 nonsense.
I mean he has nearly 200,000 subscribers and he has one of the biggest ministries in the world pretty much.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Learn to read and understand words, sentences and meanings, you irrelevant pleb. Oh, and 176k isn't 'nearly 200k'.
Please acknowledge that Singer said Down Syndrome is NOT a good example of a suffering life. He says it was example of an instance where he believes, like most people, that choosing to abort the fetus is justifiable. He will likely give ample reasons why these are questions about seperate issues regarding moral status in the full video.
Murder is murder no matter what it’s called.
@@jmsto87 Unless it isn't murder, huh? Thanks for the lesson in tautology.
@@Studentofgosset Tautology is probably too big of a word for them to understand. You might want to tone down it down 😉
Poor absolute moralists will suffer a lot here
TLTR this is a different utilitarian argument that is against euthanasia
There are at least two major points when talking about this
The prospects of this individual
The prospects of others
I did a quick search there are ds afflicted people that thrive to some extent yes they are not in the become a leader in an industry percentile
But if that's the criterion to euthanize then you will probably end up pulling a thanos on the world
Point two I couldn't find studies on this at a quick glance which is how much can variants improve who does to what extent and who don't and if we know why and if we are ⚒ to find a solution
So that needs more light
Prospects beyond the individual
Can ds afflicted people be useful to society confirmed yes we want to define better roles though
Those hard cases? Brings us to this point though they will suffer if they live and are studied to further understand the problem and solution doesn't that give their life meaning and worth and utility
DS is a reasonable example of a suffering life. It takes little research to learn of the many and serious comorbidities associated with this syndrome.
I'm typically against late-term abortions (post-first trimester). However, when a mother's life is at stake or if the child will have a life of suffering, those are completely different. That is a very personal choice a couple needs to make wirh no one making them feel guilty.
If someone kills their own child they should ABSOLUTELY be made guilty. Best thing to do is to make abortion punishable by death. Executing a few sluts for killing their own children will end abortion within a generation.
@@mosesking2923 actually, many women die during abortion
It's not the child you're worried about. It the mother--- family burden.
late term abortions for the mothers life at stake isnt a thing, it doesnt exist. i used to say the same thing until i found out that abortions to save the mothers life dont exist those are simply called misscarraiges when you can only save one person and the child dies. and life of suffering being what? because unless youre talking about a very special disease that causes enourmas amounts of pain then idk.
@@mosesking2923 I feel sorry for the women in your life.
People often talk about the distinction to letting die and killing. But no one is talking about the distinction between causing suffering and letting someone suffer where death is impending.
“The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1921) The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda, Birth Control Review, p. 5
Even given her premise, Sanger's definitions of "mentally and physically defective" are racist and cultural stereotypical. That's the problem with such sweeping decrees....who is the arbiter? Society? Margaret Sanger? Harvard? 'Science'?
Agreed. But it should be optional and NEVER enforced.
who said they'd enforce it
Neither should it be pressured by doctors like it is
If you agree that it’s murder and it’s immoral, why don’t you believe it should be enforced.
@@stickergitters4459it’s not.🤦🏻♀️
At Vanderbilt for my sister it was, then the baby turned out to not even have DS.
what he says is basic common sense how is this remotely controversial?
😮😮😮😮😮😮😮
What's so wrong with not wanting to set your child up for a life of ill health, abnormal appearance, intellectual disability and no prospect of ever being fully independent? A lot of those fetuses would have died under natural circumstances. I view it as nature'a way of cleaning up its own mistakes.
@@CS-mf5un Are you conflating killing a child with aborting an embryo/fetus?
what or who defines 'normal' appearance? why is independence an arbiter of a worthwhile life? If you are an example of intellectual normality then its better to be 'diasbled' i think. One of the most disgusting comments i've ever come across on youtube, you're a disgusting human being.
@@spaced9999 This is really about whether or not people should have the right to decide their child should have to go through life disabled. Whether or not it is okay for someone to decide for someone else, who has no say in anything, and who will not grow up to be able to think about the matter properly, that they should lead a life that does not meet some basic criteria for being considered fulfilling. If someone decided I should go through such a life, and I actually had the intelligence to form an opinion on it, I would hate that person's guts. If I found out I were about to have a child that would have to lead such a life, I would love it too damned much to set it up for a life like that. Just like I would not have kids I didn't have the resources to provide for, I would not have kids I could not guarantee a non-disabled life.
If you think you have the right to call me a disgusting human being for my trying to point that out, you're not only disgusting yourself: you're also a moron. You do not have the right to decide someone should habe to go through life disabled. However, since you quite apparently do: I hope you become severely disabled yourself and people refuse to euthanize you. That they, instead, keep you alive using advances in medical technology, and you suffer tremendously like so many severely disabled children are forced to suffer by the people who refuse to let them find peace.
Taking care of children who are fully functional is hard enough. Being a child growing up without disabilities is hard enough. Now add a life altering disability. That is definitely the parents' choice as to whether they wish to take on that extra struggle and also put the child through that extra struggle.
The test can be done as early as 9-12 weeks which is still way under the time of nervous system development.
@@CS-mf5un i get it. There are plenty of highly functioning Downs Syndrome inflicted individuals as well as those who beat the odds of other diseases/handicaps, but why even chance it?
My brother was misdiagnosed as retarded (later discovered to be slow social/emotional development with normal intelligence which he fortunately grew out of) while young and spent his first couple years of school in a special needs school. I will never forget the things I saw when i accompanied my mother and brother during summer vacations (his school was year-round). No child or parent should go through what I saw- the frustration, immobility, blank stares, unable to tie shoes or feed oneself, the tantrums, etc. That's not life.
Suffering is individual, not corporate, so his stance needs to be addressed to those who are suffering from a disability. God forbid, you could become disabled at any time.
I agree with you god wont have singer in heaven
as an adult you have the ability in some countries to opt for an assisted death if you are suffering.
@@pamelabibby8642 That's very arrogant to suggest you know the will of God.
@Wesker10000 are you suggesting that God is a supporter of eugenics?
@Patrick-sg7cm No, on the contrary, God values those with disabilities. God will remove death, sin, and suffering from his creation. Sickness doesn't coexist in the final state of God's creation.
I was born into suffering. A terrible reasoning for aborting me. We were economically disadvantaged, socially displaced, with a history of drug abuse, domestic violence and mental illness. Crap reasons for aborting a kid. I do not deny the "good intent" of his reasoning, but it is still cruel, and inhumane.
A lot of people with a same kind of background disagree vehemently.
@@eatymceatison97 singer is insulting a lot of people like my grandad my friend lisa everall so many people who have learning difficulties etc so people will react to singer and want to kill him and singer isnt normal he is worst than hitler and i hope singer gets cornia virus
@@eatymceatison97but if put those people in an actual survival situation I bet they’d fight for their lives. It’s so easy to throw out flippant comments, why these don’t they take their own life? Because their lives mean something.
It's not cruel or inhumane if the parent knows how terrible the situation can become for the child. I think it's worse if the parent just gives birth to them and then doesn't care about what happens to the child at all. For example, with how the US foster care system works right now abortion isn't any less ethical than putting an infant into foster care where they may end up being a victim of human trafficking - it's practically a pipeline at this point. I'm not saying it is more ethical either, though. I'm just saying that the parent should have the choice if they really care.
I am sorry to hear of your misfortunes however they are not analogous to serious disabilities including DS.
Eugenics anyone?
I fail to understand how anyone with a moral compass can justify aborting an unborn baby who may have Down's Syndrome. Besides the fact that they have the same right to life as you and I do, fetal diagnosis' are extremely inconclusive. There have been countless cases where the baby was thought to have Down Syndrome while in utero but when he or she was born, they didn't have Down Syndrome. As Bryant H. McGill said, "Suffering is one of life's great teachers." We shouldn't seek suffering but when it comes, we have let it teach us stuff about life. Suffering teaches humans how to have empathy, compassion, and so on. Suffering and potential suffering is never and will never be an excuse to end a human life, born or unborn.
1) I'd like to see some studies backing up your claims
2) Is the right to life absolute? I'll assume you've done the trolley experiment and decided it's not. Or advocate for self-defence.
3) Check out Judith Thomson's perspective on abortion, along with Mary Anne Warrens.
Thank you...
@@poppy9799 Watch any television show that has a PERSON with down syndrome on it. There's your proof.
@@poppy9799thank you 🙏🏼
To start, you should make it clear that you don’t find it justifiable to abort a normal unborn baby. Sadly, there are people who are willing to do even this based on their simple preference. For them, it would obviously not be a problem to abort for a much more compelling and understandable “reason.”
A life is a life. Every human that’s alive deserves human rights.
Some may argue that it’s not human or not alive however I would like to argue that it is.
For instance, if both parents are both human then it would make logical sense for the embryo to be human. And if something is growing, then it is alive. So therefore it is human and alive and if you believe that all humans deserve equal rights, then abortion is morally incorrect.
by your definition, Cancer is alive and shouldn't be removed from the body. A set of cells is not a fully grown human.
@@Kelvinkrupts cancer isn’t human
Animals too can get cancer
And an animal is NOT human
@@theallwisefrog5951 Well the problem is that this isn’t a matter of whether we believe humans should deserve equal rights, but instead it’s a conversation about the nature of personhood, who qualifies as a person under the definition of personhood and whether fetuses are persons. People who are pro choice recognize that human fetuses are still humans, but the arguments they have tend to refuse that an abortion is a person and attempt to contend that the bodily autonomy of the mother is more important than the inherent value of a fetus.
you're not too familiar with Singers work, are you? Check out his understanding of "personhood" vs members of the Homosapien species.
If we believe all humans deserve the same rights, then yes. But the question is: If we consider a fetus (the early stage fetus in particular) as human, then why is it always wrong to kill a human?
If we'd say that it's wrong to kill humans because they have a preference to live, then it doesn't hold up for people who do not have this preference. For example a person who doesn't want to live anymore. But also a 'human' which doesn't (yet) have preferences.
As usual Singer gets it right. He is not saying that people should not have a child with Down's syndrome, he is saying that it is reasonable for people to prefer to have a child without Down's syndrome. That's why people engage in prenatal testing.
You do realize that a child can get a disability AFTER birth right? A child can get hypoxia from drowning, can get in a car accident, etc. If a parent isn't willing to have a disabled child, then they should be permanently sterilized. They are clearly unfit to be parents.
@@mosesking2923 A parent should give their child the best life they can. Sometimes that means giving that better life to another fetus who presents less risk to the life of the mother and has much better prospects for a long and happy life themselves. Discovering that a fetus is severely disabled is a tragic experience for many prospective parents. I think it is best that they try again so that the life they bring into the world will be a better one. But the choice is theirs to make and it is not my business to impose my own thinking on them. I should butt out, and so should you.
@@tdns01 No, it would not make the world a happier by aborting foetuses expected to become same-sex attracted people.
@@tdns01 It's worth remembering too that what we "prefer" does not necessarily equate to what is justified.
He literally advocates for infanticide and killing disabled people. Ive lost faith in the humanity of you all. Who died and made you God. Im convinced your egos are so big you think you have more of a right to be here than others. What makes YOU so special John that youre more worthy of life than an individual with a disability? Im sure your narcissism wont allow you to accurately answer that question.
Peter singer is an example of what's wrong with moral ethics as a whole. Any person who claims to make the world a better place is someone you should be wary of. Beware the do gooders. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -C.S. Lewis
Referring to a fetus in this context as a baby begs the question, since 'baby' is being used as a being with a right to life
just semantics, different terms for different phases of life. just call it a human being so there's no confusion.
They are discussing late term abortions. These are abortions that occur with families that had planned for a baby and are excited for a baby. So they see this as a baby. 20 weeks is the anatomy scan where a family will find out about how the babies organs have formed, the defects that might exist, the syndromes it might have. So of course families will be using the word baby, it is a baby. At that stage if an abortion occurs the mother would be delivering a still birth, and they will have to plan for burial or cremation. At least that is the case in Canada. There needs to be two specialist doctors sign off approving the medical abortion/ late term abortion/ therapeutic abortion (all the same words used). The specialists in Canada will not sign off on any late term abortions at that stage for things like gender (not wanting a girl for example). It has to be something where the child has severe birth defects or the mother is in danger or for twins, one twin could be dying and putting another twins life at risk. The dr's would have to record in a report the quality of life/ life expectancy of the child or valid medical reason for this procedure. It isn't like a walk in clinic experience. The parents are given grievance counselors and counselling for months to years afterwards. Even a medically trained doctor would be using the word baby. The most common late term abortions in Canada are babies who have fetal growth restrictions... they stopped growing properly, their brain is filled with fluid and are brain dead, the brain forms outside of the skull, the kidney doesnt function, there is a severe unfixable heart defects and multiple defects at once. So a dr basically tells the family the child will need palliative care once born and will likely die 48 hours after birth and again they refer the parents to funeral planning, burial/cremation, and grievance counselors...
So what's the next kind of human that it will be ok to filter through abortion?
How many are filtered through contraception? It’s a woman’s choice to bring a child into the world.
@@dvsdawl Zero are filtered through contraception. Zero are. As to your second point: exactly. So what kind of human will be filtered next?
@@huckleberryharrison6248 a human female has already been filtered in asian countries for decades, especially in china where these kind of population control is enforced.
Anyone unable to speak up
@@huckleberryharrison6248I think the person was trying to say that the comment the first person made is ridiculous as it depends what stage you do an abortion because it’s obviously not considered a human at every stage of the pregnancy.
click bait title completely misrepresents what singer is stating here. but then again it is cheap tricks!! designed to get people in and react with ill informed emotional judgement. typical modern day crap!!
forget for a moment what a disabled life means for the person who is diasbled, and think about what a disabled life means for the rest of us in terms of teaching us compassion, empathy, patience, love and understanding.
This is the one area on which I’ve never agreed with Singer - he’s always held some awful beliefs regarding people with disabilities.
Not really. He’s just practical and honest about the realities of life that we face and believes in picking whatever the best option is. If you haven’t a different stance what’s your argument?
Its what animals do to sickly ones who will slow the heard down.
GOD created human with souls..and intellect. HE created every soul. I'm pretty SURE that GOD is not happy aboutHIS children..aborting their own.
this is the most controversial topic ever, period
Far from it.
Children like Steven Hawkins you mean.
This may sound controversial and a little calculated but hear it out.
In the US around 10% of all pregnancies miscarry (approx 3 million a year). Its' approximated that 50 % of all conceptions spontaneously abort, without the mother ever being aware she had conceived.
(is this god's responsibility as designer/creator?). I argue 'yes'.
In Numbers 5:11 - 31 God assists priests in abortion practice for as little as adultery.
In Leviticus 27 human value quantifiably appears to decrease with age.
Based on these facts arguably God is pro abortion or indifferent. Hold this thought in mind.
Aborting children with a disease/condition that will likely cause increased suffering on the child will prevent this suffering occurring, hence a net reduction in gross suffering.
If you hold to the dogma that those beneath the Age of Accountability are guaranteed entry to heaven then aborting a fetus enureses this outcome.
As stated bases on God's perspective/actions I feel Christian belief should not interfere with his rationale.
Do you think a miscarriage is part of God's divine order? I believe miscarriage is a symptom of a fallen world,I don't think that God desires anyone to die
Darryl Dempsey
- that's quite the flexible line of thinking.
First of all, calling miscarriage an "abortion performed by God" is a stretch both of logic and language. Even if we were to grant the point, it certainly would have no bearing on whether it's okay for humans to "play God" and abort their own offspring at their own discretion for whatever reasons that suit them (including what they fear in terms of birth defects).
Calling Numbers 5 a "God-ordained abortion practice" is again a stretch. Throughout the Bible, being deprived of offspring is considered a curse or at least a very unfortunate situation (see all of the passages that deal with barren women, their longing for children, the steps they will take to GET children, and the many miraculous birth stories). The woman, in the Numbers 5 example, is neither barren, nor is it a passage about childbirth per se. Rather, she is suspected of being an adulteress, which would carry the death penalty if verified. In context, no one knows whether she is guilty or not, so the passage is about a supernatural means of determining her guilt. That she loses the offspring of her illicit rendezvous is the curse on her action (she would lose the offspring if discovered and then stoned). But trying to equate this with some sort of "divine approval" of ad hoc abortions is a massive stretch.
Leviticus 27 deals with redemptions and the relative cost of redemption. I'm not sure what your point is in bringing this up (euthanasia? Mercy killings? Assisted suicide of the elderly?), but the idea behind the chapter is closer to a progressive income tax than it is to any sort of relative valuing of human life itself. People in their prime earn more and owe more. People at the end of their life are beyond their earning years and owe less. Children owe even less. And men of all ages owe more than women, an early indication of "income inequality" and the insufferable patriarchy (sarcasm intended).
And on the whole "Age of Accountability" thing: firstly, this is a dubious Biblical idea. (One might also suggest that "going to heaven" is a dubious Biblical idea - one that has more in common with Platonism than the Bible - but this is a harder sell as there are Pauline passages in particular that the Platonic western mind has great difficulty reading any other way than from the typical Platonic viewpoint)(death and physical resurrection to new life on a new earth is closer to the mark). Regardless, believing that "God is Just" is a better belief to hold than "every kid gets in free by default". But secondly, one might just as easily justify infanticide, or ad hoc killing of pre-teens (an idea that I think many parents could get behind), on the same grounds. "My ten-year-old is really crimping my style. If I kill her now, she'll go to heaven automatically. I think it's in both of our best interests - we'll both be happier - and I'm sure God approves."
A better argument for your position could be made on the basis of Exodus 21:22-23 where a pregnant women is injured by two men quarreling nearby, and the injury causes miscarriage. There, the couple is compensated for the lost baby. One might argue that this proves that babies are not considered "fully human" and thus not as valuable as "post-birth" humans. But even here the context is entirely different: The miscarriage is undesired, unintentional, and an unquestioned "wrong". Biblically speaking, even killing a "post-birth" human unintentionally does not carry the death penalty. It involves compensation. Only intentional killing brings the death penalty ("life for life"), and this example is not one of those cases. And the context clearly has no relation or correspondence with the modern example of abortion. Biblically, the child is always wanted and the parents are not initiating termination for their own convenience, financial well-being, or for their own well-intentioned-but-subjective view on whether "this is best" for the child. Children are a gift from God in all cases; it's not our job to determine whether they should have life. If they come with problems, those are trials to be borne and learned from (and loved through).
And for the record, I had a child with chromosomal problems (Trisomy 18; Downs is Trisomy 21). He lived for several weeks, and was never put down. Being born and being loved is better than not being born at all. And if one were to say "that's not how every situation works" (e.g. not every child is loved), I would say that doesn't change the basis of the argument, as now you'd be in the business of not only playing God, but also playing psychologist/counselor... a cosmic social worker. It's enough to say it's human life made in the image of God, every human life *should* be loved (if they aren't, then judgment is reserved for the one that should be doing the loving but doesn't). And it doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.
@@derekthompson5731 thank you Derek well said,so sad to hear about your families loss,so painful, but such a beautiful message of love you shared from it,thank you
@@derekthompson5731 Thanks for you reply.
Regarding Numbers 5, I disagree it's a stretch, the curse is a divine termination for those who are guilty. I think pro life supporters would be against abortion on such grounds. So i'd argue this places god outside alignment with the pro-life camp.
At lot depends on ones interpretation of verses that surround god's foreknowledge and pre-determinism. If one was to assume the book of life stance and agree life begins at conception, then it would follow that God intends for many pregnancies to miscarry/terminate.
Like I said it depends on ones dogma regarding entry to Heaven/new world. My point is aimed at those who approach it from the age of accountability stance.
_"Children are a gift from God in all cases"_ So would you believe miscarriages are gifted from God or do you hold the view that the zygote/fetus aren't children/a person? I find the idea that a god would gift us with a non-viable fetus, diseased/ill children troublesome. Do you believe god intended them to be born with such problems?
If humans are not to intervene and play god, one can extrapolate that to justify us not intervening to save a child from a diseases that would otherwise have killed them.
Are we not playing god keeping that child alive from a disease god created that would otherwise kill them?
I'm sorry for your loss. My wife and I have experienced a miscarriage, she was very close to loosing her life as result.
I'm no longer a believer in God, having previously been a practising Christian. I find it hard to understand, how Christians tolerate the unnecessary suffering from the naturals evils imposed upon us, especially towards children. I feel it our duty as human to reduce suffering, in part by eliminating diseases and preventing unnecessary suffering.
I feel it is better to never experience existence than to experience a shortened existence accompanied with a high amount of disease induced suffering.
I feel a future where we can eliminate all genetic causes of disease pre viability (of the fetus) is preferable to a future where diseased children are born. We can't control many of the causes of suffering a child/adult will experience in life, but we can prevent the ones they are born with. Having a child born healthy gives them the best chance for life. Currently aborting a pre viable fetus is a tool that can help prevent certain types of unnecessary suffering.
@@nz1972 I think it can only be parts of God's divine order. If you believe in a fallen world then it was God who decided what that would entail (diseases, natural disasters etc). He decided upon and created the consequences. For example, he could have chosen no such punishment, or immediate forgiveness.
Peter Singer looks like an old man SpongeBob honestly
Kind of reminds me of Larry David.
Lol this Is ridiculous how does he know people with disability suffer I wonder if he’s ever seen or spoken to a person with a disability . I wonder
So get rid of those that are an inconvenience to the rest of us. .....
Go work take a look at an institution with people who suffer from Down's Syndrome. They're a burden to themselves more than to anyone else. The worst cases of Down's can't even talk or if they can talk, articulate clearly, making daily life incredibly frustrating for them, because they can't make their wishes clear to others, and that on top of not even understanding the world around them to begin with, makes for a pretty unlivable life. You think people with Down's Syndrome are always happy and smiling? You're wrong. Those are the higher functioning ones. A low functioning person could even end up committing serious crimes against others.
And then, we still have the issue of health complications that are associated with Down's..
If you can't guarantee your child basic human functioning, that's a damn good reason to abort.
@@eatymceatison97 Simple. Make abortion illegal by death penalty and the problem goes away. Honduras has done it, and simply sedates any woman who resists in order to conduct a forced birth. The mother can get over it and the baby is safe. Win/Win. Time to follow Honduras' lead.
@@mosesking2923 wow that's absolutely horrifying . We should take an example from one of the most violent places on earth . 👍
@@abhaysreekanth no, america would be one of the most violent places on earth.
Isnt this the guy who defended beastiality?
If the animal is dead and it’s safe for the person, yes, because there is no good reason to object to it other than it’s yucky, which he doesn’t care about because he’s a utilitarian
Also rape, killing the disabled, infanticide and a whole other list of deranged opinions. Im wondering how he still has any platforms instead of being in a mental hospital
Really informative!
Babies cant be aborted, baby is term for already born individual. Nice title...
@logicalempiricist you should watch video and read my comment first and then reply... Babies can be killed (technicaly) i said they can't be aborted, because abortion is not the right term, you can't be aborted if you are already born.
It’s perfectly normal to talk about babies in the womb. Have you ever heard a pregnant woman say “I felt the foetus kick just now”.
You're right.
I have heard women refer to the fetus as "porotito" and that doesn't make fetuses "porotitos".
New title: It's OK to abort porotitos with Down's syndrome?
I see your reasoning Richard but the terminology doesn’t matter, what matters is what are we talking about. The fetus doesn’t somehow become a different entity just because it has changed environments. Coming out of the womb doesn’t change what we are talking about. I’m not a different person when I’m in my house compared to a swimming in a pool. If this would be the case, that changing locations from in the mother to out of her changes the unborn from fetus to baby, then when Lynlee Hope was removed from her mother for surgery, place back in her mother for the remainder of the term, and then was removed again when she was “born” then lynlee went from being a fetus to a baby to a fetus to a baby. Location doesn’t determine what we are talking about.
The English language is an ever changing language, so what your statement doesn't really prove anything. As long as you can understand the topic stressed, they did nothing wrong. If you want to go by true definition, abort means to a premature end of a problem or fault. So you can abort a problem baby, making this topic still relevant.
Attention grabbing title, pathetic 👎👎
(Matt's mom) According to Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus Liguori...the best of Catholic moral theologians...sin depends on free will. The person with the least free will is the pregnant mother who is stressed, scared, perhaps poor or even abandoned. The sin is much worse for the family or friends who give no support, emotional, financial or otherwise. The husband who pressures his wife into an abortion because he had his heart set on a new car or bigger house is much the guilty one, doubly so if he threatens to divorce and leave his family .
The baby is fine...God is good. The cold hearted and selfish are in a heap of trouble. I presume that an early abortion of a seriously disabled child is not under any rules....the very situation is enough suffering and either way God understands. That is common sense.
( i regret this comment - edited 2022 ) It’s totally fine if not a must since life for them is a complete torture not only for them but for their parents , if I’ve got the chance to take pain and suffering away I honestly would go for it
Actually Ahmed Alshammeri, raising a child with a disability has been the joy of my life. My child is so happy and loving. Your “torture” comment is so completely extreme and completely ignorant to think you’d be doing them a favor by murdering them...
Rob Sneller you wouldn’t be here if it was a joy for your life
Ahmed Alshammeri
The followers of the CULT of Mohammedanism cause nothing but PAIN & SUFFERING to HUMANITY, do us a FAVOR, please get RID of yourselves for the SAKE of HUMANITY..,
Be where Ahmed Alshammeri? In a comment section on this page? I listen to this podcast to get perspectives from people that have different view points than I do. Generally, I keep to myself, but sometimes when I hear complete nonsense, like in your comment I need to reply. I don’t know you, but it’s obvious you don’t know a thing about a parents unconditional love for their child. I’m glad you are listening to others view points as well, but why don’t you try and keep to commenting on subjects you know something about.
May I ask you a question Ahmed? Isn’t ripping them apart limb by limb inflicting immeasurable pain and suffering?
At Special Strong, we LOVE the special needs population!! Psalm 37:5
so do i
Wow I thought he was smart, a suffering human is better than a bag of potatoes in bliss
For the Christians that have answered on previous video clips already, please ignore. I'm curious as to what the most compelling, objective, positive evidence for the Christian God that you think there is?
Define "evidence".
@@barry.anderberg
I think this is a good working definition-
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
I would say the resurrection, although I think even the very notion of evidence and the existence of rationality points to God.
@@paulmccauley8995
Could you elaborate on your second point?
@@biggregg5 Sure, I'll try. If there is no God, I think that would imply materialism. If materialism is true then the ability to rationally evaluate evidence is gone because all we've got is matter acting according to the laws of physics and chemistry - there are just reactions going on in the brain producing thoughts and decisions, over which we have no control. The fact that we can think rationally and act responsibly points to the fact we are not merely physical. This fits much better with theism than atheism.
Makes perfect evolutionary sense. If you're having children it's better to invest in a child without down's syndrome. Morality is subjective anyways so how people feel about it is up to them I suppose.
Morality is objective.
@@kelkarpranav No it is not, and you have only a subjective argument for your opinion.
@@Studentofgosset Great, so I can now go on a rape and murder spree? Fantastic.
@@mosesking2923 we have an objective morality which is subjectively derived through consensus .
That's a self defeating stance. The claim that morality is subjective would have to be objective in order for it to hold merit. There are objective moral evaluations in the world. You can't reasonably tell me that if one person deems rape morally acceptable that they are valid in performing such disgusting act because "it's all subjective".
Too bad he didn't live up to his own philosophy when his mother died
What do you mean by this?
he killed his own mother his mother should of aborted him
pamela bibby What a disgusting comment.
wow well at least he admits it. that's so sickening.
@Rache; Meatte yep i had to watch it, because i used to be a fan of peter singer and i couldn't believe the title. looking back, i'm glad i went through my singer phase quickly when i was young, because YIKES
@@nolan13075 if you have to ask why killing a child is wrong, then there's nothing to discuss.
n3rds3y3vi3w many right wingers, hard right wingers like Ben Shapiro and steven crowder will argue “killing a baby” before 22 weeks is ok because the baby does not feel any pain. I think that’s reasonable.
@@Allothersweretakenn do you believe in human rights?
@@theallwisefrog5951 I don’t believe in any rights. Human or non human. You don’t have a “right” to live you either lucky enough to live or you’re not. Ask Asian Americans if they think they have “human rights” back when they tossed their ass in camps for being the wrong race. You have the right to say whatever the fuck You want, and I have the right to shoot you if I don’t like what you’re saying. George carlin has a great bit on that.
“Moral philosopher”
smh, it fails to suit him totally!
1000 IQ response
He never said that at all ? Is it not a sin to bear false witness ? Guess anything goes if you call yourself a Christian 😞
gb
The Catholic Church has the most compassionate teachings on abortion, directly from the highest moral authority there is. " morals" in the atheistic world are just opinions called morals, but hold no weight what so ever, very sloppy, cause everyone's got an opinion.
@Lau taro science says the unborn are human and abortion takes a human life so no contradiction there. The church has always condemned abortion as with murder.
its not just me who thinks bad of him loads of people do just like they think bad of pids
If you can abort a healthy fetus, then you can abort anything the women chooses, i have no problem with ds babies only the severly un healthy ones. That have no chance at a good life,
In truth, women seldom keep or abort alone...the cheerleaders around her help her decide.
Get rid of them !!!!
They are 100% helpless
nazi
And you are 100 percent USELESS
When does a foetus become a human with a human mind? Maybe murder is a more honest word in some cases?
Or less honest, depending on how thorough you are willing to get with your explanations.
Ignorance of man. God is giver and taker of life not man. His argument is majority want so it is justifiable. God help us. Why must humans continue to discriminate. Love your neighbor as yourself. Words of Jesus Christ!
One Step Away The main problem is, 1 Down Syndrome sufferers need to be looked after for life ( like children). 2 They live an unproductive life, and a burden on society ( disability pension for life ), 3 Parents of those children at first say, it's ok ....but how they get older, the worry of ( when we die ) who will look after them ?? abuse etc... will make their life hard.
Then how can you justify the Death penalty ?
@@nielspemberton59 not at all the same
singer the comments people write about you you bring on yourself you cant trace me or the people I live with will call the police on you