For another Spectrum Street Epistemology about abortion, watch this one with the Triggernometry hosts and March For Life UK next: th-cam.com/video/Cms2zWrjgWQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Kemz66UALpVN7B8D
Peter you are the goat. The only class I excelled at, and was interested in during high school was an elective I took called philosophy 😅 (cannabis and playing music was more engaging than education at the time 😋) and I wish you were my teacher back then. But I guess you are a teacher in a way with your videos so thank you 🙏 Side note, the first book our teacher had us read was Sophie's World. I'm curious if that was a good choice for a philosophy 101 course's initial reading assignment? And if not, what would be a good choice to offer young minds in the high school age bracket as reading material to get them excited and/or engaged in the broad endeavor into philosophical thinking?
If you cannot assign morality to the surrogacy vs adoption question; does it not then follow that there would be no issue with individuals utilizing surrogacy for the purpose of physical and or sociological test subjects? The difference between surrogacy and adoption is that the former is a woman having a baby with the intent to sell it, and the latter is a woman who got pregnant and did not think that she would be able to raise the child in a healthy environment. It really is not that hard to understand. It is about intent, not outcome. We cannot be certain of any outcome, at this point in the history of humanity.
I love the stuff you do in England Peter. We just don't do anything like this in the UK media. You manage to deal with such complex issues in great depth but entirely without judgement or lecturing. It is so encouraging to hear people with very different views being able to honestly share in the discussion without moral grandstanding. Plus I was unaware that I shared so many of Simon's views.
I'm a gay man, and the child of an adoptee, and instinctively I reject the formulation "two gay men use surrogacy to have children" because I think the gravity of the event demands that we speak in as real terms as possible. It would be "a gay man has a child with a woman and then raise that child with his partner" now if there's a scenario where a man and woman agree to coparent or to a situation they are both happy with , I think that makes total sense, as the child would be able to know and be raised by their mother as well, and benefits from having two parents. I instinctively reject this newspeak utilitarian formulation of "using surrogacy". It's a euphemism which obscures reality, and I say that as a gay man who I believe would be a good father.
I think people who have profound disabilities have an impact on the quality of life of a village of people. There's an industry around people with disabilities. It's a "personal" decision to abort or not abort any pregnancy disability of the child or not. The world people are bringing a child into should be a factor. I had an abortion it was a tough decision to make, and many factors were considered by myself and my husband. I'm okay. I did have a grief process. We went on to have another child a couple of years later when our situation had improved and my husbands health had improved. I'm sharing my story in the hope of the conversation, including a more realistic view of abortion. My husband and I were in our 30s with three children. This is the most common demographic of women getting abortions in Australia
If your current child got disabled, do you think it's okay to kill it? If not, why was it not the murder of a human being when you killed the baby in your womb?
@utarian7 If my 27 year old son was in an accident at his job, which rendered him profoundly disabled. I would have no problem turning off life support, and he is a registered organ donor, so this would help others live a high quality of life. This is something we have all discussed what our wishes are if something like this happened to us. I think you completely missed my point, however, which was its a very personal decision. Having a disability doesn't necessarily mean you have a poor quality of life. There's an industry built around people with disabilities having the highest quality of life possible. Families are impacted by having a person with any kind of disability in both positive and negative ways. People who are working in the industry are impacted, such as myself. To ignore this is not doing justice to these people and quite offen a lifetime of medical intervention and physical suffering. Siblings are impacted heavily. I wish there was more done to help them. The invisible suffering they go through. Marriages are impacted a lot of couples don't stay together. People don't think of the person with profound disabilities accurately. They don't think of a person getting their bowels manually evacuated daily, tube fed, blind, deaf and unable to communicate even by blinking. I have cared for these kinds of people it takes a toll. There are ethical questions to be asked if this is a good quality of life? Should we keep this person alive at all costs? Could you live in a world of darkness like this woman did? She had no brain, just a brain stem. She couldn't even think. All she could do was breathe and feel sensation. If you loved a person, could you consider this a life?
We might need to keep you in the uk Peter. We need to have these difficult conversations. This young woman is also pretty interesting and intelligent too. She’s making me think.
32:59 The simple moral issue of surrogacy is that it hurts people - the pregnant women (and, I believe, also the children being born this way - but I think the issue of women being hurt stands on its own and surrogacy should be banned regardless even if it could be shown that there's not negative outcome for the children). It doesn't necessarily harm everyone, always - but that is generally not a criteria which needs to be filled in order for us to ban something in society to protect a subgroup of people from harm. Commercialization of organ donation is banned in all democratic societies for the same reason - people recognize that it'd be exploitative of poor people in financially desperate situations to make it available and acceptable to, for example, sell one of their kidneys. Same goes for selling a pregnancy - it is basically also organ donation albeit temporarily. It carries risk of injury, permanent injury and death and I don't think it's morally acceptable to basically rent or buy access to people's bodies. (One can argue that a lot of professions also carries risk of injury or death and we deem it okay to pay people to do those jobs anyway - but I think that that context is different enough that that argument doesn't hold.) We (as in most societies) accept altruistic organ donation because it is directly life saving. Altruistic organ donation is not without issues though - there is risk of under-the-table payment, emotional preassure to save family members even if one might not really want to etc. These risks carries over to altruistic surrogacy. In the case of life saving organ donation I think the benefits (lives saved) outweigh the risks. In the case of altruistic surrogacy there is not as clear benefits - being childless is not life threathening and it's not a human right to have a child at every cost.
If it was shown there was no negative outcome, why would you ban it? Because of the female carrying the child? You do know that they agree to do so, right? If they agreed, they agreed. It shouldn't banned simple because someone MIGHT change their minds. Yes, there are other stipulations for banning, but that doesn't mean anything when many things get banned for inane reasons, like nicotine flavor juice for vapes but not flavored alcohol. If a woman wishes to use herself to do such a thing for a family, then there is no wrong that you seem to allude to, at least at a glance. You do bring up a valid concept regarding the mother, and that's just another issue why people need to think hard before just signing things away. Yes, it isn't a human right, but then again human rights don't really exist on an objective level ,it's whatever we deem it to be at the time. If the parties agree, I have no issue, just like I have no issue of a gay couple having kids, or having homosexual sex. So long as both parties are aware and agreed to it.
I would say it's not obvious that surrogacy harms the pregnant women, there are studies suggesting that most surrogate mothers are happy with there decision post birth. And ultimately I think its the decision of the mother on whether or not she wants to do that, if she doesn't want to risk it she can just not be a surrogate.
If you cannot assign morality to the surrogacy vs adoption question; does it not then follow that there would be no issue with individuals utilizing surrogacy for the purpose of physical and or sociological test subjects? The difference between surrogacy and adoption is that the former is a woman having a baby with the intent to sell it, and the latter is a woman who got pregnant and did not think that she would be able to raise the child in a healthy environment. It really is not that hard to understand. It is about intent, not outcome. We cannot be certain of any outcome, at this point in the history of humanity.
"the former is a woman having a baby with the intent to sell it" Not necessarily, it could also be a woman leasing her womb to the fetus created by the intended parents' sperm and egg. She's providing a service, there's no reason for her nor the facilitators to not be paid. Peter was spot on that the citations of the red dress lady were irrelevant. Thus outlawing surgery altogether necessitates coercion against peaceful people.
@@utarian7 The service that is being provided is the gestation. That is the process of having a baby. A baby that will be, or already has been, exchanged for money. Regardless of who provided the gametes. I am not talking about the law. I am talking about the reason why the intent of an individual, or morality, must be at least as much of a factor as the outcome suggested by the current data.
@@utarian7 The difference between saying that the fee is for the service and not the baby is a semantical tactic to avoid the fact that a human life is being created and exchanged for a financial fee. That is the bottom line, regardless of how it is defined by a legal contract.
It is interesting that Lois in passing mentions the Turnaway study with completely different conclusions than the actual studies done on the cohort (of women who were denied abortions due to gestational limits, with women slightly earlier in their pregnancies being granted abortions as a control group), which show significantly worse overall outcomes for the women who were denied abortions. Lack of abortion care and a lack of free choice is what really harms women - not abortions. It is absolutely amazing that we in todays day and time have medical technology which can grant acess to both effective birth control and safe and effective abortions and infuriating that this is not accessible to all women globally. I stand 100% behind the liberal legislation in my country (Sweden) guaranteeing access until 18 weeks in every hospital in the country, no questions asked (because ANY reason that someone might have is a good enough reason to not be forced into pregnancy, birth and parenthood!). It's just sad that is not the case everywhere.
The turnaway study had quite a number of problems which often glossed over for example the study was based on telephone interviews and many of the participants left the study early I also don't think its fair to say women are "forced" in situations outside of rape
Fun fact: nowhere in the Bible are the words, “thou shall not kill,” or whatever is the equivalent. The commandment in question actually states, “thou shall not murder.” Murder and kill are very different.
I didn't hear anything being said about the commodification of the human body in regards to surrogacy. In particular the surrogate mother's body. The callous disregard for a woman's physical and mental wellbeing left me speechless. I'm pregnant at the moment and I'm finding it quite challenging both emotionally and physically. I have gestational diabetes, thyroid problems, carpal syndrome, swollen feet, heart palpitations and extreme discomfort. I'm also at risk of various life threatening conditions such as pre-eclampsia. Not to mention the fear of giving birth and the stress that it will cause my body. Modern medicine may have made huge advancements but pregnancy can still be life threatening. Especially when you are carrying a fetus that is incompatible with your DNA. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the risks and the hardships and discomfort because the reward is massive! A , hopefully healthy, baby on the other side. But to ask another woman to do this for me? It's a HUGE ask and I believe it should only be given in a voluntary basis and not in exchange for money. Moreover, in my opinion both the surrogate and the baby deserve to be in each other's lives because to break the mother-baby bond is heart wrenching for both. The baby needs to be with its mother in order to get over the stress of birth and be soothed by her voice and smell and also needs to breastfeed which is the ideal process for receiving invaluable nutrients that will promote its long-term health. I could go on and on. Honestly, I don't know why we are still discussing this. The data has been there for decades.
My thoughts on this are that greater value is put on the foetus' life than the mothers. It's where I differ greatly from Lois in this case as I believe most of the time that the mother holds a higher value. (I am not sure if "value" is going to be interpreted correctly here but my gist is that in most cases the mother is capable of looking after herself, whereas the baby is not. Thus the value of the mother is higher.) So to that end, I find it hard to accept pro-life campaigners argument that the foetus' health should be favoured over the woman's. With this same reasoning, it makes no sense to me to put an incentive (or reimbursement) system in place for surrogacy, particularly a financial one. To me that would risk women, who are providing a surrogacy service, doing it for anything other than a moral reason. Where someone in a vulnerable state is less likely to do it for only morals, I think. Obviously, there should be strict screening too and litigation to prevent back handed incentives.
It's just weird that y'all are focusing on the parents who pay for it and not the women who advertise it. You basically want to take away freedoms and rights of the women who offer it.
What a tough conversation.. I wouldn’t stop others from choosing their path but I am a mum to a severely disabled girl, she is non verbal and has a significant cognitive delay (probably IQ below 25) and her she has joy and love in her life.. to me it is still a life worth living.. I might feel different if she was born « normal » and her abilities were taken away but she has never known anything else.. for us parents, it is more difficult, yes, but I don’t see my child as a burden. It is still a beautiful life.. I say all of that and I am not a Christian, nor a religious person overall.. just my opinion..
Wow, this was interesting and I appreciate having more data on the subject. I resonated with the idea that abortion should not be politicized into a polarizing issue. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg found Roe problematic. This is an area that shouldn't be governed by the Fed.
Which is, in fact, utter nonsense from the NHS. In the UK, a woman can go and get the 'day-after' pill from any chemist/pharmacy with no questions asked. *That* is effectively an abortion - right?
At no point during the NHS information on abortion does it say the fetus is killed. It just says the pregnancy is ended. For a medical outlet to be so vague is very odd.
@@jonnutterThe "day-after" pill is not comparable to abortion, it is emergency birth control. It prevents ovulation and therefore fertilization to take place (if it already has, the medication doesn't have any effect).
Im at 5 min in the conversation, in my opinion, there is a enormous difference between a constat in first tree months of conception in the whom and a disability after Birth. Children born with very low iQs will be loved and parents will do anything to have the best life they can provide to that child. But it will be a hard life for everyone in that situation. For most. If your a Millionaire, its different, maybe, its how the parents coop with situation. Kids with that severe disability bring high cost care, everything needs to be adapted. I can speak of a bit experience, because i have two cases in my own family. I can guarantee, it asks a lot of these people to take care of their child.
Peter: another excellent episode of SSE. Simon did a great job being you 😉 If you get a chance, take a look at some of Peter Zeihan’s work (he’s written a book, but he does brief YT videos every day also). He explains why the global reduction in population is a problem. I suspect you’ll find it interesting. Cheers. (Edit: maybe you’re already familiar with his work. If so, forgive my presumption! 🙂)
Adoption should be the alternative to natural conception. There shouldn't be grey areas and medical intervention. As a mother of two young boys, I cannot fathom why anyone would deem womb rentals acceptable. The psychological, emotional and physical impact on both the mother and the baby would be life-long. Adoption should absolutely be promoted and praised. Truly heroic and selfless - the exact opposite of those seeking surrogacy.
It's just weird that y'all are focusing on the parents who pay for it and not the women who advertise it. You basically want to take away freedoms and rights of the women who want to do it.
I wouldn't rely on that locked in test. First you are vulnerable and afraid and your life isn't in your hands. You may be afraid if you say how awful life is someone may pull the plug, or, It would make loved ones sadder.
Greatly appreciate this conversation. I've chosen to remain child-free as a part of my Buddhist practice....you wouldn't believe how many trippy conversations I've had with people on that topic, lol! Always find these conversations fascinating.
I very much dispute the woman's assertation that having abortion is causing psychological issues. I have been on both sides; i had a termination at age 17, and an unplanned pregnancy while married and Catholic at age 23. My son is 31 now, and I don't have the words to describe the hardships I endured raising him alone after leaving the abusive husband. I have anxiety, depression, CPTSD, and severe chronic pain from the decades of stress. The overwhelming majority (reported about 95%) of women feel only relieved at avoiding the enormous impacts of becoming a mother when she is unable or unwilling.
I'm really interested in how Lois' beliefs between and abortion and surrogacy coexist with each other. Her stance on abortion seems to be abortion should be outlawed with no caveats, which is fine. But her problems with surrogacy is that giving away a baby is intrinsically traumatic and your exposing the child to an unrelated male and therefore has a higher chance of experiencing abuse, both physically and sexually. If she is forcing all women to carry all pregnancies to term, is she also going to outlaw giving the child up for adoption or into the foster care system, because she said it was too traumatic in surrogacy situations? Also the majority of women who are getting abortions are single mothers in poor economic situations. The father is rarely in the picture, which means the main man in the child's life is going to be an unrelated boyfriend / husband which again causes the same issues as surrogacy.
Hey, who's that guy in the turquoise sweater, Peter Boghossian or Thomas Malthus? LOL! Great video. Interesting that Lois is a "Christian Commentator" because everything she said seemed grounded as much in secularism as in any doctrine. I'm pro-life and anti-death penalty, entirely from non-religious reasons. I really appreciated her principles and articulation.
@@inpugnaveritaas No, pro-lifers don't protest at palliative care wards, since palliative care's role is to maintain quality of life for people in treatment. You meant hospice, not palliative, since hospice is for people at the end of their lives. Abortion clinics and prisons that carry out the death penalty, are condoned by and do so under the authority of the state. I'm not a hypocrite; unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about.
Conflicts such as war are not easier to solve in most cases if there is less people unless it is one side significantly more than the other side because victory is easier.
Great conversation, but there is no black and white answer here. That is the difficulty of many of the topics on this channel. There is no real right or wrong. Every case is on its own. Two examples: theres a big difference between a couple that goes for surrogacy, because they want children but dont want the burden to carry it. This couple for instance is whealthy, trending, all the good stuff(according to the view of some) but doesnt want the hormonal train, doesnt want a stretched vagina, doesnt want birthmarks on her belly. On the other hand, youve got this couple that is just average, struggling in life, they have trouble conceiving a child the natural way, theyve bin true multiple treatments with out of the whom conception. Both examples are rare, but should be considered. Who has the right to this child the most, or is there no difference? And this is just one example to put it, theres so much variables in the topic, that there are millions of outcomes. 🙏
So often there is this or that study which is not able to be evaluated and probably not carry weight for an argument. If someone wants to use a study have it ready and available on their phone.
Please don't have a conversation surrogacy without talking about the exploitation of women. About what it does to the birth mother , emotionally physically and about what after care she (does not) receive. Especially in developing countries where these women are even more vulnerable and open to being exploited. A woman's body should never be a "work place" Keep up the great work.
I waa adopted at birth in the early 60s. I was basically stolen from my mother against her will for cultural reasons so was NOT for tragic reasons that needed to be healed!
I think your situation is the exception not the rule. I assert that most adoptions are occurring because the bio parents are unable to care for the baby.
A question for the audience - and peter if you fancy answering. Is there a fundamental difference between being a surrogate mother and being a sperm doner - out side of the Time, risk and physical effort? many years ago when I was a student I used to get payed (a small sum) by the high IQ wankbank for donation, I always took the attitude that if I could make a 2 mummy family happy, or a one mummy one daddy family where daddy had a medical problem happy then I just did not see a problem with it. Thoughts and opinions welcome. This whole conversation got me thinking about it from that perspective - and honestly provided surrogacy is covering reasonable costs and not a profit making venture i don't have a problem, its when it becomes about the money... in this case I think the UK actually has a law that is sensible,15k for damaging your body and working for 9 months - with several months recovery is not exactly a big pay check. hell, is it even minimum wage?
If a man contributed his sperm and a women her egg to an artificial womb (doesn't exist, just as an example) and the baby gestated in said womb until pregnancy, which is what your question hypothetically implies, then I don't see a difference between a surrogate mother and being a sperm donor. But your follow-up is about compensation of time, risk and physical effort of a pregnancy and the exploitation it could lead to for vulnerable young women, so I'm confused.
With the large populations of certain countries who have water shortage, I can see this having a crisis as mass migration to Europe and Western countries further increases. I see this impact in the UK with shortages in housing, education, and an increase in social services and welfare payments. I see economic crisis and the average citizen in this country becoming poorer as a result. We will see a brain drain and a more autocratic government crack down as a once homogenous society be divided on ethnic, cultural, and religious lines.
I am completely baffled! It's because of my bias. I'am anti surrogacy (except whitin family), against prostitution and not in favour of abortion. If it were possible, I would avoid all abortions that occur for economic reasons. I concede the choice or will to the women or the couple to decide if they want to have a child. I assume that results from a conscious decision. (The most important point for me in legalizing abortion is a historical reason. Safeguarding women's lives). There's always a moral or/and an ethical question behind any conscious decision. Beyond that decision, in this case, the manifestation of sadness, mood swings, depression, anxiety and other alternate states of mind can occur and certainly will. Surrogacy extends and accumulates these symptoms, day after day, until the child is born. To satisfy something, a desire I can't express, one human being will live, if not all at least in part, in a vacuum. World dePopulation There's a very easy way to avoid depopulation in the world - If you are above 50 years of age it should be possible to step aside (saying to yourself - I'm no longer the future), possibly lowering your standard of living. For a greater good.
Can you say how old or young you are? Because saying a fifty year old should step aside is pretty drastic. Let alone the knowledge and experience we would throw away is enormous. I would say yes for some part, that 50+ should start thinking his knowledge and experience to the younger generation and not try to stay on top no matter what.
@@larscooleman8221 I step aside before i was fifty years old, twelve years ago. JPS once said - Hell is other people. Let's say that I died for the last time, to society, at the age of forty-seven. I'm far from being in heaven, but the temperature of this hell I find myself in is much more bearable. Fifty is just a number, but when the candidates in the US election are eighty years old, I ask myself what generational values are we giving power?
@@ruibotto2045 Thats pretty good said. Yes, we dont need no 80+ year old men or women deciding. But to lead a country, in my humble opinion(like assholes, we all have one), you need some kind of insight and maturity to lead it the good way. But half walking dead corpses dont furfill those needs, thats like almost the absolute truth. I must say im glad Ive asked, because they way youve put it out there, its very open for discussion. Taking every word literally, its very easy to pull your opinion in the wrong direction. But i always try to think that others dont act or write in a hateful way. But theres a lot of others out there. Thanks for the exchange of ideas
I see adoption as a second choice to surrogacy which is a second choice to naturally having a child , I know of one surrogacy where 2 people couldn't have a child naturally , and after a few miscarriages decided to go the surrogacy route and found someone who was willing to carry their biological matter to term for them and was compensated and all parties were delighted .I don't know why there is so much condemnation of surrogacy ,well I do but not reasonable arguments ,ripping babies away from their mothers , and buying babies like it's human trafficking or buying a car is misrepresenting it .
I agree. I also thought lois wasn't being consistent with her views on the examples she gave for surrogacy. That a male is more likely to abuse a child that is not his, this can be said for adoption, also the parents who abandoned and baby in thailand, if there are "defects" etc with a child that wasnt known before adoption, the parents could also abandon the baby. I dont see it as purchase, its compensation. Also, in this country, its not legal to pay for a child, only to pay for expenses, theyre not renting a womb willy-nilly as lois makes it out to be. Its consenting adults coming to an agreement which benefits all parties. Since no money is involved, no woman who hates childbirth is going to be a surrogate. There are women who LOVE being pregnant but cannot handle another child themselves. And i also do not think the surrogates are the mothers, the biological mothers are. The surrogate should have no rights to the child. As peter said, I cannot see the problem with surrogacy.
The condemnation comes from the fact that surrogacy is inherently exploitative of human bodies. Most cultures tend to view selling "your body" in the form of labour as morally acceptable, but draws a line at selling and trading with body parts and organs (the ones you can survive without, so kidneys and parts of the liver). Most people instincively understand and agree with the opinion that trading with kidneys is morally wrong, because it'll inevetably lead to exploitation of poor people (because if you had any other means of earning a living - the absolute vast majority of people would not resort to selling their organs). Society should therefore ban it to protect poor people from being exploited. The same forces are involved with commercialization of surrogate pregnancies - supply and demand in rich communities or countries will be mismatched, leading potential buyers to communities of poor women with few other means of supporting themselves. Being pregnant and birthing a child while "natural" carries risks of injury, permanent injury and death at absolutely the same or greater rates than donating a kidney - and I really don't think this should be commercialized for that reason. You need only take a look at the consequences of commercial surrogacy in countries like Ukraine and India to see the absolute horrors it can lead to. Altruistic surrogacy is different, but not unproblematic. I don't agree with that either, on the basis that, unlike organ failure, being childless is not life threathening and the risk/benefit calculation therefore tips over more towards risks than benefits (unlike in the case of altruistic organ donation).
@@viku1361 Aren't you having your cake and eating it too ? That's a Ukraine/India problem not a surrogacy problem , there is a reason why surrogates legally can only be compensated for expenses occurred. I never hear anyone say that men are being exploited by women who refuse to have an abortion ,choosing instead to endure the torture and life threatening pregnancy ,forcing the man into poverty ...yet you hear it when it's a woman . People will always "exploit" others , the question of morality is, is it for Altruistic or Narcissistic reasons I think we disagree that having your own children is the most meaningful thing you can do.
My baby was born when abortions were illegal. I resented her but could never say that because I didn't want to be labeled a bad mother. This the only time I've ever said the truth.
Okay I thought most modern surrogacy was gestational, i.e. it had the embryo from the intended parents, and the surrogate was a pure vessel. But the lady is making all her talking points based on non-genetic relation. Correct me if I"m wrong I'm not well educated on it.
Peter, regarding population issues, read Superabundance by Tupy and Pooley. Love to see a conversation between you and one or both of them. They are on the opposite side to you.
Remember a few episodes ago, when that one atheist guy said he knew all the moral atheists? Well Peter can't be one of them, so that guy's judgment was wrong. Wr absolutely do not have billions too many people.
15:35 "Is that causal?" Yep, excellent question. Women who assume that pregnancies can be aborted are likely to have problems to start with. People who eat walnuts live longer, the link between the two doesn't have to be direct.
You could possibly detect severe brain deformation or something similar but other than that you can't. That idea of the question is that it's a hypothetical to feel out the boundaries of a moral framework.
@@Chablar89 It was a very specific proposition IQ 25 , what about a severely autistic child that will need 24 hr care IQ of 60 but undetectable before 1 year old , if quality of life or burden are the only considerations .They say ignorance is bliss and maybe intelligence is a burden lol ( I wouldn't know ) Slippery slope but let's say you know the baby will die within minute of birth but it's organs could save the life of other babies that otherwise would die ,or would it be better to abort it in the first trimester ,or aborting it in the third trimester ,or a fetus with a heart defect than will need surgery or an organ transplant etc ...... the trolley/tram problem
I agree, not thinking about abortion alot publicly is the way a society should be imo. The Brits for the win on this issue. Just don't really care? Is that not ok
are you saying that a house and baby are the same thing. That's exactly the argument Lois made: Surrogacy commodifies human life. I don't know if I agree with that but your example is a pretty messed up comparision. Houses don't have souls, emotions, pain, or attachment. Thats why its ok to sell them.
@@Didleeios88 I said she wasn't consistent . I laid out a surrogacy that I know about where there was no step dad involved but claimed that stepdads are a reason to be against surrogacy around 00:26:00 approx .She said adoption is because of tragedy (inaccurate), adoption will always have a stepdad but she is all for adoption .
@@Didleeios88 She surely isn't saying that a gay couple who adopt are twice as likely to abuse the child ? Her example for step fathers being abusive is where a mother who has children with a man (who is no longer there for whatever reason) ,brings a new man into that family , the change in the dynamic causes tensions as the new man may only be interested in the mother and may become abusive towards the children or is more likely ..she skewed the statistic there
37:00 Peter thinks we can reduce the worlds population without returning to the dark ages! How does he think the world's economy is goung to carry on with fewer and fewer people paying for more and more debt?
12:26 I appreciate that she asked if she could explain her position, instead of just blurting it out. what she says after is pretty clear imo, she wants to change culture, not only the law, but specifically for women and children to be supported and valued. Not necessarily to make abortion go away, but for it to be seen as unnecessary and unwanted.
Argument about boyfriends being abusive towards single moms kids made to prove surogacy with sperm doner will also result in abuse in dumb. to make this claim you would need to examine regular artficial insemination kids (when father cannot be the biological father), adoptive parents and stepfathers in married couples. My gues that abuse is there in boyfriend case because they are alredy in big way patological ppl. "baby daddy" culture, no marriage no serious attemp at family. My sis had to use sperm from donor, as my bro in law had cancer before. My bro in law is a great affectionate daddy, in the first week of my miracle nephew life my sis did not change a single diaper :D. Kiddo is happy daddy is proud and loving.
I agree. I think there is a massive difference between a husband choosing with his wife to make a child with a surrogate, and a guy hooking up with a women and tolerating the chid she already has from a past relationship. To use the same data is wrong. Also the women she would be forcing to keep their babies are generally going to have the same boyfriends committing the abuse.
For another Spectrum Street Epistemology about abortion, watch this one with the Triggernometry hosts and March For Life UK next: th-cam.com/video/Cms2zWrjgWQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Kemz66UALpVN7B8D
Looking forward to watching this
Peter you are the goat. The only class I excelled at, and was interested in during high school was an elective I took called philosophy 😅 (cannabis and playing music was more engaging than education at the time 😋) and I wish you were my teacher back then. But I guess you are a teacher in a way with your videos so thank you 🙏
Side note, the first book our teacher had us read was Sophie's World. I'm curious if that was a good choice for a philosophy 101 course's initial reading assignment? And if not, what would be a good choice to offer young minds in the high school age bracket as reading material to get them excited and/or engaged in the broad endeavor into philosophical thinking?
If you cannot assign morality to the surrogacy vs adoption question; does it not then follow that there would be no issue with individuals utilizing surrogacy for the purpose of physical and or sociological test subjects?
The difference between surrogacy and adoption is that the former is a woman having a baby with the intent to sell it, and the latter is a woman who got pregnant and did not think that she would be able to raise the child in a healthy environment. It really is not that hard to understand. It is about intent, not outcome. We cannot be certain of any outcome, at this point in the history of humanity.
@drpeterboghossian Simon stepped into your role without (hardly) skipping a beat. Watch your back 😂
I love the stuff you do in England Peter. We just don't do anything like this in the UK media. You manage to deal with such complex issues in great depth but entirely without judgement or lecturing. It is so encouraging to hear people with very different views being able to honestly share in the discussion without moral grandstanding. Plus I was unaware that I shared so many of Simon's views.
Respectful and civil debate from two knowledgeable people. More of this, please!
Peter Boghossian, giving me faith that all is not lost. We really appreciate what you do for us.
I'm a gay man, and the child of an adoptee, and instinctively I reject the formulation "two gay men use surrogacy to have children" because I think the gravity of the event demands that we speak in as real terms as possible. It would be "a gay man has a child with a woman and then raise that child with his partner" now if there's a scenario where a man and woman agree to coparent or to a situation they are both happy with , I think that makes total sense, as the child would be able to know and be raised by their mother as well, and benefits from having two parents. I instinctively reject this newspeak utilitarian formulation of "using surrogacy". It's a euphemism which obscures reality, and I say that as a gay man who I believe would be a good father.
I think people who have profound disabilities have an impact on the quality of life of a village of people. There's an industry around people with disabilities. It's a "personal" decision to abort or not abort any pregnancy disability of the child or not. The world people are bringing a child into should be a factor.
I had an abortion it was a tough decision to make, and many factors were considered by myself and my husband. I'm okay. I did have a grief process.
We went on to have another child a couple of years later when our situation had improved and my husbands health had improved.
I'm sharing my story in the hope of the conversation, including a more realistic view of abortion. My husband and I were in our 30s with three children. This is the most common demographic of women getting abortions in Australia
If your current child got disabled, do you think it's okay to kill it? If not, why was it not the murder of a human being when you killed the baby in your womb?
@utarian7 If my 27 year old son was in an accident at his job, which rendered him profoundly disabled. I would have no problem turning off life support, and he is a registered organ donor, so this would help others live a high quality of life. This is something we have all discussed what our wishes are if something like this happened to us.
I think you completely missed my point, however, which was its a very personal decision. Having a disability doesn't necessarily mean you have a poor quality of life. There's an industry built around people with disabilities having the highest quality of life possible. Families are impacted by having a person with any kind of disability in both positive and negative ways. People who are working in the industry are impacted, such as myself. To ignore this is not doing justice to these people and quite offen a lifetime of medical intervention and physical suffering.
Siblings are impacted heavily. I wish there was more done to help them. The invisible suffering they go through. Marriages are impacted a lot of couples don't stay together.
People don't think of the person with profound disabilities accurately. They don't think of a person getting their bowels manually evacuated daily, tube fed, blind, deaf and unable to communicate even by blinking. I have cared for these kinds of people it takes a toll. There are ethical questions to be asked if this is a good quality of life? Should we keep this person alive at all costs? Could you live in a world of darkness like this woman did? She had no brain, just a brain stem. She couldn't even think. All she could do was breathe and feel sensation. If you loved a person, could you consider this a life?
Disabled people aren't on life support. You're confused. @@Krinsta1
Someone is censoring my replies, so I can't continue this discussion. @@Krinsta1
That was functionally the argument of the Nazis
3 intelligent and articulate people in 1 room that have civil dialogue. Wow. Excellent.
We might need to keep you in the uk Peter. We need to have these difficult conversations. This young woman is also pretty interesting and intelligent too. She’s making me think.
32:59 The simple moral issue of surrogacy is that it hurts people - the pregnant women (and, I believe, also the children being born this way - but I think the issue of women being hurt stands on its own and surrogacy should be banned regardless even if it could be shown that there's not negative outcome for the children). It doesn't necessarily harm everyone, always - but that is generally not a criteria which needs to be filled in order for us to ban something in society to protect a subgroup of people from harm. Commercialization of organ donation is banned in all democratic societies for the same reason - people recognize that it'd be exploitative of poor people in financially desperate situations to make it available and acceptable to, for example, sell one of their kidneys. Same goes for selling a pregnancy - it is basically also organ donation albeit temporarily. It carries risk of injury, permanent injury and death and I don't think it's morally acceptable to basically rent or buy access to people's bodies. (One can argue that a lot of professions also carries risk of injury or death and we deem it okay to pay people to do those jobs anyway - but I think that that context is different enough that that argument doesn't hold.)
We (as in most societies) accept altruistic organ donation because it is directly life saving. Altruistic organ donation is not without issues though - there is risk of under-the-table payment, emotional preassure to save family members even if one might not really want to etc. These risks carries over to altruistic surrogacy. In the case of life saving organ donation I think the benefits (lives saved) outweigh the risks. In the case of altruistic surrogacy there is not as clear benefits - being childless is not life threathening and it's not a human right to have a child at every cost.
Very well said
If it was shown there was no negative outcome, why would you ban it? Because of the female carrying the child? You do know that they agree to do so, right? If they agreed, they agreed. It shouldn't banned simple because someone MIGHT change their minds.
Yes, there are other stipulations for banning, but that doesn't mean anything when many things get banned for inane reasons, like nicotine flavor juice for vapes but not flavored alcohol. If a woman wishes to use herself to do such a thing for a family, then there is no wrong that you seem to allude to, at least at a glance. You do bring up a valid concept regarding the mother, and that's just another issue why people need to think hard before just signing things away.
Yes, it isn't a human right, but then again human rights don't really exist on an objective level ,it's whatever we deem it to be at the time. If the parties agree, I have no issue, just like I have no issue of a gay couple having kids, or having homosexual sex. So long as both parties are aware and agreed to it.
I would say it's not obvious that surrogacy harms the pregnant women, there are studies suggesting that most surrogate mothers are happy with there decision post birth. And ultimately I think its the decision of the mother on whether or not she wants to do that, if she doesn't want to risk it she can just not be a surrogate.
If you cannot assign morality to the surrogacy vs adoption question; does it not then follow that there would be no issue with individuals utilizing surrogacy for the purpose of physical and or sociological test subjects?
The difference between surrogacy and adoption is that the former is a woman having a baby with the intent to sell it, and the latter is a woman who got pregnant and did not think that she would be able to raise the child in a healthy environment. It really is not that hard to understand. It is about intent, not outcome. We cannot be certain of any outcome, at this point in the history of humanity.
"the former is a woman having a baby with the intent to sell it" Not necessarily, it could also be a woman leasing her womb to the fetus created by the intended parents' sperm and egg.
She's providing a service, there's no reason for her nor the facilitators to not be paid.
Peter was spot on that the citations of the red dress lady were irrelevant. Thus outlawing surgery altogether necessitates coercion against peaceful people.
@@utarian7 The service that is being provided is the gestation. That is the process of having a baby. A baby that will be, or already has been, exchanged for money. Regardless of who provided the gametes.
I am not talking about the law. I am talking about the reason why the intent of an individual, or morality, must be at least as much of a factor as the outcome suggested by the current data.
Ah okay thanks for clarifying, though you misrepresented surrogacy. The baby isn't being sold, the womb is being leased. @@jswets5007
Someone is censoring my replies@@jswets5007
@@utarian7 The difference between saying that the fee is for the service and not the baby is a semantical tactic to avoid the fact that a human life is being created and exchanged for a financial fee. That is the bottom line, regardless of how it is defined by a legal contract.
It is interesting that Lois in passing mentions the Turnaway study with completely different conclusions than the actual studies done on the cohort (of women who were denied abortions due to gestational limits, with women slightly earlier in their pregnancies being granted abortions as a control group), which show significantly worse overall outcomes for the women who were denied abortions. Lack of abortion care and a lack of free choice is what really harms women - not abortions. It is absolutely amazing that we in todays day and time have medical technology which can grant acess to both effective birth control and safe and effective abortions and infuriating that this is not accessible to all women globally. I stand 100% behind the liberal legislation in my country (Sweden) guaranteeing access until 18 weeks in every hospital in the country, no questions asked (because ANY reason that someone might have is a good enough reason to not be forced into pregnancy, birth and parenthood!). It's just sad that is not the case everywhere.
The turnaway study had quite a number of problems which often glossed over for example the study was based on telephone interviews and many of the participants left the study early
I also don't think its fair to say women are "forced" in situations outside of rape
These Always makes me think …. So great
Thank you 🕊
Absolutely fascinating. I love these kinds of conversations.
Thank you
Fun fact: nowhere in the Bible are the words, “thou shall not kill,” or whatever is the equivalent. The commandment in question actually states, “thou shall not murder.” Murder and kill are very different.
Hebrew: lie in wait (premeditate)
Greek translation: "criminal homicide"
I didn't hear anything being said about the commodification of the human body in regards to surrogacy. In particular the surrogate mother's body.
The callous disregard for a woman's physical and mental wellbeing left me speechless. I'm pregnant at the moment and I'm finding it quite challenging both emotionally and physically.
I have gestational diabetes, thyroid problems, carpal syndrome, swollen feet, heart palpitations and extreme discomfort. I'm also at risk of various life threatening conditions such as pre-eclampsia. Not to mention the fear of giving birth and the stress that it will cause my body.
Modern medicine may have made huge advancements but pregnancy can still be life threatening. Especially when you are carrying a fetus that is incompatible with your DNA.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the risks and the hardships and discomfort because the reward is massive! A , hopefully healthy, baby on the other side. But to ask another woman to do this for me? It's a HUGE ask and I believe it should only be given in a voluntary basis and not in exchange for money.
Moreover, in my opinion both the surrogate and the baby deserve to be in each other's lives because to break the mother-baby bond is heart wrenching for both. The baby needs to be with its mother in order to get over the stress of birth and be soothed by her voice and smell and also needs to breastfeed which is the ideal process for receiving invaluable nutrients that will promote its long-term health.
I could go on and on. Honestly, I don't know why we are still discussing this. The data has been there for decades.
My thoughts on this are that greater value is put on the foetus' life than the mothers. It's where I differ greatly from Lois in this case as I believe most of the time that the mother holds a higher value. (I am not sure if "value" is going to be interpreted correctly here but my gist is that in most cases the mother is capable of looking after herself, whereas the baby is not. Thus the value of the mother is higher.) So to that end, I find it hard to accept pro-life campaigners argument that the foetus' health should be favoured over the woman's.
With this same reasoning, it makes no sense to me to put an incentive (or reimbursement) system in place for surrogacy, particularly a financial one. To me that would risk women, who are providing a surrogacy service, doing it for anything other than a moral reason. Where someone in a vulnerable state is less likely to do it for only morals, I think. Obviously, there should be strict screening too and litigation to prevent back handed incentives.
It's just weird that y'all are focusing on the parents who pay for it and not the women who advertise it.
You basically want to take away freedoms and rights of the women who offer it.
@@FDTFDTFDT my whole comment focused on the surrogate!
@@FDTFDTFDT Is this the same argument that you have about prostitution and prostitutes?
What a tough conversation.. I wouldn’t stop others from choosing their path but I am a mum to a severely disabled girl, she is non verbal and has a significant cognitive delay (probably IQ below 25) and her she has joy and love in her life.. to me it is still a life worth living.. I might feel different if she was born « normal » and her abilities were taken away but she has never known anything else.. for us parents, it is more difficult, yes, but I don’t see my child as a burden. It is still a beautiful life.. I say all of that and I am not a Christian, nor a religious person overall.. just my opinion..
Wow, this was interesting and I appreciate having more data on the subject. I resonated with the idea that abortion should not be politicized into a polarizing issue. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg found Roe problematic. This is an area that shouldn't be governed by the Fed.
These are essential, properly grown-up conversations which need to be heard
And modeled as well
Simon did a really good job as host. I broadly agree with him, but he was great at teasing out the edge cases as well.
Indeed!! Simon for the win!
Agreed. Simon should try doing some Spectrum Street Epistemology on GBNews.
Great conversation!
Lol at the “Context” note from TH-cam
Which is, in fact, utter nonsense from the NHS. In the UK, a woman can go and get the 'day-after' pill from any chemist/pharmacy with no questions asked. *That* is effectively an abortion - right?
At no point during the NHS information on abortion does it say the fetus is killed. It just says the pregnancy is ended. For a medical outlet to be so vague is very odd.
A surgical abortion removes the "pregnancy"!
An abortion is ending a pregnancy. They don't define pregnancy.
@@jonnutterThe "day-after" pill is not comparable to abortion, it is emergency birth control. It prevents ovulation and therefore fertilization to take place (if it already has, the medication doesn't have any effect).
Problem with the floor mats is it's hard to see from the camera's perspective
Im at 5 min in the conversation, in my opinion, there is a enormous difference between a constat in first tree months of conception in the whom and a disability after Birth.
Children born with very low iQs will be loved and parents will do anything to have the best life they can provide to that child. But it will be a hard life for everyone in that situation. For most. If your a Millionaire, its different, maybe, its how the parents coop with situation.
Kids with that severe disability bring high cost care, everything needs to be adapted.
I can speak of a bit experience, because i have two cases in my own family. I can guarantee, it asks a lot of these people to take care of their child.
Peter: another excellent episode of SSE. Simon did a great job being you 😉 If you get a chance, take a look at some of Peter Zeihan’s work (he’s written a book, but he does brief YT videos every day also). He explains why the global reduction in population is a problem. I suspect you’ll find it interesting. Cheers. (Edit: maybe you’re already familiar with his work. If so, forgive my presumption! 🙂)
Thank you. I’ll check it out.
Adoption should be the alternative to natural conception. There shouldn't be grey areas and medical intervention. As a mother of two young boys, I cannot fathom why anyone would deem womb rentals acceptable. The psychological, emotional and physical impact on both the mother and the baby would be life-long. Adoption should absolutely be promoted and praised. Truly heroic and selfless - the exact opposite of those seeking surrogacy.
It's just weird that y'all are focusing on the parents who pay for it and not the women who advertise it.
You basically want to take away freedoms and rights of the women who want to do it.
I wouldn't rely on that locked in test. First you are vulnerable and afraid and your life isn't in your hands. You may be afraid if you say how awful life is someone may pull the plug, or, It would make loved ones sadder.
I'd hope the study was done properly, privately and informatively.
@@realMaverickBuckley
Fortunately, every study has delivered accurate results 100% of the time. :)
Greatly appreciate this conversation. I've chosen to remain child-free as a part of my Buddhist practice....you wouldn't believe how many trippy conversations I've had with people on that topic, lol! Always find these conversations fascinating.
Thanks
A nice chat from "the island." Interesting to hear takes other than my own.
Great job everyone
I like how you get simon to do your job, that was interesting to watch
Abortion age: I think it's a parent’s duty to abort its kid at any age if they think it's too low quality.
So life unworthy of life, nazi style?
Great work. Love you Peter
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
I very much dispute the woman's assertation that having abortion is causing psychological issues. I have been on both sides; i had a termination at age 17, and an unplanned pregnancy while married and Catholic at age 23. My son is 31 now, and I don't have the words to describe the hardships I endured raising him alone after leaving the abusive husband. I have anxiety, depression, CPTSD, and severe chronic pain from the decades of stress.
The overwhelming majority (reported about 95%) of women feel only relieved at avoiding the enormous impacts of becoming a mother when she is unable or unwilling.
This street epistemology method and presentations may be perhaps almost the most enlightening way to learn how to think and why…..
I'm really interested in how Lois' beliefs between and abortion and surrogacy coexist with each other. Her stance on abortion seems to be abortion should be outlawed with no caveats, which is fine. But her problems with surrogacy is that giving away a baby is intrinsically traumatic and your exposing the child to an unrelated male and therefore has a higher chance of experiencing abuse, both physically and sexually.
If she is forcing all women to carry all pregnancies to term, is she also going to outlaw giving the child up for adoption or into the foster care system, because she said it was too traumatic in surrogacy situations? Also the majority of women who are getting abortions are single mothers in poor economic situations. The father is rarely in the picture, which means the main man in the child's life is going to be an unrelated boyfriend / husband which again causes the same issues as surrogacy.
Hey, who's that guy in the turquoise sweater, Peter Boghossian or Thomas Malthus? LOL!
Great video. Interesting that Lois is a "Christian Commentator" because everything she said seemed grounded as much in secularism as in any doctrine. I'm pro-life and anti-death penalty, entirely from non-religious reasons. I really appreciated her principles and articulation.
Do you protest for the right to life at a palliative care ward? Hypocrite.
@@inpugnaveritaas No, pro-lifers don't protest at palliative care wards, since palliative care's role is to maintain quality of life for people in treatment. You meant hospice, not palliative, since hospice is for people at the end of their lives. Abortion clinics and prisons that carry out the death penalty, are condoned by and do so under the authority of the state. I'm not a hypocrite; unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about.
@@dilloneliassen9622 moron. Keep your nose out of other peoples lives.
Lol Peter is really appealing to the algorithm with that thumbnail.
Conflicts such as war are not easier to solve in most cases if there is less people unless it is one side significantly more than the other side because victory is easier.
Slightly disappointed in you Peter, for not taking 0:26 and making it the first claim of the video. Though I recognize it's off topic.
Almost makes me cry hearing about people with locked in syndrome being grateful they're still alive and still finding a purpose in life 😢
Who's Teux Gaemen?
Great conversation, but there is no black and white answer here. That is the difficulty of many of the topics on this channel. There is no real right or wrong. Every case is on its own.
Two examples: theres a big difference between a couple that goes for surrogacy, because they want children but dont want the burden to carry it. This couple for instance is whealthy, trending, all the good stuff(according to the view of some) but doesnt want the hormonal train, doesnt want a stretched vagina, doesnt want birthmarks on her belly.
On the other hand, youve got this couple that is just average, struggling in life, they have trouble conceiving a child the natural way, theyve bin true multiple treatments with out of the whom conception.
Both examples are rare, but should be considered.
Who has the right to this child the most, or is there no difference?
And this is just one example to put it, theres so much variables in the topic, that there are millions of outcomes.
🙏
So often there is this or that study which is not able to be evaluated and probably not carry weight for an argument. If someone wants to use a study have it ready and available on their phone.
Ther was never the Question over contraceptive and pharmaindustrie and its patent , so the low shut be Adaption bevor Surrogation
Please don't have a conversation surrogacy without talking about the exploitation of women.
About what it does to the birth mother , emotionally physically and about what after care she (does not) receive. Especially in developing countries where these women are even more vulnerable and open to being exploited. A woman's body should never be a "work place"
Keep up the great work.
Intelligent, logically sound and consistent. Wife material 😍
I waa adopted at birth in the early 60s. I was basically stolen from my mother against her will for cultural reasons so was NOT for tragic reasons that needed to be healed!
I think your situation is the exception not the rule. I assert that most adoptions are occurring because the bio parents are unable to care for the baby.
A question for the audience - and peter if you fancy answering.
Is there a fundamental difference between being a surrogate mother and being a sperm doner - out side of the Time, risk and physical effort?
many years ago when I was a student I used to get payed (a small sum) by the high IQ wankbank for donation, I always took the attitude that if I could make a 2 mummy family happy, or a one mummy one daddy family where daddy had a medical problem happy then I just did not see a problem with it. Thoughts and opinions welcome.
This whole conversation got me thinking about it from that perspective - and honestly provided surrogacy is covering reasonable costs and not a profit making venture i don't have a problem, its when it becomes about the money... in this case I think the UK actually has a law that is sensible,15k for damaging your body and working for 9 months - with several months recovery is not exactly a big pay check. hell, is it even minimum wage?
If a man contributed his sperm and a women her egg to an artificial womb (doesn't exist, just as an example) and the baby gestated in said womb until pregnancy, which is what your question hypothetically implies, then I don't see a difference between a surrogate mother and being a sperm donor. But your follow-up is about compensation of time, risk and physical effort of a pregnancy and the exploitation it could lead to for vulnerable young women, so I'm confused.
@@matthewmullin6042 honestly..im confused too. hence the open question(s).
With the large populations of certain countries who have water shortage, I can see this having a crisis as mass migration to Europe and Western countries further increases. I see this impact in the UK with shortages in housing, education, and an increase in social services and welfare payments. I see economic crisis and the average citizen in this country becoming poorer as a result. We will see a brain drain and a more autocratic government crack down as a once homogenous society be divided on ethnic, cultural, and religious lines.
I am completely baffled!
It's because of my bias.
I'am anti surrogacy (except whitin family), against prostitution and not in favour of abortion.
If it were possible, I would avoid all abortions that occur for economic reasons.
I concede the choice or will to the women or the couple to decide if they want to have a child. I assume that results from a conscious decision.
(The most important point for me in legalizing abortion is a historical reason. Safeguarding women's lives).
There's always a moral or/and an ethical question behind any conscious decision.
Beyond that decision, in this case, the manifestation of sadness, mood swings, depression, anxiety and other alternate states of mind can occur and certainly will.
Surrogacy extends and accumulates these symptoms, day after day, until the child is born.
To satisfy something, a desire I can't express, one human being will live, if not all at least in part, in a vacuum.
World dePopulation
There's a very easy way to avoid depopulation in the world - If you are above 50 years of age it should be possible to step aside (saying to yourself - I'm no longer the future), possibly lowering your standard of living. For a greater good.
Can you say how old or young you are? Because saying a fifty year old should step aside is pretty drastic. Let alone the knowledge and experience we would throw away is enormous.
I would say yes for some part, that 50+ should start thinking his knowledge and experience to the younger generation and not try to stay on top no matter what.
@@larscooleman8221 I step aside before i was fifty years old, twelve years ago. JPS once said - Hell is other people. Let's say that I died for the last time, to society, at the age of forty-seven. I'm far from being in heaven, but the temperature of this hell I find myself in is much more bearable.
Fifty is just a number, but when the candidates in the US election are eighty years old, I ask myself what generational values are we giving power?
@@ruibotto2045 Thats pretty good said. Yes, we dont need no 80+ year old men or women deciding. But to lead a country, in my humble opinion(like assholes, we all have one), you need some kind of insight and maturity to lead it the good way.
But half walking dead corpses dont furfill those needs, thats like almost the absolute truth.
I must say im glad Ive asked, because they way youve put it out there, its very open for discussion. Taking every word literally, its very easy to pull your opinion in the wrong direction.
But i always try to think that others dont act or write in a hateful way. But theres a lot of others out there.
Thanks for the exchange of ideas
You're welcome@@larscooleman8221
If she’s pregnant she already has a child.
I see adoption as a second choice to surrogacy which is a second choice to naturally having a child , I know of one surrogacy where 2 people couldn't have a child naturally , and after a few miscarriages decided to go the surrogacy route and found someone who was willing to carry their biological matter to term for them and was compensated and all parties were delighted .I don't know why there is so much condemnation of surrogacy ,well I do but not reasonable arguments ,ripping babies away from their mothers , and buying babies like it's human trafficking or buying a car is misrepresenting it .
I agree. I also thought lois wasn't being consistent with her views on the examples she gave for surrogacy. That a male is more likely to abuse a child that is not his, this can be said for adoption, also the parents who abandoned and baby in thailand, if there are "defects" etc with a child that wasnt known before adoption, the parents could also abandon the baby. I dont see it as purchase, its compensation. Also, in this country, its not legal to pay for a child, only to pay for expenses, theyre not renting a womb willy-nilly as lois makes it out to be. Its consenting adults coming to an agreement which benefits all parties. Since no money is involved, no woman who hates childbirth is going to be a surrogate. There are women who LOVE being pregnant but cannot handle another child themselves.
And i also do not think the surrogates are the mothers, the biological mothers are. The surrogate should have no rights to the child. As peter said, I cannot see the problem with surrogacy.
The condemnation comes from the fact that surrogacy is inherently exploitative of human bodies. Most cultures tend to view selling "your body" in the form of labour as morally acceptable, but draws a line at selling and trading with body parts and organs (the ones you can survive without, so kidneys and parts of the liver). Most people instincively understand and agree with the opinion that trading with kidneys is morally wrong, because it'll inevetably lead to exploitation of poor people (because if you had any other means of earning a living - the absolute vast majority of people would not resort to selling their organs). Society should therefore ban it to protect poor people from being exploited. The same forces are involved with commercialization of surrogate pregnancies - supply and demand in rich communities or countries will be mismatched, leading potential buyers to communities of poor women with few other means of supporting themselves. Being pregnant and birthing a child while "natural" carries risks of injury, permanent injury and death at absolutely the same or greater rates than donating a kidney - and I really don't think this should be commercialized for that reason. You need only take a look at the consequences of commercial surrogacy in countries like Ukraine and India to see the absolute horrors it can lead to.
Altruistic surrogacy is different, but not unproblematic. I don't agree with that either, on the basis that, unlike organ failure, being childless is not life threathening and the risk/benefit calculation therefore tips over more towards risks than benefits (unlike in the case of altruistic organ donation).
@@viku1361 Aren't you having your cake and eating it too ? That's a Ukraine/India problem not a surrogacy problem , there is a reason why surrogates legally can only be compensated for expenses occurred.
I never hear anyone say that men are being exploited by women who refuse to have an abortion ,choosing instead to endure the torture and life threatening pregnancy ,forcing the man into poverty ...yet you hear it when it's a woman .
People will always "exploit" others , the question of morality is, is it for Altruistic or Narcissistic reasons
I think we disagree that having your own children is the most meaningful thing you can do.
@@BeneathTheFoogyDewWonderfully said! Thank you!
@@viku1361100% Wonderfully said! Thank you! ❤
Baby farming. Says it all.
When I listen to Peter talk I hear that dad I wish I had 💔
My baby was born when abortions were illegal. I resented her but could never say that because I didn't want to be labeled a bad mother. This the only time I've ever said the truth.
Terrible person
You wish for her to be dead?
Let's retire the word "cringe" shall we?
töts cringe ask bro
What a cringe belief.
Okay I thought most modern surrogacy was gestational, i.e. it had the embryo from the intended parents, and the surrogate was a pure vessel. But the lady is making all her talking points based on non-genetic relation. Correct me if I"m wrong I'm not well educated on it.
Not true, a lot of the cases she mentioned involved babies genetically related to their parents.
There is enough wealth in the system to deal with popation collapse. Just tax and regulate properly.
I think condemning people to a life of misery is immoral, I think the full person does not exist before the child can live without its mother.
Peter, regarding population issues, read Superabundance by Tupy and Pooley. Love to see a conversation between you and one or both of them. They are on the opposite side to you.
Remember a few episodes ago, when that one atheist guy said he knew all the moral atheists? Well Peter can't be one of them, so that guy's judgment was wrong. Wr absolutely do not have billions too many people.
15:35 "Is that causal?" Yep, excellent question. Women who assume that pregnancies can be aborted are likely to have problems to start with.
People who eat walnuts live longer, the link between the two doesn't have to be direct.
Somebody should tell that guy about the plan b pill.
❤
@drpeterboghossian I recommend interviewing Kathy Faust from Them before us about the surrogacy issue.
Have more diverse debates. Good argument for lower population.
Abortion age: I think it's a parent’s duty to abort its kid at any age if they think it's too low quality.
I was censored.
If you want to be frank, speak without euphemisms.
E.g. say "murder their child if they feel its not up to their chosen standards" @@4850937
33:00 everything we eat is commodified life. Treating people in the same way we treat food is degrading in the same way cannabalism is degrading.
Do you mean that people really do this? Surrogacy is not just for sitcoms?
How can you tell if a fetus will have an IQ less than 25 before 13 weeks?
You could possibly detect severe brain deformation or something similar but other than that you can't. That idea of the question is that it's a hypothetical to feel out the boundaries of a moral framework.
@@Chablar89 It was a very specific proposition IQ 25 , what about a severely autistic child that will need 24 hr care IQ of 60 but undetectable before 1 year old , if quality of life or burden are the only considerations .They say ignorance is bliss and maybe intelligence is a burden lol ( I wouldn't know )
Slippery slope but let's say you know the baby will die within minute of birth but it's organs could save the life of other babies that otherwise would die ,or would it be better to abort it in the first trimester ,or aborting it in the third trimester ,or a fetus with a heart defect than will need surgery or an organ transplant etc ...... the trolley/tram problem
I agree, not thinking about abortion alot publicly is the way a society should be imo. The Brits for the win on this issue. Just don't really care? Is that not ok
Should that be the standard for any cause of mass death such as death camps? The Germans seemed to agree in the 40s
the most important thing is we don't allow groomers to raise kids
Lois doesn't sound like she's very good at this exercise in the surrogacy section.
Should someone that can't build their own home be forced to live in a tent ,or is it ok to compensate someone else to build it for them ?
are you saying that a house and baby are the same thing. That's exactly the argument Lois made: Surrogacy commodifies human life. I don't know if I agree with that but your example is a pretty messed up comparision. Houses don't have souls, emotions, pain, or attachment. Thats why its ok to sell them.
Good thing the majority of the population does not agree with the lady in red 🙏🏻
Why should murder be considered acceptable?
How can you base something on cringe? It doesn't make sense
Lois didn't seem to have a consistent opinion
Really? where did you see her contradict herself? I didn't completely agree with her but I though she made sense
@@Didleeios88 I said she wasn't consistent . I laid out a surrogacy that I know about where there was no step dad involved but claimed that stepdads are a reason to be against surrogacy around 00:26:00 approx
.She said adoption is because of tragedy (inaccurate), adoption will always have a stepdad but she is all for adoption .
@@Didleeios88 She surely isn't saying that a gay couple who adopt are twice as likely to abuse the child ? Her example for step fathers being abusive is where a mother who has children with a man (who is no longer there for whatever reason) ,brings a new man into that family , the change in the dynamic causes tensions as the new man may only be interested in the mother and may become abusive towards the children or is more likely ..she skewed the statistic there
When is adoption not because of tragedy? @@gravitheist5431
@@utarian7 For the mother the baby the father or the adoptive parents ?
37:00 Peter thinks we can reduce the worlds population without returning to the dark ages! How does he think the world's economy is goung to carry on with fewer and fewer people paying for more and more debt?
The lady in red is an incredibly cruel person.
Wow this comment section hates her. I don't get it. what was cruel?
What are you talking about??????
@@Didleeios88Yes, I noticed that too. Why is that I wonder.
@@noraanderson3503 her whole position is inherently cruel. She is a horrible person.
12:26 I appreciate that she asked if she could explain her position, instead of just blurting it out. what she says after is pretty clear imo, she wants to change culture, not only the law, but specifically for women and children to be supported and valued. Not necessarily to make abortion go away, but for it to be seen as unnecessary and unwanted.
Didn't like her. Idk, just tough to get through.
Simon John Evans is a comedian? Okay
I'm very suspicious of people who express certainty and wear brightly coloured clothing.
It reminds me of how children behave.
28 going on 80. Sorry just wasn't a fan, sorry to be mean.
'based or cringe' .... CRINGE
Argument about boyfriends being abusive towards single moms kids made to prove surogacy with sperm doner will also result in abuse in dumb. to make this claim you would need to examine regular artficial insemination kids (when father cannot be the biological father), adoptive parents and stepfathers in married couples. My gues that abuse is there in boyfriend case because they are alredy in big way patological ppl. "baby daddy" culture, no marriage no serious attemp at family. My sis had to use sperm from donor, as my bro in law had cancer before. My bro in law is a great affectionate daddy, in the first week of my miracle nephew life my sis did not change a single diaper :D. Kiddo is happy daddy is proud and loving.
I agree. I think there is a massive difference between a husband choosing with his wife to make a child with a surrogate, and a guy hooking up with a women and tolerating the chid she already has from a past relationship. To use the same data is wrong. Also the women she would be forcing to keep their babies are generally going to have the same boyfriends committing the abuse.