Should MEN have an opinion about ABORTION?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2024
- Filmed at the University of Central Florida, this conversation begins with the controversial claim, “Abortion should be legal in the third trimester.” Peter Boghossian guides two gentlemen through an analysis of underlying beliefs regarding bodily autonomy, access to truth, the definition of “inalienable rights,” and how historical oppression should factor into public policy. Since both men hold similar views on the issues, Peter asks one to construct the strongest arguments the opposition would present (steel man technique).
Chapters
0:00 Intro
0:45 Spectrum game begins
5:05 What's an inalienable right?
6:15 Game reset / Continuation of inalienable rights discussion
10:00 Agree vs disagree debate
14:00 Game reset # 2
⸺SUPPORT MY WORK⸺
Newsletter | boghossian.substack.com/
Donate | www.nationalprogressalliance....
⸺LINKS⸺
Website | peterboghossian.com/
National Progress Alliance | www.nationalprogressalliance....
Resignation Letter | peterboghossian.com/my-resign...
⸺BOOKS⸺
“How To Have Impossible Conversations” | www.amazon.com/dp/0738285323/...
“A Manual For Creating Atheists” | www.amazon.com/Manual-Creatin...
⸺SOCIAL MEDIA⸺
Twitter | / peterboghossian
Instagram | / peter.boghossian
TikTok | / peterboghossian
All Socials | linktr.ee/peterboghossian
__________
#abortion #abortionrights #thoughtexperiment #peterboghossian #manonthestreet
Since it is now common knowledge that men can get pregnant, men should absolutely have an opinion about abortion.
lol
That so stupid, it actually makes sense🤦🏾♂️🤷🏾♂️🙄😆
While I get your joke... REAL men ALWAYS had an opinion on abortion, lol. I luved debating abortion with a bunch of left-wing baby-murder advocates, lol... and waited for the part where one of them tells me that I don't get to have an opinion, lol... Women like that have apparently only ever talked to democrat beta males.
I probably wont ever need this, but I'm stealing it incase I will lol
You clearly don't understand how double standards work 😂
I had my first ultrasound at 8 weeks and was able to see and here the heart beat, at 10 weeks I had a blood test and found out the gender.
Heartbeat starts at 6weeks. Still doesn’t mean it can survive outside your body. ‘It’ because it s a fetus, not a person.
Sexual designation is more apparent earliest at 11 weeks, and it is by ultrasound, not a blood test.
The idea that men (fathers) shouldn't have an opinion on abortion, or have their opinion dismissed outright, is insane to me.
When men have to carry an unwanted pregnancy, they get a say. Until then shut up. That's life, stop whining and trying to control women.
Hey Peter, you should ask people "When does life end?" right after asking when does life begin. This might be very interesting...
I feel like i need to pay you for this content Peter. You bring the classroom outside, squeeze amazing answers out of people and share it with us all. I learn soooo much every time. Thank you
I really appreciate that. Our nonprofit enables us to shoot, edit, produce, and release these videos. My team is amazing and I’m so grateful for them.
@@drpeterboghossian Peter, if you want end abortion you just need to find a way to make fetus able to finance universites.
"I go back to the declaration of independence. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
Some people are clueless, the first right is o life. None of the others matter without that.
It takes two people to make a baby AND this is a human rights issue (for the unborn), therefore a man should have every right to an opinion on this. It's funny how pro-aborts don't mind men having an opinion on abortion when they agree with them
It’s not possessing a uterus that gives you a right to have an opinion on abortion but having developed in one.
Says another man who has never faced losing his bodily autonomy.
@@saacha8289 (I should probably know better than to chime in here but) are you implying that men cannot lose their bodily autonomy?
I’m a man, and I have schizoaffective disorder. It sure felt to me like I had no autonomy the couple of times I was institutionalized.
Just thought your unnecessarily snide remark was calling for a refutation.
@@stvbrsn It wasn't snide. There isn't anything you could have ever gone through that compares to being pregnant. That's a fact.
@@saacha8289 smh. Of course not. But your comment was about autonomy, not about being pregnant.
@@stvbrsn She changes the goal posts to fit her argument. And then runs away when called out. Another example of women shirking their responsibilities.
When male friends said they shouldn't have a say because they are men, I told them they were being moral cowards. Because I am a middle-aged woman should I not get a say if we go to war because I am not a soldier? Do I not get a say but my male son would because he can be drafted?
And how far does this idea extend? Can I comment on Presidential actions if I'm not white, not a man, not old, not a politician, not rich, not a former president?
No, women shouldn't have a say about going war, unless women are also subject to the draft.
Mr. Boghossian you are such a breath of fresh air in this crazy climate we live in. You never push your own ideals but push individuals to question their own assertions. This practice is the only way to get people to start to critically think and to get past narratives, we all know that you cannot convince someone through force, they must come to enlightenment on their own and your approach is the best way I’ve seen to gently inch people closer to reality. Amazing work sir 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
I've been very interested in this methodology and it truly seems wonderful. But I would urge anyone to be critical regarding the bias of the interviewer. It certainly may look like ideals aren't being pushed, but could they be gently nudged with the focus of the questions?
This guy really just said “LIFE liberty and the pursuit of happiness”
...they have no clue
True, but that's the question...when does life begin?
The only way to have the second two is if you have the first one.
@girl in a box But how does that answer the question-- when does life begin?
@@user-zp8sk2rc4m at conception .
The belief that an opinion is less than anyone else’s due to their identity is completely screwed up in every single case. No exceptions. Great interview Peter! 👍❤️😎
Really? So a criminal who disagrees with a judge has an opinion just as valid?
Liberal ideology pursues the idea that the individual is sovereign.
The pregnant woman is independent and sovereign whereas a baby that is dependent solely upon its mother for survival is not.
That baby's survival is at the sole discretion woman's. It would be unlawful to impose a pregnancy upon her - nobody has such a right.
Killing that baby is not the same as killing a baby that can be kept alive by a third party. At such a time, the baby can be said to be sovereign.
American's deferral to "rights" leads them to be unable to distinguish between sovereignty and nationality or member-ship of a state under corporations law.
Your name on your birth certificate, and your headstone is written in capital letters.
This is a poignant and extremely important fact to note - it is NOT for clarity, but changes the status of those words in the eyes of the lawful.
The birthing certificate is a contract between the corporation named on that certificate and the state which is the corporation issuing the certificate.
Before your birth is registered with a birthing certificate, a separate record of you being born is made on another document called a record of birth.
This substantive document is merely a record of your existence and does not establish legal status of the state (the corporation known as the United States of America) over your body and mind.
When a regis-strar certifies your incorporation into the corporation of the USA you become sub-ject-ed to its rules.
A corporation's rules are variously known as policy, regulations, Acts or other such written contracts such as those entitled "constitution's". These rules are part of the terms and conditions of your mem-per-ship.
This corporations law was derived from the law of the sea.
The law of the sea was created to establish a legal status for people between juris-dictions - places between places where juries speak (where common law pertains).
You'll notice the archaic often navel terminology has persisted from the days of this corporate law's formation from the laws of the sea.
Berth
Dock-tor
Regis - strar (pertaining to the king)
Corp -Orations (the dead speaking)
The list goes on and legal documents are to this day compiled using a special dictionary called Blackmores, which preserves the often obscure and arcane meanings of these words.
This is an important principle to understand.
I have noticed Americans have adopted Napoleon's penchant for codes, rules and contracts, without understanding the confuscation of the lawful status as sovereign of individuals through a series of sleights of hand over the centuries by the legal system.
www.thesovereignproject.live/
pretty sure Cool Cat means racial/cultural and sexual/gender identity
@@AndyJarman if a person is being sentenced over an unjust law, shouldn't the person be able to have an opinion?
@@AndyJarman 'Criminal' and 'judge' are not identities but roles, in a very particular setting too in your example.
I think the conversation needs to happen before they even have intercourse if a pregnancy is possible. Type of contraception and consequences of each, and a plan in case of STI or pregnancy. If two people can’t be mature enough to talk about these things then they’re not mature enough to have intercourse.
A man might not know that his actions resulted in a pregnancy and left the woman to deal with things.
These two guys are a more well versed than a lot of previous students. I was going to say: At least on this topic, but I feel the statement probably applies much more broadly for them. Also because the guy who had to switch sides toward the end came up with good arguments against his beliefs for the experiment's sake. These guys are Thinkers and Reasoners.
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
They also both seem Jewish which is the only reason why they support abortion and liberalism etc - so as to try to genocide Whites
Well-versed, I don't know when the heartbeat starts? No tell me you're really serious.
Or understand what inalienable rights are haha
the Jewish guy was at least rational, dark glasses was all emotion/no reason
Wantedness is a terrible, terrible measurement of who deserves to live. Look out, old folks.
True, all babies should be wanted and loved. It is terrible that so many are not wanted. A heroic woman would carry her unwanted baby to term and birth it, delivering it to a loving family. It is essential to understand that heroism CAN NOT be mandated. Help women choose life.
@@LP-dc7fh We do help women materially and demonstrably choose life for their babies, and a better life for them. Tuition, housing, food, safety from abusers, you name it. There have always been more adoption requests than abortions. We’re how many decades into “planned” parenthood, no-cost (to the user) birth control, earlier and earlier sex ed, and….the data is in. Look into it, please.
There is no who. A fetus is not a who. The pregnant woman is.
@@LP-dc7fh Unwanted pregnancies are not a result of a baby being wanted or loved. They are usually a result of a man refusing to wear a condom and often "having sex with" a woman too drunk to consent. Why don't you save your "heroic" lectures for men?
@@saacha8289 you were a who. A microscopic one at first. I was too, and same for everyone debating the topic.
This is the only topic where I have EVER heard the notion that only those directly affected by a public policy get to discuss it. Should only men be allowed to discuss father's rights? Should only inmates and parolees be allowed to decide minimum prison conditions? Should only business owners be allowed to decide regulations on their establishments? It's a notion conjured for no reason but to defer to women.
:) maybe watch a video about “logic” .:: and then try to find a feminist define the word ‘logic’. It’s two drastic different animals.
Only men should be able to discuss what happens with their prostate. As a woman, I am happy to graciously bow out on this one.
@@SimonLloydGuitar I've been on the front lines fighting gender ideology since the beginning. I am firmly rooted in factual reality and fairness, which is why I say that men who seem to have a problem empathizing with the profundity of pregnancy and just how serious that is for women's health and lives, these men need to shift their focus to being more responsible for what they do with their sperm and less harsh with their judgements for women. When men recklessly sling their sperm around with no thought to the harm it brings to women and potential children, how dare they take a position of controlling women's bodies when men opt out of controlling their own?
@@saacha8289 When women control access to sex, that control comes with responsibilities. You are providing another example of women ignoring responsibilities.
@@saacha8289 close ya legs
This is simply the best series I've come across and this video is just so rich in everything a well off discussion might look like.
Kudos to you Peter, please keep making these.✨
True. It's very peaceful.
As a UCF alumnus, I'm so proud that the current students can have intelligent conversations with difficult topics, unlike their counterparts in Portland State and other 'Progressive' colleges. Great job guys!
I live a block from PSU, and I agree with you.
These UCF students are well spoken & reasoned. I’m impressed.
The PSU students I interact with are shrill, group-think robots who resort to ad-hominem at any challenge to their doctrine.
@@TheRustyLM Sanctioned murder @ 8 months 29 days seems reasonable to you. It seems evil & like mental illness to me.
Yup. They were very thoughtful people.
I'm Jewish, except for the whole Judaism thing.
It's good that you get the contestants to steel-man the opposing viewpoints. I think it has a lot of influence and potential to rethink their positions. I would like to see more steel-manning. Love your content, sir.
Thank you. Plenty more to come!
@@drpeterboghossian - Seconding this. I'd like to see the Steelmanning as a regular feature. Even where you have a more even distribution. Make a pair flip (unless they are demonstrably incapable of reason)
Is odd to me no one argued for the rights of the one person who can't argue on their own behalf.
It amazes me that the one guy said he doesn't know if there is a heartbeat in the 3rd trimester. The other guy said life begins at birth. I get so confused when people say that. If a baby is born at 32 weeks it will most likely survive with possible NICU care but that same 32 week baby not born isnt considered to have life yet? Some also say viable but a newborn cant take care of themselves either. Neither can a 1 year old, 2 year old, etc.
Most adults can’t take care of themselves.
don't be so small minded. are you telling me a chicken's life starts inside the egg?
@@yolisazokufa548 If that egg is fertilized, yes. Back to humans. When do you think life begins?
@@sparkjr2039 when you take your first breath
@@yolisazokufa548 So a preborn baby at 32 weeks can be murdered and another baby born at 32 weeks is able to live if it is born early? Why does the born baby have rights and the unborn baby doesnt?
Finally, the Florida segments are starting. I've been waiting for these.
Placing 'bodily autonomy' above the right to life is insane. We all have all sorts of obligations that limit our bodily autonomy. I cannot fail to steer clear of running over children. I am obligated to brake and steer my car - irrespective of any inconvenience to me.
Started reading without looking at the name, immediately knew it was a man. I doubt Jim would EVER put anything above HIS bodily autonomy, but that's different, amirite, Jim?
argument for government. Maybe it would be better to NOT be driving around recklessly in the first place so you dont even have to worry about death so much??The rule exists because of idiot humans who have run over children or almost did. THATS regulated by the government. not only is enforcement only really good for the legal system(the people acting as government) to thrive under that- its not completely preventative behavior. I would hope that people would already know how vulnerable children can be to harm- especially bodily harm. Knowingly doing something that you cant control well enough to just not even have to worry about it- like its a "2nd nature"?
How is bodily autonomy not the right to life? You're saying that an unborn baby has the right to live no matter what the outcome is for the mother whose providing life? How does an unborn child have more rights than a woman who happened to become pregnant? Steering your car away from children isn't an inconvenience, it's life. And dying in child birth is not an inconvenience, it's a morbid risk that women before the 21st century had to take, and were constantly dying from. Even in 2023, birth is not guaranteed. There is no guarantee to life you need to stop pretending that there is. God has not given you the right to live, you are simply alive.
Yeah and it’s surprising to see him wearing a Yamalka, I’m Jewish and I don’t know how he can be religious and say what he says…
@@Cbon-xh3ry So abraham never had beliefs not in line with the orthodoxy? guess that makes him not worthy of being a jew?
I absolutely adore these conversations, I couldnt really afford university, but Ive always been fascinated by human behaviour and why people hold thier opinions etc etc, these videos are so incredibly informative! Thank you so much for these!
So glad I never went to college. If a college student doesn't grasp the concept of inalienable right, they will have a hard time grasping actual difficult concepts.
I love these conversations, Peter. I'm really enjoying learning from your book as well. Stay well!
"How to have impossible conversations"
Thank you
I don't agree with their positions, but I wish most young people were as thoughtful and logical as these two. I hope you guys go on to do great things
This is such great content! Loving the conversation.
Thanks. I appreciate it. My team deserved much of the credit. I’m just the “front man”.
I just tried to subscribe to your channel and I had to refresh the app 3 times before it would accept it. Kind of interesting that I never had that issue with any other channels.
Shout out to Peter, some excellent, intelligent and thought provoking questions
What a fantastic conversation. So often, when Peter talks to students on campus, they try to shout him down. These two men eloquently present arguments. Whether or not I agree with the premises-much respect to all three gentlemen!
Everyone benefits from civil conversations.
Great topic. The abortion question is all about who has rights. And in the debate with abortion the mother has rights. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Rights are given in a social construct,thus a fetus doesn’t have rights, the mother does.
Thank you, Sir. That is a coherent and objective position and got to the essence of the matter that is often not centered. Forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will is slavery.t
Why fetus does not have rights?
Because of the definition of what rights are. The fetus is not part of a social construct until delivered. This the mother has rights and the right to do what is in her best rational self interest
@@jamesfullerton7010 what is in her rational self interest? You mean murdering her child. I don't see how that is rational or really in her self interest.
Social construct...doesn't that just mean something you made up? So you or society could make up a different social construct where the child does have rights? It's not really right or wrong. It's just what one person prefers.
@@jamesfullerton7010 But that simply isn’t true. Common law established property rights to the unborn thus bringing them into the social contract. Many hundreds of years old at this point.
More videos like this Peter !
A great video. This was awsome ❤
Intelligent debate on both sides. I prefer the discussions like these, as opposed to the ones where one or even both sides are in their feelings.
Such a civil discourse, yet such mental gymnastics
I used to be all for abortion but have changed my mind after considering the plethora of contraception available to women. I also take issue with the wording that suggests it is the man who got the female pregnant. It's not like he sneaked something into her drink whilst she wasn't looking. Women need to become accountable for their actions.
👋
I find it problematic to be all for or all against someone else's having an abortion.
The final choice of whether to abort or not abort a pregnancy should always be the choice of the pregnant female.
This is why the Pro-Choice position is the only reasonable position.
Well, what if he DID sneak something into her drink while she wasn't looking, and then snuck something into her while she wasn't conscious.
@@MichaelPlatson Well that would be different.
If men are against abortion, then they should stick to seggs with only their wives that they know want children.
Men need to be accountable too. They don't want to get a girl pregnant, wear a condom. You can find them everywhere.
get a load of both of these kids declared majors. political science, diplomacy, sociology. the way the 1st kid shrugged when he announced his majors was telling. real serious stuff here.
Really good conversation. I love how it develops the positions and delves deeper into the nuances of it all. Would've been great to see more, and particularly how ideas of equity and restitution mentioned at the latter parts would jive with the utilitarian principles these lads would like to see society governed in accordance with.
I believe there was an underlying pressure on these boys to perform well since they are running for student body government, and any major slip-up could've easily been a viral clip leading to an instant loss. Props to all parties involved.
The only opinion I have is to support the mother of our child's decision, abortion should be legal and any decision left to women not men with an agenda to stay in power using the religious rights view of abortion as a sin.
Honestly a little disheartened that they were totally fine with the idea of aborting a baby in the third trimester. I mean, under the circumstances of a perfectly healthy pregnancy, there's no mistaking that that is very nearly a fully developed human baby at that point. In spite of that, to say bodily autonomy is more valuable than that child's life, I got a problem with that. That's just murder at that point.
Also, speaking as a man, if my wife wanted to have an abortion, I would hope my opinion would matter to a degree as to whether or not that was a good idea. In a serious relationship setting, that just seems like common sense.
Votes!
If you want me to believe men are women and women are men, then men have a say.
sex:
the state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, while males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete.
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other.
gender:
the state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that there are only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in his/her womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate him/herself). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender.
In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration - firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact).
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from "genus", such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus” is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word in recent times, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, objectively-immoral ideologies.
Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term, and even in the former case, predominantly where leftist ideologues comprise a significant proportion of the population. See also “leftism”.
If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret, shall forthwith be revealed:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret - do not tell a soul!!!)
For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male - not a woman or a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms.
Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was ALWAYS a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking. 🤪
awesome these two guys..it's all about bodily autonomy.
It is incredible how pervasive the culture war has become, and yet channels like yours that actually attempt to have an honest discussion, over farming a specific political spectrum for clicks get so few views. You are doing great work sir, please keep it up I am confident that there is growth in your future.
Dang I wish I was in this debate. I loved Peter's digging into the inalienable rights question and who decides. They did not give good answers. Also, the people to ask when life begins is those who study the beginning of life - embryologist. It's not philosophical, it's scientific. And I'd want to ask when a living human being gets the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I so want to ask him what magically happens at birth that confers life. I mean, does traveling down the birth canal suddenly make a person alive?
Love this
I believe in abortion, but even I wouldn't be able to answer any of that. I don't just automatically trust anything a scientist tells me, unless it makes perfect sense. So even a scientist telling me that life begins at conception, I wouldn't believe them because that's not really something that can be measured.
What is life is the real question. If I have a heartbeat but I'm a vegetable in hospital, that's not life to me.
@@kingmondeyou don't have to believe the fact that life begins at conception. How do you define life? Once a sperm fertilizes an egg the process begins which is the development of a new human being which is objectively alive not dead, growing and becoming more complex. The argument for sentience which is the one you are making with a vegetable is dangerous AF since you essentially enter a similar state every night. Also people in certain survivable conditions are placed under medically induced comas. People in comatose states do sometimes wake up and live normal lives, to discredit all people in comas and say they aren't worthy of having their life protected is dangerous.
I think it comes down to a legal definition of “human being” and how that is defined in our country. Life can be defined as starting at conception or at the time of heartbeat but legally, a fetus becomes a human after they are born whether that is a premature or full term birth. That has implications for the bodily autonomy of the woman in whose body the fetus is being carried. That’s my take.
@@kathryngeen1447 With all due respect, I think that is a terrible standard. If the law or courts define what makes someone human rather than their DNA and the fact that they have human parents, that's how we got all sorts of problems with Jews in Germany and black people in America (3/5 human?). Human beings have human parents. Dogs have dog parents. Those are just facts. And you can look in embryology textbooks, they all say life begins at fertilization. YOU began at fertilization, and so did all of us. The heartbeat or all other standards are just arbitrary factors that are stages in human development.
"suffer under the scrutiny of the patriarchy"
mind virus
I so very wish I could participate in some of these epistemology conversations and debates. As much as I appreciate watching them, I find myself envious as, often times, the usual participants don't seem to have very strong stances and arguments.
I hope one day these men can look back on this video and see how terribly they contradicted themselves
Great video . I think this proves that Tertiary education specifically political sciences and humanity studies in their current forms are completely Broken .
I only have one question. What would be the results of this experiment if it were used between politicians and presidential candidates? Is it even possible to see this in our future? Okay that was two questions..
Peter Boghossian for presidential debate moderator!
@@samiamgreeneggsandham7587 Peter says its not a debate 😅
"an inalienable right is a right that is determined based on where you live and what the rules there are"
I think this guy doesn't know what inalienable means
They always go to the corner case because they can’t argue the base case.
The other question:
When in the existence of a human, should Life, Liberty, and Happiness be protected?
It is not by chance that we never talk about vasectomy, condoms, or other male contraception.
My sister gave birth literally about 12 hours ago. To her first child, I have no children so Kalel is my first close family member that's a baby in my adult life. And I hope to get to meet him in person at some point 😊. It may be a while we live on opposite sides of the country but I'm so happy for her and my brother in law and I'm glad he was able to be born! My sister has a degenerative disc disease that affects her immune system (from medication) and makes child birth hard, so it's kind of a miracle. And I just want as many possible people to have life that can and 3rd trimester is viability so, unless there is a danger to the mom they should keep them or let them be born. Not kill them.
What year did college kids stop thinking?
Feels like they're talking past the issue a lot. Because the issue with all this talk about rights, is that rights tend to clash. In this case the rights of the mother would clash with the rights of the fetus/baby.
So even if you could establish you had some right -- and everyone would agree -- you still wouldn't have solved the issue. Because the other party -- the baby/fetus in this case -- could have rights as well. Which gets us to questions about when and why a baby/fetus should have rights and what rights it should and shouldn't have. Those questions however remain unanswered.
I think that arguing for supposed right from a single perspective, just isn't very interesting, nor does it come across as very well thought out.
But if I had to guess from the answers they give in this video, they think a fetus should have very little, or no rights at all. Thought further in one of the guys does seem to say a fetus should have some rights when it's 'alive' -- which he thinks is when the fetus has a heartbeat. That would however be at 8-10 weeks. So either I'm missing something, or he just has no clue.
The other guy thinks a fetus is alive at conception, but doesn't seem to think it should have rights. At least, that's what I gathered from this. So when and why exactly should people be granted rights in his opinion?
So here too they seem to be talking past a lot of the important issues. Because the core issue is not whether something is alive, but whether something has rights. They however only get into why/when a fetus is alive. A plant is for example alive, but has no rights. So being alive in and of itself has holds little meaning.
I don't know. overall I still have no clue what these guys actually believe. What I can say however, is that they seemed way too sure about themselves. Because from these answers, I don't believe they have actually thought out their positions very much.
I one has the right to kill a baby out of convenience or whim.
THE ETHICS OF ABORTION:
Even though (illegitimate) abortion is merely one of a long list of crimes, it is such a controversial issue that it is being given its own subsection.
Although some pro-life advocates use the term “abortion” solely in those cases in which the aim and purpose of the procedure is to terminate the life of the unborn child (as opposed to those cases in which the aim is to save the life of the mother, and the death of the embryo is an undesired consequence of the procedure), this author sees no semantic advantage of making such a distinction, and so, in this document, the term “abortion” is applied to any medical procedure in which the life of an embryo or a foetus is DELIBERATELY terminated, for any reason. Of course, just as there is a definite distinction between justified (legitimate) animal consumption and unjustified (illegitimate) animal consumption, so too is there a distinction between legitimate abortion and illegitimate abortion. Thus, the terminology has been established.
Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without a doubt, a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it being underdeveloped, insentient, and/or unconscious.
Because there are some pro-abortion (i.e. pro-unjustifiable-abortion) advocates who make desperate attempts to find flaws in the pro-life position, here, “conception” refers to the very moment that a spermatozoon nucleus fuses with an ovum nucleus, and syngamy takes place. However, it is important to understand that the question of the precise millisecond when a unique human life begins is completely redundant, because nobody is likely to surgically operate on a woman shortly after sexual intercourse has taken place, in order to prevent a fertilized egg from achieving syngamy! As mentioned in Chapter 28, whenever any one of the procreative, recreative, or unitive aspects of sex is omitted, sex becomes a selfish, sinful act, and so, to prevent a newly-fertilized ovum from its natural course of events, would count as a criminal act.
Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is STILL not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary phases of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the phase of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe - it is fully human. The aforementioned prenatal stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that - merely stages of the human life cycle, and although, according to normative mores, the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification alone for extinguishing its very life!
Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human zygote or an embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. Before contemplating the brutal destruction of an innocent human being, one should have an exceedingly-justifiable rationale, agreed? It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Gautama, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring!
In brief, abortion is justified only in the case of rape or if the mother’s life is endangered. Obviously, that does not imply that the life of the baby of a raped women MUST be terminated. As mentioned in the next paragraph (in relation to my own course of action in the hypothetical case of the rape of a female family member), I would do everything in my power to convince a raped family member to lovingly nurture the child unto birth, and then relinquish the child to an adoptive family. Therefore, when all is said and done, the need for any kind of (legitimate) abortion would be such a tiny fraction of one percent of all pregnancies that it would be more simply expressed as a negative exponent. Only if the expectant mother is acutely distressed by carrying the child of her rapist, should abortion be considered, and it would be preferable for the raped woman to do so as soon as practical. It would be a truly savage act for her to kill her child in the third trimester of pregnancy!
Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if she was the victim of rape, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe!
As noted in the glossary of this book, it could be seen as hypocritical, or at least somewhat disingenuous, for a person to kill a non-human animal unless that person was willing to do so with his or her bare hands. I could never squeeze a rat to death using just my bare hands, so I ought not dismember a member of my own species, no matter how small it may be, without proper justification, according to moral norms.
Perhaps the most common justification for illegitimate abortion (that is, the murder of innocent, defenceless, unborn human beings) is that a woman ought to have AUTONOMY over her own body. Of course, those who raise such arguments conveniently overlook the fact that the pre-born human, by the same token, is entitled to the very same bodily autonomy as its mother! Those who are afflicted with a demonic mentality (which, after reading Chapter 14, as well as many other chapters of this treatise, one should come to understand to be practically every person on the planet), especially those persons residing in nations/countries with a predominantly leftist (“adharma”, in Sanskrit) populace will never come to accept the fact that no human being who has ever lived is his or her own master/mistress, and therefore, has no such “right” as autonomy over his or her own body. Does a newborn child have autonomy over him/herself? Obviously not, otherwise no parent would dare to regulate the activities of their offspring. Does a mother have autonomy over herself? Definitely not, since her lord and master (the word “husband” literally denotes a master of the house - see Chapter 27) has absolute authority to direct and control her actions and movements. Again, this bitter truth, will never ever be accepted by the vast majority of the population, but the truth must be proclaimed, nevertheless.
Incidentally, the very same paradigm outlined above, applies also to societal organization, in which a father has full authority over his family, a grandfather has full authority over his extended family, a patriarch has full authority over his clan, a chief has full authority over his tribe, a (genuine) king has complete and utter authority over his subjects, and finally, a (genuine) priest has authority over his entire society. The only humans who can possibly claim to have complete AUTONOMY over themselves are those excruciatingly-rare men who have risen to the role of World Teacher (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit), and only then, solely upon their actual entry to the Holy Priesthood. As children, Avatars are subject to the authority of their mothers, then, upon adulthood, to the authority of their fathers, and if they happen to perform some kind of work prior to entering the Priesthood (as with Lord Jesus Christ, Who worked as a carpenter before He began His priestly ministry), to their employers.
Possibly the saddest aspect of the abortion debate is the fact that the sex that has evolved to MOST nourish and protect vulnerable human offspring, is more in favour of illegitimate abortion. Personally, I am very thankful that my mother was not a miserable, rabid feminist who would have considered murdering the next World Teacher for any trivial reason whatever. Apart from the legitimacy of abortion in the very rare instances of rape or danger to the life of the mother, not a single one of their frivolous reasons is reasonable to a person of civility and intelligence. There will always be at least one decent family that will gladly take an unwanted newborn baby from a murderous parent.
N.B. It is rather important to refer to the Glossary definitions of some of the terms used in this subsection, particularly the words “law”, “morality”, “consciousness”, “sentience”, and especially the term “person”. Also, the fact that I (and others) use impersonal pronouns (i.e. “it” or “its”) in reference to embryos, foetuses, and infants in no way suggests that babies are not members of the Homo sapiens sapiens species.
Personhood begins at birth, fetuses have no rights. Look it up - no society ever confers citizenship at conception.
Absolutely yes. It’s not just a female issue. It’s a human issue.
Women have bodily autonomy. They should use that autonomy wisely before allowing any Tom, Dick, or Harry to have sex with her. Take personal responsibility BEFORE getting pregnant. Unborn children should have the right to bodily autonomy too.
I'm curious at what point does life start in your opinion and at which point in the fetal development should the unborn child have bodily autonomy?
I agree. I'm sick of hearing the argument that abortion is about women's right to reproductive choice, when it's really about women believing they should have a right to be free from the consequences of their impulsive and irresponsible reproductive choices.
The truth is most women aren't afraid of sleeping around and getting pregnant because they know they can fall back on abortion should they become so. I thinks it's gross and immoral to try and justify the murder of unborn life because a person decides they aren't ready after the fact, and for the rest of society to support it because abortion is, in the end, just another method of population control.
Life starts at conception...duuh. This is a biological perspective by the way. From then on, the new human will go through a process of development as it is alive already.
In our "modern" society we are using stupid language to justify the murder of new humans in the womb. Abortion means actually killing a human being.
It is probably how slavery was seen and normalized back in the day. The language used made sure the slaves were not seen as humans.
@@Gooday2day Life starts at conception. Everyone with an ounce of integrity knows this. And all human life is valuable, no matter the size or how it came to be. Some people like to play semantics, oh when it can live on its own, etc. etc. No, life begins when sperm breaks through the egg and fertilizes the egg. Boom! Life begins. Every. Single. One. Of. Us. Our life began the day our fathers sperm, fertilized our mothers egg. The day of YOUR conception, in that moment in time, YOU came into existence! And that is true for every one of us.
And women also get raped, stealthing exists, and sperm inserters also put on façades and somehow just disappear when the result of adult decisions becomes a fully fledged human. Many scenarios exist. Rather let all the people who have opinions about forcing women to carry all pregnancies to term be obligated to provide pre- and post-natal care and then provide the necessary lifetime care and support for the new human too.
How can someone in a first world country get into college and not know when a baby's heart starts beating??
I liked these guys. Very reasonable. For me, if someone could show the distinction of when the fetus develops some form of sentience, it would certainly inform what value we should place on them and how serious the stakes are, but I don't see how as a society we can reasonably or ethically force a woman to give birth or criminally punish for taking measures to get rid of something out of your own body? There's no way to bring legislation into this. Women are the ultimate barrers of choice here because they also have the choice to disclose whether or not they're pregnant in the first place. That's the inherent conundrum...you can't even really functionally legislate within someone's body unless you're at some Handmaid's Tale level world. The best scenario to avoid any conflicting rights would be incentivizing bringing fetuses to term...not for profit, but more infrastructure making motherhood easier.
To my understanding from talking to pro-life people, most of them don't seek to criminalize women who have had abortions since, as you said, they can't force her to have the child or legislate what she can and can't do with her body. Instead they want to criminalize those who institutionally provide abortions (abortion clinics, basically, including underground ones).
Might relate it to the Portugal option of decriminalizing drugs. Portugal didn't decriminalize supplying narcotics. They simply decriminalized possession. It's still illegal there to supply narcotics, just not illegal to possess them. For drug users, they offer rehab, not bars. For dealers, however, they still offer bars.
Good points, though I would say the best scenario would be to start placing more (way more) responsibility on men for managing their sperm. If all men engaging in recreational sex used spermicidal condoms there would be almost zero unwanted pregnancies. It is the sperm that starts a pregnancy so why isn't there more responsibility weighted there?
@@saacha8289 Oops sorry, what on earth? I tried to edit my YT comment in response to you and it vanished. I'll try again.
Responsibility is actually what compels me somewhat towards a pro-life stance even though I'm torn in the middle. I only see a human rights stalemate at best if we grant both fetus and woman carrying the fetus human rights.
But "my body, my choice" doesn't seem to encourage responsibility let alone participation in men who planted that seed. I think if we want to encourage men to marry and stick around and look after the pregnant women and possible resulting children, the mindset needs to shift to "our choice, our responsibility". If it's fully her choice, then I'm not sure I can blame men if they want to live a carefree bachelor lifestyle that abandons women the moment they are impregnated with the mindset, "Your choice, your body, your responsibility. Goodbye!"
@@darkengine5931 It's not that complicated. Stick around, don't stick around. Whatever. I'm talking about if you and the woman have not had a discussion in which you have both agreed to try to bring a child into the world together, then you need to manage what YOU do with YOUR sperm.
@@saacha8289 I agree if we're pro-life and the responsibility and choice is mutually shared rather than solely the woman's choice. Then the fetus inside her does not solely belong to her. I'm just saying that a man who has no choice in this matter should not be expected to have any responsibility for something he has no choice over.
If men shouldn't have an opinion on abortion, then neither should women who are sterile or women over the age of 50.
Indeed.
Nor should women have anything to say about wars. Men fight the wars. 99% of the deaths of the military personnel are men.
Or non-binary people, since they literally aren't women.
Some of you men are so butt-hurt at the possibility of not being able to control another human being's body, yet most of you can't be inconvenienced to wear a condom.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion on literally anything though. It’s a stupid premise.
Men should always stand up for innocent life.
I've never killed anyone.. i also think i can have an opinion on a murderer and the laws that pertain to it.
So I guess that means if I don't live in Ukraine or Russia I can't have a view about that conflict either...🙄 Men have a lot to do with it if a judge says you are going to pay child support! Saying that men don't have a say so in the murder of their own child is about as smart as saying that a President has no say-so about the military if they've not been in the military themselves. If this is the logic we're going to use, there's a lot of people who shouldn't have opinions about a whole lot of things that they do have opinions about.
😅one of Peter’s better vids. Love the critical thinkers here.
I like the dark mats MUCH more than the old white lines
Did this guy really say that "if there isn't a safe access to abortion, then […] more possible babies will die" ? Does he know what an abortion is ? Can an abortion result in _not_ killing the baby ?
Between that and the discussion about inalienable rights, my brain hurts. Inalienable rights do not exist, not even "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Any right, when taken to an extreme, can be revoked.
I'm pretty most people believe there's a distinction between the value of a baby and the value of fetus that hasn't fully developed.
Very interesting technique
Access to abortion as a medical necessity should be an inalienable right. Using abortion as a means to decouple responsibility from pleasure is immoral and bad for society.
If it's a right, everyone shares in that right equally. If anyone is excluded from this "right" it's not a right at all. It's a privilege. Until father's are allowed to terminate parental responsibility abortion is a privilege.
human rights:
In most cases, it seems that this term refers to certain (often vague) moral or legal entitlements that humans possess in relation to having or obtaining something, or to act in a certain way. This phrase has been used increasing more ubiquitously over the past century or so, with the implication that every human being, without exception, has identical and inalienable entitlements. However, this is a very obvious fallacy, as it invariably ignores the hierarchy of society.
For example, very few persons would doubt that parents have the right to discipline their children. However, their children OBVIOUSLY do not have the converse right, to chastize or instruct their parents. Therefore, it is nonsensical to speak of human rights in general, when each and every individual person has unique rights, depending on his or her place in the hierarchy of society.
The notion of rights is intimately intertwined with morality (or to be more accurate, the concept of dharma). So, in the above example, it is in accordance with morality/dharma for a parent to disciple his or her children, and if required, administer some form of punishment.
However, it would be objectively immoral for a child of any age (even a geriatric) to admonish his or her parents, except, perhaps, if a parent was afflicted with a disease or disability that inhibited the parent’s cognitive capabilities, such as dementia.
Cf. “dharma”.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas _"... it would be objectively immoral for a child of any age to admonish his or her parents..."_
Objectively immoral? How do you figure?.. 🤔
@@SineEyed, sarcasm?
@@ReverendDr.Thomas not at all. If you can explain the basis for that statement, I'd appreciate hearing you out..
Use a spermicidal condom and/or get a vasectomy. It is your sperm that starts a pregnancy. Take responsibility for YOUR actions.
If only the entity in question had its rigts and bodily autonomy cared for too.
It isn't an entity. It is a fetus. The woman is an entity.
@@saacha8289 The only thing stopping it from becoming a human and having rights is you killing it.
@@saacha8289 what is a woman?
I didnt know practicing Jews could possibly hold these beliefs. Im quite shocked.
Anyone tell me what the song was at the end?
The lack of diversity of thought here was disappointing. I found the guests surprisingly ignorant of opposing arguments and ridiculously overconfident. It is illustrative of the poor state of the academy...
Thanks for your work peter!
Now ask them about vaccines...
Just as Women can have opinions about male behaviors, men can have opinion about women’s. Our dimorphism contains the answer: we are different but from the same speciated root. We are not opponents, but rather collaborators. Thinking adversarially is irrational and counter to survival.
Generally had massive eyerolls on the guy going for president until you made him steelman his opposition. Well done on your part of making him think outside the box for half a second, and also good job on him for doing so.
I so wish you had someone like Secular Pro-life th-cam.com/video/KoN8zIpqoqs/w-d-xo.html there so they could have had an even better version of opposition.
Ectopic pregnancies do not come to term.
I used to think men deserved just as much right in this conversation, but after hearing this, I'm having my doubts.
These students don't even know what inalienable means, it's the opposite of 'given' rights. SMH.
If a drunk driver ends the life of their passenger in a car accident we hold them accountable for their poor choices. With abortion, if you get get into bed drunk with a passenger and irresponsibly start a life you can get away with 0 personal accountability for your actions.
If a drunk driver collides with another car, killing a man, a woman, and their unborn child, that driver will be charged with manslaughter - but will it be 2 or 3 counts of the crime?..
@@SineEyed I’m pretty sure the law counts that unborn child as another count of manslaughter regardless of what stage of development.
@@KindanThe1st "pretty sure" doesn't really do much for me, honestly..
@@SineEyed Well there’s this thing called Google…
@@KindanThe1st yep, and I put it to use because I was genuinely curious to see what the answer might be. And also, you weren't proving to be much help.
Anyway, apparently, different localities treat that scenario differently, as they have their own laws to apply. In New Zealand, for example, causing the death of an unborn child will in fact incur a criminal charge. That's not the case, however, in neighboring Australia. I didn't look into the laws of every state in the US, but did see that it's a crime in Florida. Not sure about the other states. It doesn't seem to hold true in all places though, so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume it'll be the same across the board.
Whatever the case, I would agree that it would be hypocritical for the laws to apply differently to the death of a child. The value of an unborn life, and the way such a thing is defined by law, should be held to equally regardless of the circumstance..
Women can't generally be pregnant without men. Why would men not be able to have an opinion on the morality of and public policy surrounding abortion?
Lila Rose needs to react to this!!!
Can we spam her about this video?!?! I would love to hear her response to this!!
Why?
I wish I had students like these guys, who can flip to make a 'steel man' argument for the other side, contra their own beliefs, at the drop of a hat, or the flip of the coin. I did debate in high school, but haven't fully appreciated the skills and benefits of that until I have encountered the recent -- and drastic -- changes in intellectual/academic culture and practices.
How would you go about stopping someone from having an opinion, exactly?
They can stop you from voicing an opinion. By making voicing it illegal as 'hate' by law, and by extensive censorship, especially by big tech
These guys think an inalienable right is granted by government…
I think I’d have to ask the guy in the glasses to define what oppression is. Are fathers denied to the right to raise their child by a mother who chooses abortion? Are a mothers rights not denied by a father forces child birth on an unwilling mother?
I appreciate that these are just students, but they aren’t wrestling with the issue.
To be clear, I feel like the issue is, when rights come into conflict, whose rights prevail?
Faltó la pregunta más importante
I'm appalled at the ease with which they can say Yes you should be able to kill it just before it exits the birth canal. D1sgusting & s#ck.
3rd and 4th year Poli-Sci majors can’t define “inalienable rights”.
UCF has failed them 😢
The music at the end of your video sounds like Kruangbin.
If men shouldnt have a say or ownership over whether the fetus (latin ,unborn child ) lives or dies .Then why should he have any ownership responsibility when its outside her body
We can pinpoint the exact date the West began its freefall descent into hell: August 18, 1920.
I was waiting for you to school these kids. Where is @UnapologeticAutumnHigashi when you need her!?
Our founding fathers argued that inalienable rights are endowed by our creator. Hence, for them they are universal and not culturally dependent.
What about this for an argument: if a man gets a women pregnant but that man shouldn’t have a say in whether or not that women should get an abortion - should that same women have a say over that man’s financial pocketbook to support that baby?
I’m a reformed Jew, which means you use the historical oppression but don’t live by any teachings of god.
It does take 2 humans (one female and one male) to create a baby and the child contains equal amounts of DNA of both parents and therefore both should have equal rights! Also if your for “my body, my choice” than the baby should have it’s own choice on if it gets to live or not! By the age that men and women are capable of reproducing, they should be educated on the reproductive processes and than if you get pregnant (or get someone pregnant) that’s a responsibility that you’ve got yourself into! Contraception methods like condoms and birth control should be how someone prevents pregnancy! Once your pregnant there’s another life independent from the parents that should have the same basic rights as everyone else (most importantly the right to live)!
For eugenics, I support early abortion. For quality control, I support abortion well after birth. Keeping humans alive is lower priority.
😂😂😂using life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to justify abortion as an inalienable human right is mind boggling and saying it with absolute certainty is insanity even though they aren’t sure what an inalienable human right is. Dunning Kruger effect on full display.
Cmon, Florida! Make me proud!