If I have learned anything from History, it's that when it comes to atrocities committed, the perpetrators must first remove the Humanity of their Victims.
@@etchalaco9971 Yes... and all humans have the right to life. Babies, fetes and all humans (Homo sapiens) regardless of development, intellect, appearance, size, viability and environment
So I work as a paramedic and not too long ago we responded to a OB emergency where the girl who didn’t know she was pregnant miscarried. The baby was about 10 weeks, she had passed it and the umbilical cord was still attached to baby and still attached to the mother. 10 weeks old and baby had nearly every single human characteristic including fingers and toes, only they were as small as you can imagine. The idea that it’s not alive or that it’s just a clump of cells is absolutely stupid.
This is just an appeal to emotion. A fetus has no capacity for consciousness or pain before week 24. They do not possess the required connections between their immature brain and their sensory organs. This video is full of misonformation
Is that what this loon said? Discarding a lump of cells that's been growing 8 weeks doesn't create a victim. It creates biological material that needs to be disposed of, nothing more, nothing less.
@@daveken9936 ya know, a lot of progressives charge others with ignorance without providing anything related to perspective or insight of their own. It’s ok to be conflicted with your own cognitive dissonance, but adjust your priors before attacking somebody else for their opinions.
When you understand how these babies are killed and understand that they feel pain extremely early (8-9 weeks), you begin to realize just how sadistic and inhumane this "pro choice" practice is.
True. It's monstrous. Even worse, the majority of them understands exactly what it is and insist it is the mother's choice, some of them say right up to the point of birth. And people still think witches don't exist.
@@pietro4772that's BS... you're rhetoric shows your ignorance of this topic... educate yourself before you repeat ridiculous lies that these people are feeding you! Abortion up to birth? Really? You really believe that? Ugh..
I was born at 24 weeks and the doctors all said there was a good chance I wouldn't survive, or that I'd be born with severe disabilities. My mom is a strong Christian woman who never even considered abortion, and I am so thankful for that. The doctors saved my life, and I had a mostly normal childhood with no disabilities or problems like that to speak of. I will always be against abortion because there are so many pro-choicers out there who would've told my mom to kill me. I can't live with the fact that any of them could possibly think that's ok. Thanks for the video, I enjoyed it and you made some really good points. God bless you my friend. Edit: I was actually born at 24 weeks, not 21. Someone in the comments pointed out the typo.
My mom discovered I had severe spinobifita in the womb at 6 months pregnant. Took her a while to find out, many of her doctors were withholding the info because they were afraid my mom would abort (Catholic hospital). She's a strong Christian, and took the information in stride. One argument the Pro-choice side has is to save the child from hardship of disability. What they don't know is that many diseases, disorders, or disabilities like the one I had are capable of healing/correcting themselves. I was born with no issue, and have lived my life normally without knowing about these prenatal issues until I was 17 while talking about abortions with my mother. God bless you and your mom, I admire her resolve in holding on to you. Many nowadays, it seems, would have given up and gone the "easy" route of abortion. But I'm glad there are some who hold a testimony against the horrors this world wants to push as the "easy route".
We’re celebrating mediocrity by celebrating femoids who did their job as females by not murdering babies and raising the babies they made. What a world.
well IM no Christian, and I walk in a body that has a womb attached to it. and me as a person know i will never be able to be a "mother" (I am a young pre T- POC Trans man ) so me getting r@ped and impregnated is still possible and if I were to be denied an abortion that would put my life that I have fought to keep in a bigotry world to breath and I would not throw it away just because some person that doesn't even know me, tells me that I have to keep that abomination is absolutely horrible and to me unthinkable. STAY STRONG PRO CHOICE PEOPLE 💅💁🏽!!
@@words-with-wooly I'm sorry but for a lot of abortion path takers it's most of the time not easy, there are usually consequences that come with it but that's THIER consequences to deal with.
@@ElMichiiVolador it’s not the people who believe it’s wrong to murder an innocent human who force pregnancy on someone who was raped, that’s the rapist who’s responsible. It’s an important distinction. I don’t know one pro-lifer who is pro-rape.
@@y3llowpersuasionz18 Wow, that is the most shite argument I have ever heard. Americans have to go over seas to adopt because so many American babies are aborted instead of put up for adoption. No, I think it's YOUR turn to sit down and shut up while adults have a conversation.
Children never need as much nurturing and protection as they do in the womb. The slaughter that is abortion is not only murder, but it's the worst KIND of murder.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣if that was the case then why have anti abortion laws caused so much death? ”Some 2,200 infants died in Texas in 2022 - an increase of 227 deaths, or 11.5%, over the previous year, according to preliminary infant mortality data from the Texas Department of State Health Services that CNN obtained through a public records request. Infant deaths caused by severe genetic and birth defects rose by 21.6%. That spike reversed a nearly decade-long decline. Between 2014 and 2021, infant deaths had fallen by nearly 15%.” So it’s pretty obvious the source of this information. “We found that maternal death rates were 62 percent higher in 2020 in abortion-restriction states than in abortion-access states.” Commonwealth Fund You can also look up all the research papers to discover that removing access to safe abortions has a profoundly negative effect. From higher death rates for women and infants, to higher levels of poverty and food hunger, to higher levels of crime, to higher levels of domestic abuse including sexual violence, to lower educational achievements, to lower living standards, etc., etc.,. That is why internationally access to safe abortions is a human right. Whereas, forced pregnancy, which means not allowing the woman to make choices about her body and her reproductive rights, is a crime. But then again America is becoming the land of the Christian ISIS.
@@melissachartres3219 If you don't believe it's a child, then why are you using the Latin word that means "offspring"? Is it just because it sounds sciency enough to dehumanize the human growing in that womb?
@@DoubleplusUngoodthinkful I'm using the medically designated word fetus because it's common vernacular and everyone knows what it means. You're just as big a murderer. Do you eat plants and animals?
When pro-choicers argue that killing the unconscious baby is just like pulling the plug on someone who is brain dead, I like to point out that a developing brain is not the same as a dead brain. If we knew the "brain dead" person would be a completely healthy, fully-functional human being in roughly nine months time or less, there would be a lot less people advocating to 'pull the plug'.
Uh, before birth it's not a baby it's a fetus. So nobody's talking about killing babies. Also, unconscious brain is more like a brain of a coma victim. When the plug is pulled they never know. It's like passing away in your sleep. Rather peaceful actually. Also, you don't know if a fetus will be a completely healthy and fully functional human being after 9 months as well. It's all stipulation. You can only make assumptions. :)
those who make such inhuman and sociopathic arguments to falsely equate the two only highlight the fact that they leftists are not human in the slightest
@@midnull6009 A fetus is a baby; it's not a kitten, puppy, or unicorn that can develop in a woman's uterus, afterall. "Fetus" is a lifestage in a human's life, a lifestage that you cannot skip over, and thus a lifestage that everyone alive today has gone through. If at the moment of conception a scientist ran the freshly made single-cell human zygote through a centrifuge, the DNA sequence could tell us that the fetus was a human being, that it is neither it's mom or dad but is directly related to them, that it is a boy or girl, and would be able to tell if the kid had certain genetic diseases. At the moment of conception, a zygote is a complete human being - it's just small because even multicellular beings need to start somewhere. As for killing humans in their sleep, by your logic you would be perfectly fine if I killed your loved ones while they were unconscious, so long as I did it painlessly. Just like the unborn, people who are sleeping cannot express their likes and dislikes, their personality, etc because they are in a state where their brain doesn't let them show the behavioural life signs that we can see and recognize. If you give your relatives time to wake up from their sleep, you will see they are indeed alive; it's the same for the unborn. As for having no guarantees that a baby will be born healthy, you know damn well that the vast majority of them are born with no defects. Babies aren't generally aborted because they are unhealthy, but are aborted because they are inconvenient.
@@rollinOnCode Nah man, I've found that most people who are pro-choice are those who simply aren't educated in the philosophy behind the pro-choice/pro-life movements. When you can show how one argument is emphatically stronger than another, people tend to be swayed. The problem I run into most often is that they don't want to listen to how weak the pro-choice argument is, and so they never learn.
@@toniduval4350 leftists though are not pro choice. Understand that it is total false dichotomy since human life is defined by choice. And choices have consequences- human beings must take personal responsibility for their choices. That is what freedom means. But democrats hate any semblance of freedom aka personal responsibility. Leftists are overgrown infants if not braindead degenerate cancerous parasites- basically not even human. If you try to treat leftists like human beings then they will scream and yell at you or even threaten you and your family
OK, I'm convinced. I am a right leaning former liberal who "woke" up one day to find the liberals I loved had gone completely around the bend. Up until watching this video I was pro choice for my own reasons, but you have concisely broken down the arguments of the left that really opened my eyes- and I think their ideology is basically; "you are boring, I see no value in you as a person, I'm not gonna get anything from your existence so go away". They, especially the woke guy culture has that kind of vicious attitude toward people in general. Ty for this video
The only reason that some people feel that abortion should be a right is because it's convenient. In Sweden I have a right to free healthcare (for the most part and even though it's paid from tax) and I don't think a lot of people want to take that away in Sweden even though we have to pay so much in taxes that almost half our wage is spent on taxes
@@theglobalswede760 the idea of convenience is still not an excuse. We can normalize talking about hardships and how communities can help women and children...normalizing terminating of the child's life is violence and barbaric. Also, given the stories of rich actresses aborting babies because of their schedule makes the poverty and convenience excuse moot.
@@theglobalswede760 I also agree with you on free sex thing. I was recently considering the shows put out by Hollywood and how reckless they are as well as full of bad behavior made to look normal. Free sex can happen in movies, but the billions of dollars spent on stds and the fact that a good number of people are fighting to have some imaginary right to terminate developing little humans at will, shows that in reality there is a cost to promiscuity. Why risk higher chances of cancer and in some cases deadly infections for a few minutes of fleeting pleasure. People are insane. Sex has consequences, if the person got aids, they wouldn't be aborting the virus...so they can leave babies alone.
To take viability one step further. A baby can’t survive outside the womb for years after they’re born. If their parents left them alone, they would die without intervention.
People who don't understand the difference between handing a child food and a fetus taking the nutrients that someone need right from their body without consent, shouldn't comment on things they don't understand.
@@LJMCKIDD I think they got consent when someone spread their legs so maybe you shouldn’t comment on things you don’t understand. If you don’t want a fetus taking food from you then keep your legs together. Problem Solved but no you would rather get your joy and then murder the consequence of your action
@@twrecks6279 Yeah, and there's no difference between a fetus being inside a specific person's body, damaging it, stealing their nutrients and using their organs, and a baby that is already born and uses it's own organs and can be fed by anyone who wants to do that. Save it, we've heard it before.
@@christinemeldrum9698 Lol I was responding to thejkennedy. He was claiming that there's a difference between a child taking nutrients and being given nutrients. I think it's arbitrary to use that as a reason to justify killing a human. I mean, even given that it's the left's position that those who aren't working by choice should still be given enough money to live on. It's surprising that it's a problem for them to an extent that babies shouldn't be allowed to take nutrients.
@@geoffstokes that doesn't mean that's the only people that were pro life. It's just showing that a lot of people did show up for it. I'm incredibly pro life but I have never been able to go to a pro-life march here in the United States because of geography or work not permitting it. It doesn't mean that I don't stand strong with them and cheer them on from where I'm at, I just wasn't able to make it. 3000 is a lot for Australia because they are a very far left people!!
I find it hilarious when a woman says breasts and vagina's don't make a woman .... But then a man will have a sex change and want those things to make herm feel complete as a woman 🤨
My eldest son was born 1 month premature which was a terrible thing back then, he had the last rites and we were told to prepare for the worst as he probably wouldn`t survive. He`s now 47 years old, is a completely normal "male human being" 😅 and works for Martin Baker Aircraft Company.
A very honest prochoicer -- I think it was Magda Denes -- said that arguing that it's okay to kill a fetus because it couldn't survive outside the womb makes no more sense than saying it's okay to drown a non-swimmer in the bathtub because he'd drown anyway if he fell into the ocean.
The Sisyphean Journal.. It's okay to kill a fetus because it couldn't survive outside the womb 🤔🤨 Killing the fetus inside the womb doesn't give it a chance to survive either 🤔🙄🤪
This is the current legal standard in the US - they call it "viability" of the fetus. It is abhorrent because it leads to infanticide laws that California, Maryland are pushing now. Former Virginia Governor Northam also let the cat out of the bag when he voiced he would terminate a baby but in a humane/comfortable way.
@@dorakinwarhammer2946 They tired to pretend that "perinatal" was an oops -- "We didn't mean that you could wrap little Emma in a towel and stick her in a closet to die 28 days after she was born!" Nope. These laws were written in consultation with abortion lobbyists who knew exactly what they were doing.
@@nehemieetaka2849 People whose lives are made worse by the spreading of transphobic rhetoric. Most importantly is ofc trans people who are abused, attacked and killed because of their identity. But let's not forget cis(non-trans) people who are abused, attacked and killed because they are mistaken for trans people or do not fit into the gender binary.
@@King_Gum That's horrendous! I live in South Africa so abuse of that kind directed to trans people is quite rare. We do see a lot of abuse of women and children though and I'm sure the same disgusting taste in my mouth caused by femacide is the taste in yours caused by transphobia. I misunderstood your question because you asked about my opinion on the victims. Did you mean my opinion on the perpetrators? Or maybe the phenomena in general. I thoroughly disagree with anyone that believes one is less human due to anything that makes them different other than being of a different species. Every human is made in the image of God and if you like nothing else about them, you still have to respect them on that account.
@@quantumtechcrypto7080 He's a politician that wants reelection. Biden is a pro-choice Catholic. I bet several congressional seat holders agree with pro-choice because they want reelection.
Stop using their words. Stop calling it a choice. Call them and it Pro Abort / Abortion. Don't let them frame the argument and try putting you on defense. After all who would not be for people to choose ?
I love when the pro-choice crowd uses the ‘it’s cruel to have a baby if you are in a bad financial/socioeconomic situation.’ They are literally making the argument that poor people shouldn’t have kids. That is straight out of the eugenics manual.
Mankind in its infancy didn’t have “money” to begin with but they still reproduced. The financial argument is a logical fallacy wrapped in a delusion. (I agree with you)
They are making the argument that poor people should decide for themselves. They don't tell poor people not to have kids even if they can't afford them. That's 100% the anti-abortion crowd.
@@avishevin1976 *They don't tell poor people not to have kids even if they can't afford them* Wrong. One of the prominent arguments from the pro-abortion crowd is that “your child shouldn’t be born in poverty, if you yourself are poor.” That argument is moronic based on the reality that humanity has been reproducing long before the concept of money even existed.
@@chosenone8408 You are simply wrong. Being pro-choice is exactly that: it's saying that the choice of raising a child in any condition is up to the mother. They don't say that a poor mother shouldn't have children. They're saying that a poor mother should have the _choice_ not to have children, even if that choice involves abortion. It is the anti-abortion crowd who say that poor people shouldn't get pregnant (up to and including never having sex) if they can't afford to have a baby.
Maybe I'd agree, if all his examples he used could apply to every "rule" he stated at once. Instead his examples only apply to one specific rule. When he says "well what if I slit the throat of somebody in a coma". Well yes the person in the coma is not conscious, but what about the rule of being self aware? The person was self aware, and possibly is still self aware because we dont know what happens to somebody subconsciously when they are in a coma
It seems to me that collectively we are being dehumanised and devalued more each day across the board. The family unit and more traditional way of life is being dismantled and seen as being wrong.
@@clairebordeaux I agree, certainly in the West. None of this is tolerated in other regions of the Globe. Look at Africa, South America, Middle East, Far East, and SE Asia. This is a European, North American and Australian issue. Basically anywhere with a Western Culture.
@@svy99n The "family unit" concert was a shot at the LGBTQ community. They harm nobody and their families are just as viable as heterosexual ones. People against gay marriage are bigots. So the original comment was a bigoted comment against innocent people who harm NOBODY. My comment, if bigoted, is against bigots that harm innocent people who harm nobody.
100% agree. That’s why we should allow abortion. We financially support child slavery through the likes of Amazon, Nike, Disney, Apple and etc. For convenience. For our convenience we ignore all but a small portion of human suffering (Yemen/Palestine/Sierra Leon... the list goes on and on). We continue to slaughter billions of animals in cold blood. The accomplishments in cruelty inside slaughter houses embarrasses the most ambitious of Jewish concentration camps from WWII. For pure convenience. Now our cherry picked Judeo-Christian values allow us to pass on judgement, as if we were any better, on those who wants to exercise the convenience of not raising a child. You need this idea to stand behind to ignore how much of a convenience based monster you already are. Your defense of “life” is a convenient way to lie to yourself that you have real values.
@@177SCmaro You've missed my point. It's the 'nature of evil' rhetoric and the faulty connection between that and 'abortion for convenience' that makes no sense.
@@derekspitz9225 No, you failed to make one. Ignorance and/or incredulity are not actually points - you're not actually conveying anything with, "I don't understand..." and you're not making an argument implying "...therefore it's incorrect." You still havn't made one. Merely making vauge claims are not a disproof of anything.
Sentience and consciousness is amusing as well. They’ll go to the mat for animals and the Earth (at the expense of developing countries) but argue when a fetus becomes a Being because a fetus can’t take an iq test in the womb.
Which is very concerning, because there are several states that will be voting on abortion rights until viability, except in cases where the mother is in distress, which includes anything and basically just means she doesn't want it. They pretend they are making it seem conservative, but it actually means abortion up until birth.
So why don’t you believe in human rights? Why do you support the committing of war crimes in times of peace? Oh, your first statement was made to make you look humane.
@@stephaniezank7717even if we include war, 60M dead defenseless babies is more than all soldiers we have lost in all wars. In fact there are individuals years where we have lost more babies than in all our wars combined.
When I was young and everything was based on feelings, I was pro-choice. Then I learned facts and started learning how to think and reason like a grown-up. I am now totally pro-life, and regret my former smug, self-centered beliefs. And I thank God every day that I never had to make that choice.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣I’m not sure why you needed to make up that you were pro-choice because it’s obvious you weren’t. The facts are unanimously in favour of abortion. And your god doesn’t care one bit about fetuses. Hosea 13:16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” Or Numbers 5:22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
And this comparison is horse shit because the pro-choice movement is only offering the right of abortion to the MOTHER. Go ahead and cite a mass killing in history that occurred after a group of mothers dehumanized their own babies? This comparison doesn’t work.
@@nicholasmiller668 so I guess slavery would have been justified because people weren’t required to have slaves but they were just offered the option of having a slave if they wanted to. Because black people were seen as “less than human” or “parasites of society”. Sound familiar? A mass atrocity has already occurred since roe vs wade was passed. 60 something million abortions have taken place since then.
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity? 2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does. 3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
The reality is that now women have been dehumanised by removing their foundational right to bodily autonomy. Why do you want to kill women? Why do you want to commit human rights violations of forced pregnancy and for birth? Why do you feel so threatened by women? Are you that weak?
@@nicholasmiller668 not a real point no matter who is given the authority to kill many mothers have been told the babies aren't living so people have manipulated them into believing they aren't human on the same level as them it doesn't matter who is dehumanizing it killing is killing and in history it is always one group mass killing others or one group they didn't like same here
An unborn baby can hear noises inside the womb. They can hear their mother's voice so when they're born they already know their mother's voice. That is memory so that is a form of conscience.
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity? 2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does. 3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
@@GangstaViolin you're just as wrong as abortion. It's a horrible thing. If you don't want kids, then don't have sex that can result in procreation. Period. Otherwise the consequence or result could potentially be pregnancy. If you are raped, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because someone does something horrible to you, doesn't give you free reign to do it to someone else. Incest shouldn't happen but even then the baby shouldn't die because of it. Maybe, just maybe, we should give our focus to rapists and people who commit incest and make them pay the price. Not the baby. Therfore any woman that gets an abortion, trying to make a baby pay for a crime they didn't commit, should be charged just as well.
@@royflora2338 Yeah, and if you don’t want car accident, don’t go out of home. But people can’t stay whole life at home same as they can’t stay whole life without sex. Why you need to enslave the future of pregnant women only because of a broken condom? That’s bollocks
You pro death moan and b1tch around for embryos who think and feel less than a mosquito, but eat dead animals (who are much more intelligent every day). At least abortion doesn’t damage environment and helps pregnant women who wanna abort, which can’t be said about eating meat.
While watching I had several thoughts provoked and the longer I watched to my amazement those thoughts were included in his words I can't even begin to explain the way this spoke to me!
If instead of humanizing an embryo who thinks and feels less than a mosquito, you Pro Death would say USE CONDOMS, that would be an actual help in order of decrease abortions. The only thing you accomplish instead is increasing abortion black market, expensive, illegal clinics where pregnant women die every day. Thank u, you Pro Death suckers.
I saw a women who was asked "If you had to choose just one, would you give up Democracy or abortion?" She chose to keep her access to abortion. Too many women flee from accountability. Repeal the 19th amendment and return sanity to this once great nation.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣ah, so you’re fighting to remove people’s freedom and bodily autonomy, right! I thought that Americans prided themselves for having freedom. Why do you want the government to decide whether your body is used for live organ harvest? Why do you want to bring back slavery?
@@VintageCardinal 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣have you ever asked why abortions were made legally safe to begin with. This is where the stupidity of anti-women’s healthcare is leading. ”Some 2,200 infants died in Texas in 2022 - an increase of 227 deaths, or 11.5%, over the previous year, according to preliminary infant mortality data from the Texas Department of State Health Services that CNN obtained through a public records request. Infant deaths caused by severe genetic and birth defects rose by 21.6%. That spike reversed a nearly decade-long decline. Between 2014 and 2021, infant deaths had fallen by nearly 15%.” So it’s pretty obvious the source of this information. “We found that maternal death rates were 62 percent higher in 2020 in abortion-restriction states than in abortion-access states.” Commonwealth Fund You can also look up all the research papers to discover that removing access to safe abortions has a profoundly negative effect. From higher death rates for women and infants, to higher levels of poverty and food hunger, to higher levels of crime, to higher levels of domestic abuse including sexual violence, to lower educational achievements, to lower living standards, etc., etc.,. That is why internationally access to safe abortions is a human right. Whereas, forced pregnancy, which means not allowing the woman to make choices about her body and her reproductive rights, is a crime. But then again America is becoming the land of the Christian ISIS.
@@traciemorarity1924 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣well it’s quite simple what happens when democracy goes, dictatorship takes over. The way America is headed that dictatorship, like Trump, will be far right wing or fascist with Christianity being the religion. This is precisely the political ideology America fought against during WW2. Fascism strips people of choice, of rights, demonises those who don’t fit their ideology. Fascism strips freedom.
I have a solution that negates the need for abortions. How about making vasectomies compulsory for men. Why men? Because men are the makers of babies. A woman can’t regulate her ovulation but a man can regulate his ejaculation. This will remove the need for women to rely on contraceptives that are tremendously harmful but frequently unreliable especially if taking antibiotics for example. Reversible vasectomies of course which can only be reversed when the man can show that they’re earning enough to support a family (in case the woman dies during childbirth) and are mature enough to stay around and not be abusive. Also, let’s record the DNA of all men so that we know if they’ve broken the law, making finding and prosecuting them easier. As a bonus it will also make finding rapists and peodophiles much easier. Win, win!
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity? 2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does. 3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
The last 30 seconds was so good. I never heard those arguments before. I think about our Rights as a protection to do what is right vs. every alternative to do otherwise. That that right decision is Right, approved and granted by God, because it allows what is humankind to go on existing in the way that God created it and gave duty to.
The problems with your statement are: 1. What is 'right' is subjective and therefore inconsistent with what various individuals will think is 'right', and 2. The god you claim is not the same god everyone claims, so there would need to be a determination of which god-directed behavior is 'right'. You assume your god is the right god. Billions of people would disagree. How do you justify your god being the correct god? How have you eliminated all other gods?
What do we all have in common? WE ARE ALIVE. WE WERE BORN ALIVE. Just as Adam took his first breath and "became a living soul". So do we also become a person at live birth. This was the standard in legal history, medical history, and Biblical history. This not an arbitrary standard. This guy is missing a lot of stuff. Does he deal with the FACT that the states that restrict (or ban) abortions are the same states that lead the nation in infant mortality and maternal mortality? Does he deal with the FACT that we are now jailing women because they had a miscarriage?
Watching a clip of Anne Hathaway as a guest on The View saying that “abortion is a mercy” while smiling, was the most demonic thing I have ever heard said…the smug look in her eyes was appalling. 🤮😡
I saw that and she was smiling and literally proud of what she said. It was painful. I don't really watch too much TV or movies anymore. Not even from home. I have cable so that I can have the Hallmark family channel and I really love Little House on the Prairie, Highway to Heaven and some of the older shows like that but I don't watch a lot of TV anymore. The devil is in plain sight!!
I am pro-life and I have argued much the same against abortion as this man. I have allowed teen girls to move in with me so that their parents weren't able to force them into an abortion. My own daughter got pregnant at 17 and wanted an abortion, I told her I'd adopt her baby and raise her. Of course, she changed her mind when she saw the baby (my granddaughter) on the sonogram. I have taken in pregnant homeless women and helped them get free of their addictions. I have ended relationships and friendships because the other person is pro-abortion and will not see reason. I am really pro-life and this man gave a good argument for life. After years of debating this topic online and in person let me give you the strongest argument I've ever heard FOR abortion. It is a rather simple argument. I was taken aback when I heard it. I had been debating with a man about abortion for a few hours and he basically said this "You've told me that you believe that abortion is the murder of a baby. You've told me that you believe we are people at the point of conception, and you've stood outside an abortion center when women were going inside to murder their children, I don't believe you believe what you're saying. And neither does anyone else who says it, especially not 50% of the country because people don't just stand by and protest as other people murder babies. You don't have a philosophical debate as children are dying, you stop them. Your side doesn't act like they believe their own rhetoric." I remember watching a news story about ISIS, where the terrorists had taken over a village and they had taken all of the children into a bakery, the adults were all gathered outside and there were about 3 guards with guns at the bakery door. They were killing the children inside, you could hear them screaming. They were killing them in horrifying disgusting painful ways. The adults were just standing there huddled together terrified and crying. And a lot of the adults standing outside the bakery had children inside. I didn't believe the news report because I couldn't imagine standing there and doing nothing even if it meant getting shot. I wouldn't want to live in a world where some sadistic bastard could torture my child to death in front of me and I do nothing about it. But that is us now. We're standing outside the bakery while the terrorists are inside sadistically dismembering babies. We are the farmers who lived in the lands surrounding the gulags, who smelled the smoke from the showers and did nothing. That is us now and I am ashamed.
I'm sorry, could you clarify the meaning of "We are the farmers who lived in the lands surrounding the gulags, who smelled the smoke from the showers and did nothing." I ask because it would be difficult to take you seriously based on that statement for several reasons. Neither the farmers or any other citizen knew what was happening. Smelled the smoke from the showers? Smoke from the showers? Whether you believe it or not, no need to get into that, Zyklon B is claimed to be used in the showers. There would be no smoke. Anyone smelling it would be dead. Please don't take it as a personal attack against you, it could be a misunderstanding on my part. I just think it's important to keep the facts straight.
A child in the womb is FULLY capable of emotions. See Luke 1:41-44 "When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy."
@@stephaniezank7717 The overwhelming number of people that believe there is nothing wrong with abortion simply do NOT understand the science behind abortion! Abortion at any point ends a human life. And the later term abortions violates the Eighth Amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The little baby girl or boy is dismembered limb from limb and then has his or her soul crushed and then vacuumed out without even shown the courtesy of receiving an anesthesia! They call the baby being aborted “tissue” and then the abortionist “Dr.” Carefully avoids damaging the human babies organs the heart lungs kidneys livers etc. etc In case the mother signs the form saying it is ok to use the parts for research so they can be sold. And if you think I am lying then I suggest you watch a few videos of babies being aborted or this one from a former abortion doctor. I have read the Constitution from cover to cover, it says “nobody can be deprived of life liberty or the pursuit of happiness! If you do NOT want the baby put it up for adoption! Pro abortion democRats have no souls!
@@ricksteelcustoms3196actually they aren’t capable of feeling pain until around 20 weeks. They also don’t develop a memory of pain because they’re not conscious. It is the memory of pain that causes harm. You can be unconscious and lose a limb and since you’re unconscious you can’t develop a memory of the loss of the limb and you won’t remember the pain. Since foetuses aren’t conscious they won’t feel the pain.
If nothing else, you’ve made me think. What an intelligent & marvelous set of facts to lay before the masses. If people don’t listen & take to heart what was uttered here, what chance of survival does our species have?
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity? 2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does. 3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
Did he satisfy your intellectual bias so quickly? Did you determine that a critical analysis of his presentation wasn't necessary since he made you feel confident in your own beliefs? Nice work. Stay in your bubble.
If instead of humanizing an embryo who thinks and feels less than a mosquito, you Pro Death would say USE CONDOMS, that would be an actual help in order of decrease abortions. The only thing you accomplish instead is increasing abortion black market, expensive, illegal clinics where pregnant women die every day. Thank u, you Pro Death suckers.
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity? 2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does. 3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
@@jimmy_xi9342 Access to safe abortion is a human right and protects women’s health as declared by the WHO. Or don’t you believe in human rights? Every individual has the right to decide freely and responsibly - without discrimination, coercion and violence - the number, spacing and timing of their children, and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health (ICPD 1994). Access to legal, safe and comprehensive abortion care, including post-abortion care, is essential for the attainment of the highest possible level of sexual and reproductive health. Abortions are safe when they are carried out with a method that is recommended by WHO and that is appropriate to the pregnancy duration, and when the person carrying out the abortion has the necessary skills. Such abortions can be done using tablets (medical abortion) or a simple outpatient procedure. When women with unwanted pregnancies do not have access to safe abortion, they often resort to unsafe abortion. An abortion is unsafe when it is carried out either by a person lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards, or both. Characteristics of an unsafe abortion touch upon inappropriate circumstances before, during or after an abortion. Unsafe abortion can lead to immediate health risks - including death - as well as long-term complications, affecting women’s physical and mental health and well-being throughout her life-course. It also has financial implications for women and communities. So why do you want to strip women of a basic human right?
@@adamradley4016 Because life begins at conception. But to be clear I’m against wasting sperm as well. But life starts when the sperm fertilizes the egg not before hand.
@@KINGANIMEREVIEW that's simply not true. The sperm is a live. It an organism. A human organism. Life is an ongoing process. It doesn't begin with conception because it is compose of living organisms. Also - define wasting sperm. Most sperm is "wasted" because in each ejaculation only one fertilizes an egg..
@@adamradley4016 sperm is alive, but it's not a LIFE. It won't survive or create anything on its own. This is like saying your liver or skin cells are a life. Just no.
It is pretty much universally accepted by both men and women that during her term of pregnancy a woman has a unique and elevated, somewhat special status. She is typically viewed as someone who is making sacrifices for the benefit of her precious cargo in terms of behaviour and time dedicated to her task. We will collectively make allowances, but above all else we offer her our care and protection, regardless of a baby being unrelated, or that the mother happens to be a stranger. There is an innate understanding and acknowledgment amongst decent members of society who concur, as to the importance of the sacred journey she is taking. Should we have the same attitude and concern for a woman who has previously had 2, or 3 abortions. Why should it be considered as anything other than a car, or piece of clothing that can be discarded on a whim. My concern is the danger that human life will soon become as disposable as the aforementioned items, and women are at risk of losing their precious and valued status. Peace.
Unless you're a conservative who rails against mandatory maternity leave and free healthcare. So you're all for allowances as long as they don't inconvenience you in any way.
I don't have understanding of terms "sacred' you used, also "previous cargo", you know that this cargo "preciousness" is just subjective perspective, on boat with limited resources for 2 people (you and mother), this "precious cargo" will cause both of you to die, very simple example.
@@dod-do-or-dont Everything is subjective. Everything is a concept. The latter, being the only way for us to make sense of what we know to be apparent, but simply have no explanation for. In 1970, a woman I know very, very well, intended to have an abortion. The Father of that baby intervened. He promised to marry her and take care of them both. Almost 52 years to the day, the foetus in question has the ability to voice his opinion and concerns over the very subject matter that almost prevented him from doing so. The irony is palpable, but when he interacts with his own children it is tangible. The analogy of a desperate scene on a lifeboat is far, far removed from an analogy of having casual, irresponsible copulation, and to then jettison the "not so very precious" cargo.
@@dendemano OK. That is a self- defeating argument. Everything is not subjective. There are these things called absolutes & absolute truths. Because if "everything is subjective" then how could you possibly claim that "everything is subjective" if everything's subjective because by claiming that "everything is just simply subjective" your claiming there to be an absolute truth-"Everything is Subjective". And that can't be true if everything's subjective. So see. It's a SELF-Defeating argument that violates the law of non-contradiction. Oh and by the way. How could you possibly tell lies if everything is just a matter of opinion. Because if there's no such thing as truth, then how could there possibly be truths. And if "everything is just a matter of opinion," then how the hell could you possibly call Hitler or Stalin bad or wrong for murdering millions of people. Because if "everything's just a matter of opinion," then how the hell could you even tell a difference between right and rong, let-a-lone do right or wrong.
@@jonathanehlers2654 Tell me something that isn't subjective in the first instance. "Opinions" whether they prove to be wrong or right are still opinions.
Man, the bigots really came out the woodwork on this one. The discrimination against those with lower brain function, smaller size, shorter development is really sickening.
@@sweetgal7644 5 of the top 6 states that spend the most on benefits are Republican. The "Republicans hate everyone who aren't straight white males" thing is a modern day hoax that you fell for.
@@MrTheclevercat Euphemisms?! Lol You mean descriptors? I think you need to look up the definition of euphemism. You must have flunked 5th grade English. Or maybe English is your second language.
Yes because new people are born every day who will eventually need to be taught these things and the only thing being taught about sex in schools is to do it as much as you want with whomever you want just use a condom.
@@eyemnew2991 _You_ are wrong. It always only takes one time. It's just that you don't know which one is "the" time. The point of making this clear is to counter the precise myth that you're propagating, albeit unintentionally. That myth being that you can't get pregnant having sex only one time, or even on the first time.
I have no idea why this was recommended, but the points made were so well articulated and explained in such a way that my (relative) lack of knowledge on the subject was able comprehend and easily understand what he was saying. If more people were able to speak on subjects with this capability I think more people would get involved (or at least make informed decisions) in society's issues and make actual substantive change instead of the smaller nothing changes because people don't actually understand either side, or what is actually being spoken about
Not trying to sound snarky so forgive me but you should really watch more of these kind of videos. There’s Kristen Hawkins President of Students for Life. She has a bunch of great videos speaking..cough..debating college students. Pretty fiery content. Lol. Oh! A really good person to listen to is Abby Johnson. She used to be the director of Planned Parenthood and assisted in many many abortions till she came to her senses and now works with Right To Life. There are just so many interesting and informative options. Check some out. 👍
The pro choice advocates can’t decide among each other when life begins because their own medical science keeps proving them wrong, but they must remember that they make Stalin, Hitler and all the other inhumane murderers in history look like pussycats in comparison to the heinous crimes they are committing against the most vulnerable and innocent members of the human race.
To be honest, when listening i more or less felt like the words were picked very carefully to ignore everything that might undermine his arguments. He is basically a good speaker And sales guy who could most likely sell his own shit in a jar if he wanted to.
The masses objective of the pro choice advocates seems to be “I want to make poor choices, then flush my poor choices down the toilet.” The speaker just outlined how vacuuming a baby out of the womb causes just as much pain to them as it would cause to you if you were ripped limb from limb. That is exactly what is happening. Sometimes the doctor has to get in there with some tweezers and physically rip out partially formed body parts piece by piece. Arms, legs, little faces. Absolutely horrific. Does this make ANY pro choicer in the comments pause and say “wow that does kinda sound terrible”. Of course not. They are only interested in arguing the point to prove to themselves somehow it is all good. No don’t get me wrong, I am not of the mindset we should make abortion illegal. It is a social issue, a moral issue, and a personal decision. But the fact many pro choicers can’t even admit the facts and the weight the decision having an abortion holds proves to me they don’t have a moral foundation and are only concerned with their one selfish desires, to flush their bad life decisions down the toilet without a care in the world. What I find the most perplexing, is that the same leftist minded thinkers usually suppose evolution is a theory they believe. At the same time they are usually also the crowd which believes things like gender is a social construct and homosexuality is just a normal orientation. They usually have a strong dislike for organized religion and will argue the idea of God the same they argue the idea that a baby should have any rights. But how does all this fit in with the idea of evolution? That each species is constantly evolving to survive more easily and more consistently?? We currently have a declining birth rate. Trans persons and homosexuals can’t have children, and pro choicers often choose not to. So their survivability is zero. We nice again I think homosexuality and transgenderism are not something government should have ANY say about when it comes to the rights an individual should have. But every time I hear a leftist try to talk about ANY of these issues I can’t help but think “they have no fucking idea what they actually believe, they just never really thought about it. They want to confirm their bias, and have no desire for a rational thought.”
@@davidhoffman6980 Your argument fails, because we already don't criminalize homicide in many cases. If someone kills another person by reasonable accident, in self-defense, etc., it is not typically criminally punished. Yet we as a society still frown upon it, still discourage it, still acknowledge that something bad has happened, and still take steps to prevent it from happening again, even if it is not a criminal act. The same attitude should apply to abortion. There may be times where killing the unborn child for the mother's sake is warranted, and it would not be inexcusable to allow people to do that in the right circumstances. We can allow that to be a legal option while still maintaining a culture that discourages it and does what we can to prevent it from happening.
@Myles Leggette Hi and thanks for the polite response. First of all, I didn't make an argument. An argument is a proposition with supporting statements. I asked a question to see if the original commenter can be consistent in his philosophy. Second, I didn't say "homicide"; I said "murder", which typically means "wrongful killing". I did not and do not propose that all homicides be criminalized. Killing in defense of the innocent is permissible. I asked Donald if murder should be permissible for the same reasons he proposed abortion should be permissible. Thanks.
I have found 3 simple questions that end the discussion on abortion, and prove pro-abortion advocates are either uneducated, or evil, if they disagree. 3 questions, 2 are scientifically backed and 1 is common sense; 1. Is it human? Yes. 2. Is it alive? Yes. 3. Did it choose to be there? No. The importance of the 3rd question is to point out the lack of responsibility on the child's part, which establishes the child's innocence, and dispels the idea of bodily autonomy in pregnancy. So the argument proposed after the questions are asked and answered correctly is; In what situation is it ever morally OK, to kill an innocent human being? Other than extremely rare cases, like a severe physical health risk to the mother, in which most of those don't require killing the baby to solve, could an argument be made. If they can't answer the first 2 questions, yes, then the conversation cannot go forward until they have sufficiently educated themselves on biology. If they can't answer the 3rd question, no, the conversation cannot go forward until they understand personal responsibility and the concept of risks associated with actions. With these questions and final argument, all abortions, but a rare few, of the rarely required due to physical health threat posed on the mother, are eliminated due to the moral and ethical wrong perpetrated on an innocent human life.
I mean you better be doing something to help these kids you want to be born in America so bad with the price of medical bills and the price of living going up and global warming,2 billion people living under the poverty line,the school shootings,the abusive foster/adoption system not to mention if the parent does decide to raise them they're probably not gonna have the best parents/parent because that's has been proven time and time again to be a disaster also miscarriages or "miscarriages" you can't stop those can you? and oh yeah the amount of youth suicide and depression rates so far I haven't seen any pro lifer make this country any better for a child to born into
@@childx81 Youth suicide is on the rise because of the detrimental affects of the covid lockdowns, and the psychotic imaginations of leftist woke ideologies.
@@Oopsy75254 that's just not true also it's not always natural people are literally telling women how to force a miscarriage hence why I put "miscarriages" and honestly as they should
A new-born baby is fully aware of a wet diaper, the urge to eliminate waste, a hunger pain, a tummy ache, the mother's voice, a warm embrace even the moment it's born. While in the womb, a baby recognizes its mother's voice, noises, music, etc. and to say the unborn child doesn't experience is wrong - traveling through the birth canal certainly doesn't feel good.
Nobody is saying a fetus doesnt become sentient at a point. We are saying there is a point it becomes sentient. An egg and a sperm dont come together to instantly form a functioning brain. There is time in between sperms and brains
@@ethancole9168 You are assuming that human worth is predicted on the awareness or sentience. Firstly not everyone agrees but even if they did, would you apply that logic to yourself, would you cease to have rights while lacking awareness while under anesthesia on the operating table? If you reply that you'll regain awareness in the future, why is that substantively different than the fetus gaining awareness in the future?
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity? 2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does. 3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
I love the argument, “someone who needs an organ to live can’t force you to donate.” After conception, the donation has already occurred. Abortion is the equivalent of ripping a donated organ back out of the recipient because you want it back.
I can agree with this. In Michael Knowles' recent debate with a pro-choice med student, the student tried to argue on the grounds of consent, that a woman at any time can rescind consent to the use of her uterus. Your comment shows how cold and ridiculous that premise is.
@@uabjf if you did something knowing that it may end up with you having to give up your organ (knowing sex could make baby) and still do it anyway then you can’t take it back, you consented.
@@CD-vb9fi 1. Abortion exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. If helping women is atrocious, then I’m proud of this atrocity. 2. Embryo is innocent? So are the animals you eat EVERY DAY (all of them smarter than a human embryo). Difference is that eating a steak you help nobody but your addiction (and damage environment). Affirming that you can’t compare humans with animals is ridiculous. I mean, why can’t you? Is it forbidden? 3. Humanizing the embryo has never proved to be an effective strategy in order of decreasing nr of abortions, as recommending use of condoms would. So you’re basically NOT helping. 4. Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
@@GangstaViolin 1. Abortion is murder, you are killing a human. The definition of Murder is "taking the life of an innocent human". You cannot murder an animal for example. You can only kill it. 2. Yes, embryo is innocent. Animals are not judged by innocence or guilt, they lack knowledge of good and evil, though I understand why you are not intelligent enough to understand this nuance. Grass is alive as well. But if you justification for "being smarter" means it is okay to consume anything less smart. Then shall a person with a 150 IQ be allowed to consumer a person with a 120 IQ? Did you not think about the implications of what you have said? Of course you didn't... you are not smart enough. 3. But according to the Science, it is factual that the embryo is human. I know humanizing them does not work because people like you have been ignoring facts and have been trying to dehumanize all sorts of black, brown, yellow, red, and olive skinned people. You immediately refuse science the moment it does not serve your purpose. 4. So laws against killing and murder increase killing and murder too then? Your logic is so juvenile and flawed you cannot be reasoned with. And you know what that means right? Just like any Nazi... You are openly saying you desire to kill people. After a long train of abuse people get tired... and they rise up and destroy their oppressors! People like YOU are the ones that brought us slavery. Said those humans are not humans treating them like chattel. People like you bring tyranny and oppression. Saying they have "offended" you and are deserving of death or imprisonment. You are the evil in this world. You are the people God will come to destroy so that people like me can live with peace and harmony without death, lies, tyranny, and evil!
@@GangstaViolin 1 equating abortion to helping women is laughable it causes severe mental trauma most of the time and takes recovery also you are no way helping the second human being I would rather have one human being not die for the other to be in discomfort for 9 months and both humans come out alive helping isn't the the only thing abortion causes You know slavery helps plantation owners produce more with less costs but that doesn't make it right . 2 a human embryo has more moral worth than an animal because 1 again it has in common with every other human the same species and human nature animals do not so they don't have the same moral worth simple as that and yes that is why animels and humans are on different levels animals kill other animals in nature all the time also eating steak doesn't damage the environment complexity delusional on that 3 humanizing embryos is not necessary they are simply human and that is an issue needed to be addressed controceptives have nothing to do with that but when we admit embryos are humans then abortion becomes inherently wrong on a moral standpoint of murder or not Fourth point is illogical you are equating that if we don't stop one crime another crime will follow that will be far less prevalent which doesn't convince any person with reason this is like saying if we don't sell illegal drugs drug addicts will kill people so we have to keep selling drugs completely illogical the woman knows the risk of illegal abortion and that it is a crime
He's so dead on, and we are currently undergoing political dehumanization by the same group. Good thing those of us right-of-center are actually fighting back now.
We've been fighting back for decades. And lost. That's when we learned it really matters who sits on the courts. That's why the left are so mad now. They thought they had that settled.
@@vintagerose9186 because the realistic among us understand that abortion is not murder and that only caring before the birth of a child and not afterwards shows very clearly that this isn’t about the life of a child to those right wing loonies it’s about just arguing because they want to.
It's like I've always said - there is no pro-abortion argument that does not also by its logic demand the death of a demographic of already born human beings.
@@MrTheclevercat First, I assume that those to whom you're referring who would be in that certain number are the undesirables of society--the dregs, the criminals, etc. My response is based on that assumption. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but any other possibility makes your statement absolutely deplorable. Does it blow your mind to know that I'm a deeply religious man who believes that no one is beyond God's reach, redempion, and life-changing forgiveness? Ezekiel 33:11 (NKJV): Say to them: "As I live," says the LORD God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of israel?" So since you thought there was even a remote possibility that I'd actually have my mind blown by your statement (there wasn't, by the way), then maybe your mind could be blown by this concept: if the world would be better off if a certain number of people got aborted, how much better than that would it be if those same people turned out to be great, awesome people in the end?
@@germanwulf40 I mean in the simplest terms that people who can't afford to add the responsibility of another child are creating a great deal of evil in the world if they choose to have one. And no, its not a mind blowing concept that some people who might have been aborted turn out alright. It's hilarious to dream that they'd all turn out great though. Very nice thought. Very far from reality. If your brain gets stuck on the idea that every fertilized egg has a soul and you're murdering it with an abortion you aren't a very serious person lol. That's just honesty.
1. Abortion exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. If helping women is atrocious, then I’m proud of this atrocity. 2. Embryo is innocent? So are the animals you eat EVERY DAY (all of them smarter than a human embryo). Difference is that eating a steak you help nobody but your addiction (and damage environment). Affirming that you can’t compare humans with animals is ridiculous. I mean, why can’t you? Is it forbidden? 3. Humanizing the embryo has never proved to be an effective strategy in order of decreasing nr of abortions, as recommending use of condoms would. So you’re basically NOT helping. 4. Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
@@GangstaViolin I'm commenting late on this, but a couple comments. 1. Just because you help someone (whether they're vulnerable or not) doesn't make it right. I could say I was helping Hitler by creating Nazi Germany as it helped to bring the vulnerable German people out of depression and hyperinflation. That doesn't make it right. 2. You don't know whether the person was a vegan, but you're essentially making one of 2 points. Either the embryo is innocent just like animals (in which case we SHOULDN'T kill them), or the embryo has every right to die (just like animals). So essentially you can't be pro-choice and vegan at the same time. Additionally, a human life is very arguably more important than the life of an animal. 3. The point of this was to raise awareness so that policies could be put into place banning abortions (at least under certain circumstances), not to convince women to commit less abortions (This is purely my opinion). 4. While women dying in illegal abortion clinics is terrible, more lives would be saved by banning abortion.
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity? 2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does. 3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
If a woman has the final say so over "her body" and giving birth. The man should be able to choose if he's going to pay child support. If the father has no say so in the birth then he shouldn't be forced to pay for a baby he didn't want.
Your argument is illogical. A woman gets to make choices that affect her body. This has absolutely nothing to do with the man who impregnated her. The man's responsibility for child support is based on _his_ choice. Just because he doesn't get to choose for the woman does not mean he can just absolve himself of responsibility for his own choices. They are not connected.
@@avishevin1976 we seems to be on the same foot regarding main topic but i will disagree regarding father rights. I think that man should have right to resign all responsibilities before intercourse, sometimes woman can tick you that she take hormones etc (any form of contraception) and she will trick you to pay for her and her kid (because she is not working you will have to pay also for her in my country), so there should be possibility for man to don't get tricked.
What I can't understand is that pro choice (death) people are always going on about protecting the rights and bodily autonomy of marginalized people except unborn people! It's just weird!
What I can't understand is that pro life people are always going on about the sanctity of life and the responsibility to the unborn, but as soon as they are born, they no longer care! It's just weird!
@Danny Timms I really like how you came at me with a cogent, thought provoking response to really make me analyze my position. I'm glad you didn't just go with the "liar liar pants on fire" bit. Oh, wait... NM
@@mikehill1114 What's even more hilarious is you bring up a fallacy that has nothing to do with all the points he made in the video, good on you, you're so intelligent. Keep on bringing up random non arguments and not replying to the direct assault on your pathetic beliefs. He put an absolute sledgehammer thru your face and you have to bring up some random BS argument that doesn't relate, AND that you don't live up to yourself. If you don't know what I'm taking about, don't bother responding, you don't have the mental capacity, seriously. Very funny though...I'm very amused. 😂
Listening to you gives me hope that there is "Hope" for the next generatión. Thank you, thank you, thank you! God bless you and give you courage to keep fighting the good fight!!!
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity? 2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does. 3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
“You hate life if you hate the beginnings of life. You serve death if you only value developed beings and not growing beings. Your arbitrary and convenient standards of what constitutes life and beings are not something life, nature, reason, science, or religion agree with. All sane and sound systems understand the origins of life to be the most precious and sacred forms of life that are deserving of all honor and protection. Pro-abortionists are anti-life. Pro-abortionists are haters who are going to hate because it is what they do best.” -Kevin Everett FitzMaurice
Wake Up Church! Time is short... "Your country is desolate, your cities burned with fire; strangers devour your land in your presence; and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers." Isaiah 1:7 "The people will be oppressed, every one by another and every one by his neighbor; the child will be insolent toward the elder, and the base toward the honorable." Isaiah 3:5 "When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil ( including filthy language - Isaiah 6:5-9) of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil. Learn to do good; seek justice, rebuke the oppressor, defend the fatherless , plead for the widow." Isaiah 1:15-17; Isaiah 1:2-6, Isaiah 8:12-13 The Bible says that the world will get worse and worse, faster and faster. Matthew 24, Book of Revelation, Daniel, etc. True Believers who are born again in Jesus Christ, will be Raptured, called UP to meet Jesus in the air, then the Wrath of GOD known as the Tribulation. It is in GOD's timing, but it is so very soon! The Tribulation will be so horrible that unless Jesus returns at His Second Coming, no flesh will be left! Jesus has given you a Free Gift of eternal life and forgiveness of all your sins, by His sacrifice at the cross. What is keeping you from accepting His Free Gift of salvation today? Jesus Loves You More Than Anything.💜💜💜🙏🙏🙏📖📖📖
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity? 2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does. 3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
1. Abortion exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. If helping women is atrocious, then I’m proud of this atrocity. 2. Embryo is innocent? So are the animals you eat EVERY DAY (all of them smarter than a human embryo). Difference is that eating a steak you help nobody but your addiction (and damage environment). Affirming that you can’t compare humans with animals is ridiculous. I mean, why can’t you? Is it forbidden? 3. Humanizing the embryo has never proved to be an effective strategy in order of decreasing nr of abortions, as recommending use of condoms would. So you’re basically NOT helping. 4. Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
I find this issue to be at that moment where individuality is not discrete. However I also think that the loss of the unborn is self punishing since it was the death of true love. It is unnecessary to add to the loss. But the loss is huge and ripples through how the larger group sees itself and how mourning is to be handled.
1. Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. So it has a reason to be. 2. Embryo is innocent? So are the animals you eat EVERY DAY (all of them smarter than a human embryo). Difference is that eating a steak you help nobody but your addiction (and damage environment). Affirming that you can’t compare humans with animals is ridiculous. I mean, why can’t you? Is it forbidden? 3. Humanizing the embryo has never proved to be an effective strategy in order of decreasing nr of abortions, as recommending use of condoms would. So you’re basically NOT helping. 4. Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity? 2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does. 3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
These are all terrific arguments. However as someone passionately pro-life, I don’t see this as particularly helpful for the goal of swaying people who might actually have abortions. This’ll be a tremendous hit with people who are already pro-life, but will this sway anyone on the other side? And this is the issue I have with the pro-life movement: the condescending, supercilious tone & posture makes nearly any otherwise great point unheard by those of differing opinions. We must approach with grace
Please explain how you would tell someone murder or even slavery is bad if you don't state the moral parameters that define what is acceptable within a 'good' society'? Yes it is important to win over hearts and minds, however pro-life advocates should not have to make concessions when it comes to the emotional appeals of 'you don't know what its like' or 'you could never imagine what (fill in the blank)' then this allows for the exceptions to chip away at the resolve of protecting and enshrining protections for the unborn that's why you have people who will cave to issues of rape or incest or in the health of the mother and so on. We need to be compassionate but we can't let that compassion skew the scientific and legal realities that exist. Kindness is truth shared and sometimes that is difficult to grasp but we shouldn't shy away from it.
@@katherinecampbell9772 Hi Katherine! Thanks for your reply. I think it boils down to the tone we engage others in. I think the sarcasm & detectable disgust many in the pro-life community as well as the man in this video speak with is counterproductive to swaying anybody to the side of good & truth. Certainly using the term murder or calling someone a murderer is not helpful & immediately activates the opposition’s defensiveness & hostility, & in this way no progress is made as it’s an immediate turn off. You have to ease your way in if we’re to make any headway with individuals with just twisted beliefs as to think one can discard a child when we can’t discard a speeding ticket-both consequences of willing actions. Definitely not saying to sacrifice truth! I just look at the polarization of pro-life vs pro-choice & see that only furthering because of our current atmosphere where both sides look at the other side as disgusting. We are witnessing the pro-choice group go further & further into radical irrationality-these days saying you should ‘shout your abortion’ or celebrate even-because of the ineffectiveness of the pro-life voices not speaking truth in love, as the Bible calls me to do. They’re speaking truth in condescension, in my opinion
@@AustinLNale the difficulty is that even Jesus, in love, called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers". I wonder how we would treat if people tried to legalize poedophilier, or legalize racism. We would show a level of outburst that might not seem "loving". I do believe there's two sides: one is to realize that the person having an abortion is broken and needs help, and then there's the correction of the wrong view.
@@AustinLNale Hi, thank you also for sharing more on your perspective. You are right to bring up how ideologies may overshadow the real issues when it comes to wanting to protect both vulnerable parties of mothers and unborn children. That often leads to either the mother or child's well-being potentially being 'devalued' and thats usually what the opposing side will claim in the course of an argument. The condescension is also an important obstacle too like you mentioned. What would you like to see the pro-life side do in the future going forward to address those types of issues that tend to turn people off?
We actually are called to speak truth! Yes do it with some integrity & dignity! But we also need to stop rolling over, & fearing we may offend someone today! They may act offended today, but the words of truth planted seeds that germinate tomorrow!
In my country (Switzerland) we have something called "Fristenregelung" witch broadly translates to deadline regulation. It's 12 weeks from the beginning of pregnancy where you can abort your unborn child. To abort you have to make the following points: You have to be in the state of an emergency, you're willing to abort and you had a consulation with a gynologist which is mandatory by law. In this consulation, they show you way how to get along with the child, which public services can help you with the child and much more. Since we have this law, the number of abortions dropped and even if it's not zero, it's waaays less than before. I perfectly know that this solution is not perfect and in my personal opinion an abortion is never a good answer. But i still think, it is a acceptable balance between "completely forbidden" and "do as like".
That's your opinion you never been raped or have a family member forced you. Speak for yourself.. I'm for women rights to choose i didn't get to choose at 14, told i had a bad appendix appendix. Was put to sleep.. a nurse slept and told me. So yes it's a women's Choice and no one else's you do what you want with youur body I'll do what I want with mine i love you anyways
@@jannett4333 yes this is my opinion as i clearly stated with "and in my personal opinion" and yes i speak for myself and i never made any point to speak for others. On the other hand, why are you so sure i never was raped or a family member forced me? Im sorry for your personal history and suffering but you just assumed a bit too much and came to conclusion a bit to fast.
Amazing points, and so well articulated! These are probably the very best points I've ever heard, and I listen to a lot of pro life advocates! Thank you for helping arm us pro-lifers with these amazing and truthful points to fight for life!
You realize how much pro-lifers are hypocrites right? You argue for the life of unborn children but Pro-Lifers ignore the lives of the children that all ready born and in a system that is so utterly broken. There are 600 thousand abortions that occur across the US in a year. Do you realize what will happen to most of those children if you eliminate abortion. They will end up in welfare system. 38% of children that end up in the system suffer some sort of abuse. Those are just numbers documented. That number is more then likely more like 45 to 60% of children. Eliminating abortion is going to flood the system with even more children that the system is all ready overwhelmed and cant handle. For ever action their is an equal or greater reaction. If you eliminate abortion more children are going to end up in child services. More women will end up on welfare which is basically a form of slavery when you actually understand how welfare works which we as tax payers pay. Pro-lifers are all hypcrites in my opinion. They don't give a crap about the thousand up on thousands of children that are in the system that are lost and many of them being abused or ignored. People like you don't stand up for them and shake the same anger and wrath about that as you do abortion and it's sad. When I was in foster care for a brief time I met a girl who had been sexually abused by time she was 7. From the time she was 9 to 11 she was raped by her foster parents for three years. She suffered other mental and physical abuse over the years as well. She hated her mother for having her. She hated being alive so much that three days after telling me the horrors she endured she went in to the bathroom and slit her own wrist. Yet no one has advocate for children like her. People like me are rare because I actually know the problem exist. Its not just about being born its also what kind life are you being born in to. Some kids who grew up in the system if given the choice would have rather never been born at all then to suffer the horrors they have had to endure. Yet Pro-Lifers don't care about those children. They don't matter to them. Very few people are advocating for them. The point is if you want to eliminate abortion fix welfare and child welfare system. Then we can come back and talk about eliminating abortion. Till then your only going to make the problem worse by elimination abortion.
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity? 2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does. 3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity? 2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does. 3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
The right to bodily autonomy is contingent on the right to life. The people arguing for abortion benefit from the fact their moms gave them their lives to have bodily autonomy to begin with. They do have it, too. But it ends when someone else's body begins. Their fetuses body is not their own. It may be within it, but it doesn't belong to them. It isn't their property.
"Bodily autonomy ends when someone else's body begins. Their mother's body is not their own. It may be around them, but it doesn't belong to them. It isn't their property." Don't just look at one side of the coin. If you want to use bodily autonomy as a pro-life argument, you better have a damn good answer to this very simple perspective change.
@@Gargboss Babies aren't trying to kill the mothers. If babies were going to doctors and trying to have their "casing" removed because it causes them pain or they just don't want it around them, then pro life people would be saying "No baby, you can't have your mother killed, she is a person not a casing."
@@FH-cn3mg Your answer walked right into what I've critiziced about the original post and highlights it quite well: Bodily autonomy doesn't work as an argument for pro-life. Because one can't follow it to its logical end without running into an unsolveable conflict of interests. Your answer switches from the discussed bodily autonomy for everyone as the highest principle to something I would describe as "trying to pick the lesser of two evils". That's a different conversation. One that still should be had in my opinion! But it requires truth and honesty about the limits of ones own argument, not this "I claim argumentative superiority based on a principle" falsehood. Of course, this goes for both sides. Because bodily autonomy doesn't work as an argument for pro-choice as well! On this side it leads to the issues of determining when life and therefore bodily autonomy starts, since our current understanding of this process has blind spots which need to be answered first but aren't atm. The presentation touched on that, sadly it didn't explore all avenues. This conversation about "the lesser of two evils" would be much more complex and have much more nuance. The results likely would be much more situational and wouldn't produce a simple answer like "fully illegal" or "fully legal until week X", which many people seem to crave on both sides of the discussion. But that's lazy at best and ignores the seriousness of the issue. Serious and complex problems need serious and complex answers, that should be obvious. Sadly, the discussion usually gets dragged down by an unwillingness to question ones believes, faulty arguments and the tendancy to fall into a rigid tribalism of us vs. them. Again: You can see this on both sides! To refer more to your comment and give you a bit of an example of what I'm pointing at here: Yes, babies aren't trying to kill their mothers and in most cases the matter would be as clear as you've stated, I'm with you there! But sometimes they still do, intention doesn't matter then. Following your argument, are you okay with abortion if the pregnancy would result in the mother's death? That already means you wouldn't be 100% anti-abortion, right? That's not a critique, but an observation. Until here it's a comparatively simple situation, but real life isn't always simple and the potential results not as clear. What if pregnancy might cause the mother's death with a likelyhood of ~80%? Is it still okay then? What about 50%? Is 20% still okay? What if there a 1/3 chance mother and child live, 1/3 both die and 1/3 only the mother dies? What should be done then? It also raises the question: Who should have the power to decide in the end? The mother who will bear the full or at least partial consequences? Or the state, who could advocate for a baby that's unable to speak (or have) intentions at the time, but, in doing so, might obligate a women to die? I hope I've got my point across and gave you, and/or any reader, some food for thought and reason to not shy away from the nuances of hard questions and not to fall into a tribalism that's so common with this topic but doesn't cover the scope of the issue.
@@williamprice1844 That sounds more like an assertion than a proof to me. Not everyone agrees that existence is better than non-existence. So that's not self evident. (I do agree that existence is better, but you can't deny that plenty of people disagree)
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity? 2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does. 3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
@@GangstaViolin I'm wondering if you watched the video or are just choosing to ignore its content. The video was discussing the definition of what it is to be human and how the pro-choice ignore that in favour of arbitrary "requirements" designed to deem those they already choose to kill as not being human. It is an attempt to make the immoral seem moral perhaps to lessen their own sense of guilt by fooling themselves that murder is not really murder. I'm afraid your clever "You're welcome" is unfounded.
@@tomcha75 We don’t “ignore” anything. We prioritize CHOICE of pregnant women over some bloody embryos who think and feels less than a mosquitos. As should everybody. It’s amazing how you Pro Death go moaning around about your mosquitos but eat dead animals every day. You filthy hipocrites. Pd: humanizing mosquitos never helped decreasing nr of abortions.
I can't believe it! I have had a lot of the same thoughts as him, but he really explained it well! Also, something to note is that personhood is given by government. Corporations can be considered as persons and have rights because of it. Personhood is not equal to being human. That's why there were slaves to begin with. They didn't have rights like citizens did. They were human beings, but had no rights. Therefore they were property. Its sick to equate the value of life to personhood. Personhood can be taken away at any point by the government.
1. Abortion exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. If helping women is atrocious, then I’m proud of this atrocity. 2. Embryo is innocent? So are the animals you eat EVERY DAY (all of them smarter than a human embryo). Difference is that eating a steak you help nobody but your addiction (and damage environment). Affirming that you can’t compare humans with animals is ridiculous. I mean, why can’t you? Is it forbidden? 3. Humanizing the embryo has never proved to be an effective strategy in order of decreasing nr of abortions, as recommending use of condoms would. So you’re basically NOT helping. 4. Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
Por-choicers always talk about abortion as if the mother is simply denying care to the unborn. The way they describe it, you'd think the doctor was carefully taking the unborn out, setting them on a table, and saying "good luck, kid". They intentionally obscure the fact that abortionists actively kill the unborn by ripping them apart, cutting their spinal cords, or chemically poisoning them.
1. Abortion exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. If helping women is atrocious, then I’m proud of this atrocity. 2. Embryo is innocent? So are the animals you eat EVERY DAY (all of them smarter than a human embryo). Difference is that eating a steak you help nobody but your addiction (and damage environment). Affirming that you can’t compare humans with animals is ridiculous. I mean, why can’t you? Is it forbidden? 3. Humanizing the embryo has never proved to be an effective strategy in order of decreasing nr of abortions, as recommending use of condoms would. So you’re basically NOT helping. 4. Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
@@GangstaViolin I am sorry but your response is laughable. Equating human life with animal life is an irrelevance from any moral standpoint. It is commonly accepted by modern civilization that cannibalism is wrong (whether from a religious or secular viewpoint), so in no way do we as a species equate human life with animal life (hence why we eat animals, we accept this mostly due to our evolution of diet over time). Prohibition of abortion is wrong, as a pro life I can say that, as there are some very specific instances when it is needed. But really what we as a global society, as a species, need to ask ourselves is this- Is it morally reprehensible to allow so many abortions (many late, many early), or should we 'grow up' and accept that with great power (ie the ability to create an innocent life), comes great responsibility. (just a quick side point, its becoming more commonly agreed that early foetus may even feel more pain than a late stage, due to the lack of pain inhibitory circuits, so even early stage is morally questionable). The clarion call of pro choice is 'My body My choice', has its roots in 'do what ever I want and shove the consequences feminism'. This early feminism was born out of the liberation that the pill gave to womens sex life. I would life to think women and society at large has grown up a bit since then, but we seem to slipping into an even more narcissistic age. The 'My body My choice' tagline carries no consideration for the unborn child. This is reprehensible from the viewpoint of anyone with even an ounce of social conscience. Now for anyone saying its not an 'unborn child' its 'an embryo', you are merely a pedant of language, I ask you what is a foetus if not an unborn child. In mathematics you can half a number to infinity, that's because the idea of an 'integer', ie 'one or the other' is a human intellectual concept, in the real world all is connected, so therefore there is no foetus-then a baby, no either/or, its always been one life growing. The idea that because a life is in a womb means that it is less valuable is as absurd as saying a person of 30 is less valuable than one aged 20 or 40. Or take an example of an investment account being viewed as worthless if its just been opened up and has not accrued much interest, if allowed to grow, its value will continue increasing unless you take your money out and throw it in the trash. A foetus is a life with potential not a 'potential life'. For those who don't get this last statement, you are being willfully ignorant. Life is precious and we demean everyone by pretending its expendable. We live in a consumerist culture, but do we really want to make our babies commodities to be dumped whenever we deem them inconvenient. My last point is this, no one has the right to say one life is less valuable than another, some of the most successful people in this world had tough upbringings or even complex disabilities (some suffered with disability, some developed it later on as a child or an adult, when it happened is irrelevant to their value as a human being). So I don't think you can justify termination from a sociological perspective either, or from a eugenics standpoint. ALL life is precious, everyone has a place in this world, everyone has the potential to contribute to the human race, and if you reduce the value of human life to a 'lifestyle accessory' only to be allowed to live if you have the perfect baby in the perfect house, you demean the entire human race, not least yourself.
@@jamesbyrne9312 On the end, your point of view is “animals are not humans so we can kill them as much as we want” Exactly the same that Hitler thought about the Jewish. “Equating human life with animal life is an irrelevance from any moral point of view” Why? “Because you can’t compare humans with animals” But why? “Because is laughable” But WHY? I mean, you have no reasonable argument, you’re just moving in circles. 2. I don’t see what cannibalism has to do with the fact that you kill UNNECESSARILY animals every day, but since you mention it: The opinion that cannibalism is wrong is just silly. When I’ll die, I would prefer that my flesh would be used for feeding starving people rather than being wasted in some random cemetery. Human flesh is nutritive and tastes as pork. There’s literally no reason for what we should waste it. Of course dead is a tragedy, but wasting human flesh does make tragedy even worse. Farms are destroying the planet and almost 100% of humans can have a normal healthy life by eating meat once per month, so no, definitely you shouldn’t do it. 3. tell me an antiabortionist who mentions condoms in his speeches. ONE. 4. No one is more valuable than another? Ok, so people like Einstein, Musk or Martin Luther King are as valuable as Putin or Hitler, right? Recheck your approach, dog. Seriously.
@@GangstaViolin you miss the essential point which is we are animals yes but it's impossible to stop us eating animals as it's part of our evolutionary diet, but we can stop killing our own. Is that so abhorrent to you? Why do you attempt to use the fact we kill animals as a justification to kill humans lol? You think I have cognitive dissonance, but yours is on another level dog. To address your other point, evaluating someone's worth is about valuing everyone's right to live and contribute. The ethics of evaluating people's contribution is not the same as valuing someone's right to be born and is an entirely different and unrelated debate. You just want to swerve the truth, it's what hard line pro choicers do all the time
1. Abortion exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. If helping women is atrocious, then I’m proud of this atrocity. 2. Embryo is innocent? So are the animals you eat EVERY DAY (all of them smarter than a human embryo). Difference is that eating a steak you help nobody but your addiction (and damage environment). Affirming that you can’t compare humans with animals is ridiculous. I mean, why can’t you? Is it forbidden? 3. Humanizing the embryo has never proved to be an effective strategy in order of decreasing nr of abortions, as recommending use of condoms would. So you’re basically NOT helping. 4. Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
Firstly: you advocates for the “poor woman” who wants to abort. Who advocates for the human inside her that also wants to live? No matter the circumstances of the fetuses conception it IS also a human being and has as much right to life as the woman who conceived it. Secondly you cannot compare animals to humans. One reason being we have a moral code, animals do not (unless you know of any animal court/legal systems set up that I don’t) another reason being we are clearly the top of the food chain with a much higher intellectual than animals. These are just the facts. Now unless you’re advocating eating babies as well, your point of comparison makes absolutely no sense. You are upset that humans eat animals, yet you are perfectly fine with killing humans? What a backwards world we live in. Also eating animals is a source of protein which our body requires to live. This is not an addiction, it’s survival. Thirdly, what desperate women might or might not do in an attempt to end the life of their baby is out of our control ultimately, but I sure as heck don’t want to be responsible for making the choice easier. There are so many other options available to these women that don’t involve murder. I hope they have the chance to educate themselves before resorting to the drastic option of killing. YOU are welcome.
Even in the womb, the vast majority will think heavy criminal charges should be pushed on a person who assaults a pregnant woman and the pregnancy is ended because of it. The clear distinction they want to make is that the morality is 100% dependent on the whim of the woman and nothing else. Viability is dumb in the sense that the womb is literally the environment they are meant to exist for development at that stage. All humans are engineered to develop in the womb. This is like claiming they aren't viable right now because if I took them out of Earth's atmosphere and threw them into space, they would die. "You're not viable!"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣your lot needs to invest in dictionaries because you keep confusing the meaning of words. According to the Oxford Dictionary, viability in terms of medicine means “(of a fetus or unborn child) able to live after birth.” Please invest in an education.
@@stephaniezank7717 Perhaps rub your two neurons together to grasp what I wrote before responding. A human at that stage is meant to exist within that environment. It doesn't matter what medical terms mean, as they describe something as "dead" when everyone else does not (as it's purely based on their capacity to save something and not the biological fact of the matter). No human has ever come into existence who didn't have that dependency. Similar to how you need atmospheric pressure, proper temperature, and oxygen to survive. Removing you or the unborn children from the environment they are literally designed to life in does not determine viability.
@@joelt2002 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣I absolutely love that and will make it into a t-shirt, “it doesn’t matter what medical terms mean.” 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 So your foot bone is connected to your ear drum and your mouth is connected to your large bowel…. I suppose that explains why you’re talking the proverbial. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣it seems as though the whole argument has gone over your head. It has nothing to do with human value but everything to do with bodily autonomy and rejecting fascism. Humans have the inalienable right to bodily autonomy. If this right is removed then those who you remove it from are reduced to mere slaves. Slavery is based on removing this right and is the slippery slope toward creating inequality and dividing people based on a politician’s arbitrary opinion. It is the slippery slope that will allow someone else to decide what happens to another’s body, in their eyes an unworthy body. A body belonging to humans that are troublesome. The Nazis dealt with this with the Holocaust. The Nazis and Hitler, a devout Christian with the backing of the Vatican sort to develop their “superior race” through eugenics. They incarcerated white, blonde and blue eyed women in hotels and had Nazi officers impregnate these unwilling women. Forced pregnancy is recognised internationally as a crime. Forced pregnancy creates a division based on race because the removal of access to safe abortions impacts largely the black community. This results in black women being twice as likely to die or suffer permanent disability. This results in black families with greater debt due to medical expenses etc. This is racial discrimination. This is eugenics. This is fascism.
That! Was Excellent!! That is the whole of the issue at hand. Who can say who is better or more superior, or has more rights? No one!! We are all equal!! Well done!!
It's impossible to tell if the unborn have a consciousness, you would have to be able to read their thoughts. Even the moment the child is born we cannot read their thoughts, what we see an infant could just be involuntary responses to outside stimuli or current state. I personally believe in my opinion that a child is conscious in the womb. I don't believe their longterm memory is active, but they could be conscious. Dehumanizing is a precursor for genocide and slavery, in this case It's genocide. Abortion is a highly illogical position to support. Potential life experiences outweigh their need to escape consequences for actions they made. Of course it's hard to debate the topic when it was legalized, and also the minority of abortions; such as rape, are used as ammunition against pro-life advocates. I spoke to a pro choice mother one time who used the rape argument so I asked her if she had kids and were they from a consensual relationship. She had 2 kids whom she loved with her husband, so I asked her what if her children today were product of a rape instead of consensual encounters, would she abort them knowing now who they grow up to be. Of course she replies "no". This is the problem, God has an amazing ability to take the most busted situations and bring out of that situation the potential for a something great. When we take that opportunity away from God, we take something spectacular from ourselves as well, a blessing brought forth from tragedy.
Yep, in 6th grade I had the honor of meeting a guy at my church who was a product of rape. In most cases of rape, the womans body rejects the seed due to stress and overall rejection of what’s happening. Not all the time tho, Anyway, his mother almost aborted him, but chose not to. Hearing his testimony was absolutely amazing. He thrives now through Christ. Just the thought of ending potential LIFE of a human being is beyond me.
@@nickgiglio7109 Non reactive manners are also indicative of head trauma in adolescents and adults, this wouldn't answer the consciousness debate. Correlation doesn't indicate causation.
@@countdowntomidnight692 No, lack of brain formation and inability to have activity due to lack of development is the causation... That was easy. We don't know everything but we know a lot and we do know this.
Thanks for all the hate, blaming, and damning for protecting life at its most vulnerable stage. Only a fool or a psychotic would consider someone else's body to be their own body. “You are a human being at conception; your abilities and utility do not make you human; however, if they did, then there would be no equality, universality, or equal rights, but only ratings based on independence and social utility.” -Kevin Everett FitzMaurice
@@KevinFitzMauriceEverett 1. Abortion exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. If helping women is atrocious, then I’m proud of this atrocity. 2. Embryo is innocent? So are the animals you eat EVERY DAY (all of them smarter than a human embryo). Difference is that eating a steak you help nobody but your addiction (and damage environment). Affirming that you can’t compare humans with animals is ridiculous. I mean, why can’t you? Is it forbidden? 3. Humanizing the embryo has never proved to be an effective strategy in order of decreasing nr of abortions, as recommending use of condoms would. So you’re basically NOT helping. 4. Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
I'm a pro choicer but I like this video a lot. Love the systematic approach, the fact that Seth actually responds to some common pro-choice arguments, the ability to imagine hypothetical situations, and the flare. To cut to the chase, my worldview is primarily based on the ability to suffer. (I'm drawing a distinction between suffering and feeling pain. For example, by the definitions I'm using, someone who enjoys pain doesn't suffer while experiencing it. Someone only suffers when they're experiencing something they consider to be undesirable.) To respond to Seth's points one by one: *Self awareness* Self awareness is independent of the ability to suffer, so I'd agree that it's irrelevant for determining moral worth. Take a pet, for example. I think it would be wrong to chop off the paws of your cat, regardless of whether the cat is self aware. *Consciousness* Depending on how you define consciousness, I may consider it relevant for moral consideration. For example, if you define consciousness as a prerequisite for suffering (which I would), then I'd say a being without consciousness has no moral worth. However, if you define consciousness in such a way that it's not a prerequisite for suffering, then I'd say a being without consciousness may or may not have moral worth (depending on whether it can suffer). *Loved ones in a coma* Even if someone in a coma wouldn't suffer while being killed, it could very possibly cause collateral suffering, e.g. by the family. That would be especially true if someone slit the throat of the coma patient without the family's knowledge, and the family found out later. That would be wrong because of the suffering it would cause to the family/friends, not because of what the coma patient experienced or didn't experience while being killed. The end result is not the same as the family deciding to pull the plug, since slitting the throat causes more suffering. *Desires* The way I see it, desires and suffering are different ways of talking about the same thing. For example, experiencing what is desired would be an example of enjoyment, while experiencing what is actively not desired would be an example of suffering. If a being is capable of experiencing what it considers to be undesirable, then I consider that being to have moral worth. *Suicidal individuals* The same considerations of collateral suffering apply here. Even if someone would rather die, that doesn't mean that the people who know them wouldn't suffer. If you take it to the extreme and imagine a suicidal individual who doesn't know anyone else and whose death would cause no suffering, even by the murderer or the victim, then morally speaking I don't consider that to be wrong. (However, legally speaking, I'd say the murderer should still be punished the same way they would be for any other murder, unless the death was consensual.) *Buddhists* Same as above. If a Buddhist sincerely doesn't care what happens to them, and wouldn't suffer in any conceivable situation, then I wouldn't consider them to have moral worth. However, I'm not sure if I'm understanding nirvana quite right. Also, anyone who knows the Buddhist would most likely be capable of suffering, in which case it would be wrong to harm the Buddhist in that situation as well. *Ability to feel pain* Without being able to communicate with a fetus, I think this is a good proxy for suffering. Therefore, if what Seth says is true, I'd put the cutoff for the permissibility of abortions to be somewhere between 7 and 18 weeks. *Killing people who can't feel pain* Someone who can't feel pain can still suffer massively. Also, the collateral suffering idea applies again here. *Viability* I agree that viability is irrelevant for determining moral worth, since viable and inviable beings are both capable of suffering. *Doctor-assisted euthanasia* If the death would cause no suffering by any parties (the person being killed, the family/friends, the doctor, anyone else who knows the person, maybe even considering the person's pets), but instead would alleviate suffering, then I wouldn't consider it to be morally wrong. *Why the ability to suffer determines moral worth* The ability to suffer determines moral worth because, by definition, anything that's incapable of suffering is incapable of experiencing events that it considers to be undesirable. Like a pillow. And anything that _is_ capable of suffering is capable of experiencing events that it _does_ consider to be undesirable, and would rather avoid. I consider a moral transgression to be a situation where one being causes another being to experience an event that the second being would rather avoid, while the first being is aware that the second being would rather avoid it, and assuming that the situation itself could have been avoided. *Why the ability to play violin does not determine moral worth* Because people who don't play the violin can still suffer. *Slavery* Totally agree here, that was a great description of why skin color is irrelevant for determining moral worth. *Intellect* Also a great description of why intelligence is irrelevant for determining moral worth. I'd also have some questions for Seth: 1. What about being a human grants someone moral worth? 2. Do dogs have moral worth? Why or why not? 3. Is it ever morally justifiable for a family to pull the plug on their coma grandparent? If so, why? 4. Imagine someone who's doomed to suffer massively, let's say a POW who will be waterboarded/shocked/cut/whipped all day every day for the rest of their life. If you're aware that that person would rather die, is it morally justifiable to kill that person? If so, why?
Although i do not necessarily agree with all the points made I do think that it highlights inconsistencies in the positions many pro choice people hold. As for the points you brought up I found what I think is a pretty clear inconsistency in your argument about collateral suffering even in the cases where the victim can't suffer under the circumstances. In the case of an abortion would the collateral suffering of a father who does not want their son/daughter to be murdered not count, and if that's the case then why not? Obviously someone who is pro choice would say that it's a woman's body, but for people who are pro life it's about the life of the baby being taken that is morally unjustifiable. If a grieving father who had just lost his unborn child had the option of having that baby grown to full term outside of the mother's womb rather than being aborted I'm certain they would have. Also, a side question out of curiosity. Hypothetically if you went back in time 4.5 billion years and stood on the earth do you not find any moral issue with killing the first living organisms that would eventually lead to all complex life including your own? These cells were not capable of pain or consciousness yet it would prevent all of the life that we now know from forming. Taking that same idea to abortion you can see where I'm going with this. A single cell in some woman's womb is unable to think or feel pain but once upon a time that single cell was you, me and everyone else who has ever lived or will ever be. Life is not limited to this single frame of time. Life that will be in the future is predicated on what we do now which is why I also think it's important to take care of the earth for future generations....but how can a pro choice person also advocate for leaving the earth better off for future generations if they can't consider the future of an unborn child as it pertains to them.
@@cosmossci4883 This is great, love these questions! *would the collateral suffering of a father who does not want their son/daughter to be murdered not count* The father's suffering would count, and the mother's would too. (This is a great callout. In my original post I was assuming that all parties agreed.) In the situation where the mother would suffer by not having an abortion, and the father would suffer if the mother did have an abortion, this turns into a version of the trolly problem, since suffering is guaranteed somewhere in the equation. I would consider it to be the parents' responsibility to work it out between themselves, and if they can't agree then I would default to the mother's side because she's the one who's _more likely_ to experience more suffering. I say that mainly because of what she would experience during pregnancy, not only the physical suffering that comes with it but also the emotional suffering of being forced to carry the baby to term. If it was somehow theoretically possible to determine (on a case-by-case basis) that the father is the one who would experience more suffering, even considering the mother's trauma, then I would side with the father in that case. *killing the first living organisms* This is a spectacular question. To give a straight answer, no, I wouldn't say it would be wrong to kill the first living organism.... But I'm not very confident on that one lol. The reason I answer that way though is because I think the alternative is an extremely slippery slope. That is, if life is better than non-life, then everyone would have a moral obligation to get someone pregnant or be pregnant at all times, rape would be morally permissible, forced artificial insemination would be morally permissible, etc., which I would disagree with. Do you know of a solution to this? *how can a pro choice person also advocate for leaving the earth better off for future generations* By realizing that their actions have consequences on the suffering of future generations. I'm not sure I followed your point exactly on this one?
@@gotatochigs314 Sorry for thr late reply I recently had a newborn son and juggling everything with my sleep and sanity has been difficult lol. I agree mostly with your take on my first question where I think as it pertains to pregnacy, not necessarily abortion, the woman is more likely to suffer. I think a lot of abortions happen without the fathers knowing and so their suffering is not known in those cases and moreover while this certainly isn't always the case I think the fact that women who are having abortions agree to them means they're less likely to suffer than a man who is in disagreement. In the case where both parties agree I think it is probably the woman who is more likely to suffer simply because at the very least she has to undergo the process. Now don't get me wrong I don't really think that a man's suffering for having his child aborted should be the considering factor for why they should be mostly avoided. I think it's because that is a human life regardless of someone feelings towards it. I don't agree with your reasoning behind the first living organism question however. Not killing the first living organism would not necessarily entail that someone would have to hold such a string inclination towards life that they would find having children morally obligatory or find rape permissible. Simply allowing life to exist is not the same as forcing it to exist or being obligated to make it. In the case of having a baby no one is forced to have sex and create a life but if they do have unprotected sex and a life is made at that point they should in my opinion allow it to exist. They're not even necessarily obligated to care for it there are plenty of people who would love to have babies that can't and they would care for it. There are edge cases where people use protection and they still get pregnant but again in those cases despite their efforts I think it's still wrong in my opinion to kill an innocent human life. It should be stressed though that a lot of people claim to have had children while using protection but the percentages of cases where that should happen when actually using protection the correct way are very small and especially if you double up with a pill and condom but the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of women who will take the pill irregularly and then claim that they got pregnant when using protection which is not entirely accurate. My point on the whole pro choice people meshing with climate change issue is that in order to extrapolate into the future and project suffering onto potential people hundreds or thousands of years from now you should also be able to see where a pro life person is coming from by taking an already living being and extrapolate into the future to their being, desires, emotions, and suffering. I think doing one and not the other is a bit like picking a choosing based on what suits you rather than being consistent...and I'm not saying "you" here as in I'm saying you are this way but moreso rather as in whoever may try to hold those two positions in their head simultaneously.
Just to be entirely fair here also I will give my answers to questions that you asked in your initial post despite them not being asked to me. You can possibly find flaws in my responses or those that I have already stated in which case I'm always open to changing my mind should an argument be good enough to sway me. I like to think that I'm fairly consistent in my views. 1. I think that by being human you are not necessarily the pinnacle of life (some humans are far from it), but I think you have great potential innately granted to you by virtue of just being human. Some people use their life for what I consider to be wrong, but as it pertains to abortion I think a baby is an innocent clean slate. Plus I think most people tend to be neutral at the least if not good leaning. So I don't necessarily think that every human life has the same value, but that is because of our choices as we age which I think lower or raise our value. 2. I think dogs have moral worth. I think that all life should be considered to have some moral value although it varies depending on which. I don't think you would think that an average dog's life should be considered above that of an average humans life, and neither would I. However I think that dogs get more moral consideration due to the fact that humans and dogs can bond and as a result humans can give the dog more moral worth than it would necessarily intrinsically have without that bond. Also the fact that dogs are clearly capable of some level of emotion gives them more moral consideration than a frog for example. 3. Yes, I think it can be if there is no foreseeable future in which that person will ever wake or be anything more than braindead, and especially so if this is the case along with them not pulling the plug causing more suffering for the family. 4. Yes, I think it's morally justifiable to kill someone who is suffering immensely that would rather not live than to continue to suffer. The better question would be is it a moral obligation to kill them to put them out of that misery even if killing makes you suffer as well. That's a difficult question to answer. I personally think I could bring myself to end someone's suffering if I knew that the alternative was worse. I'd rather suffer with the thought that I killed someone than knowing that they would have suffered severely had I not done it, and this is especially the case if they were basically guarenteed to die as a result of their suffering anyways.
@@cosmossci4883 *Not killing the first living organism would not necessarily entail that someone would have to hold such a string inclination* Ah yep that all makes total sense. Somehow I didn't realize the step that I jumped over to get there. I'm still having some trouble though: If we accept that killing the first living organism would be morally wrong, and we accept that the reason it's wrong is that it prevents future flourishing, then isn't it also wrong to pull weeds from your back yard? (Let's assume the weeds are growing among stones and wouldn't cause any other organisms to die if they were left alone.) The weeds may not have great potential during their own lifetime, but neither did the first living organisms. Also, the weeds have as much potential to evolve as the first living organisms did, meaning you're preventing some future flourishing, even if you're not preventing _all_ future flourishing. If the idea is that it's ok to kill the weeds and prevent some future flourishing, as long as other life forms persist, then morally speaking wouldn't it be ok to abort an early-stage human cell cluster? And if the idea is that the only reason it's morally wrong to abort that cell cluster is because of the potential it has during its own lifetime, then aren't we back to square one where it's morally ok kill the first living organisms? Lemme reorganize all of that into these couple blocks: * It's wrong to kill the first living organism because it prevents _all_ future flourishing * It's not wrong to pull weeds from your back yard because it does not prevent all future flourishing * It's not wrong to abort a human cell cluster because it does not prevent all future flourishing * It's wrong to kill the first living organism because it prevents _some_ future flourishing * It's wrong to abort a human cell cluster because it prevents some future flourishing * It's wrong to pull weeds from your back yard because it prevents some future flourishing The way I'm seeing it, that means the analogy between a human cell cluster and the first living organism breaks down because the reasons for why it's wrong to kill them are different: * It's wrong to kill the first living organism because it prevents all future flourishing * It's wrong to kill a human cell cluster because of the potential it has during its own lifetime That's all I've got time for right now, will respond to your other points soon!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣you means these words from your god. “Hosea 13:16 16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” That’s mass abortion.
🤣🤣🤣🤣😅oh you mean these words from your god. “Hosea 13:16 16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” That’s mass abortion.
Yes. I agree with every point, but there's one he forgot. You can't reason with those who seek power & control by any means necessary. They have no soul.
@@gammaphoenix5893 that's already more nuanced then your first statement. Writing off anybody that decides to go for abortion as "soulless" shows a lack of understanding. Sure sometimes people just decide to fuck around and abort whenever they get pregnant but there are cases that parents take a very difficult decision to do an abortion because of certain situations. Context is really really important in these situations and there is no black and white that catches all situations.
So everything he said was irrelevant. The truth is that Roe versus Wade is a pillar of the constitution because it cements people’s right to privacy. That is the fundamental argument of this US Supreme Court decision. So by removing Roe versus Wade, it’s like removing a card from the middle of a house of cards, the rest of the rights fall down. By removing the right to privacy for women means that not everyone is equal under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. To remedy that all citizens will lose their right to privacy. So, your phone calls can be monitored, your internet searches, what food you eat, what insurance you pay, etc., etc. In fact health insurance companies will be able to see just how much you earn, what you spend your money on including cigarettes and alcohol and unhealthy food then adjust your insurance accordingly. Oh, you’re on a slippery slope.
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity? 2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does. 3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”. You’re welcome.
I was a miracle baby. Born 2 & 1/2 months early, docs said I wouldn't live over a day. I had my small intestines all jumbled up, and lung issues up the wazoo. My church ceaslessessly prayed for my life, I had many surgeries and medical life support, and God chose to give me life. I just had my 23rd birthday. I can't help but think if I was conceived 10-20 years later by a mother who was raised by the new culture- I would've been killed in the womb for the mother's convienence - one of the 63,000,000.
You can’t argue with intent. If someone's intent is murder, there’s nothing that will stop it. You could destroy what ever excuse is used to justify it, it doesn’t change the fact that murder is what they want to commit. Same goes for this. They don’t care that it’s disgusting, barbaric or immoral, they want to be able to do it and they’re going to regardless.
So everything he said was irrelevant. The truth is that Roe versus Wade is a pillar of the constitution because it cements people’s right to privacy. That is the fundamental argument of this US Supreme Court decision. So by removing Roe versus Wade, it’s like removing a card from the middle of a house of cards, the rest of the rights fall down. By removing the right to privacy for women means that not everyone is equal under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. To remedy that all citizens will lose their right to privacy. So, your phone calls can be monitored, your internet searches, what food you eat, what insurance you pay, etc., etc. In fact health insurance companies will be able to see just how much you earn, what you spend your money on including cigarettes and alcohol and unhealthy food then adjust your insurance accordingly. Oh, you’re on a slippery slope.
Since Roe was overturned, every state that has had abortion rights on the ballot has won. And it looks like 2024 election will be heavily determined on the future of abortion rights. Do you support Project 2025?
It causes me unimaginable horror that a woman will kill her own child for convenience! So she can have sex without inconvenient consequence, so she can satiate a carnal, lustful desire! How low have we fallen? How heartless has human kind become? How selfish, how godless!? People with a conscience, take care. If we do not stand up for right, we will be forced to suffer the consequences along with the wicked. Where has my country gone? 🥺
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣hi deluded Debbie, Your god didn’t care about fetuses. There are numerous passages in which he asks for pregnant women’s bellies to be cut open. Why? To ensure the fetus also dies immediately. “Hosea 13:16 16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” That’s mass abortion. Then there’s the passage where your god describes how the abortion process is carried out. “Numbers 5:22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” So any argument based on religion is rubbish. ”Some 2,200 infants died in Texas in 2022 - an increase of 227 deaths, or 11.5%, over the previous year, according to preliminary infant mortality data from the Texas Department of State Health Services that CNN obtained through a public records request. Infant deaths caused by severe genetic and birth defects rose by 21.6%. That spike reversed a nearly decade-long decline. Between 2014 and 2021, infant deaths had fallen by nearly 15%.” So it’s pretty obvious the source of this information. “We found that maternal death rates were 62 percent higher in 2020 in abortion-restriction states than in abortion-access states.” Commonwealth Fund You can also look up all the research papers to discover that removing access to safe abortions has a profoundly negative effect. From higher death rates for women and infants, to higher levels of poverty and food hunger, to higher levels of crime, to higher levels of domestic abuse including sexual violence, to lower educational achievements, to lower living standards, etc., etc.,. That is why internationally access to safe abortions is a human right. Whereas, forced pregnancy, which means not allowing the woman to make choices about her body and her reproductive rights, is a crime. But then again America is becoming the land of the Christian ISIS.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣you mean like religious and right wing people do to people of the LGBTQI community? Or the way black people have been treated? Or the way women are treated? No one is dehumanising fetuses. Using correct terminology instead of emotive words that actually aren’t correct is simply understanding English.
So a woman has a right to kill her baby, but how does she transfer that right to a doctor so he can kill a baby? It's not in his body, he can't say my body my choice. He is simple doing a murder for hire. Just something to ponder.
@@MrTheclevercat Except the fact that a new human, with a new DNA which will never exist ever again, has just happened. If you can't find the miracle in that, then you are likely a monster with a questionable moral code. Here.... you want to hear a magic belief held by pro-choicers?..... It's a widely known fact that when a mother is in labor, a magical invisible fairy arrives, waves her wand, Presto!, the baby is suddenly human. 🧚♀🤰👼 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
@@backup3142 whatever you need to tell yourself with the exception of rape and incest which is a small percentage the majority of abortions are about irresponsible people trying to not be accountable and if they can't care for the child then give it up for adoption so no.....with all respect be quiet there is no pro abortion argument oh and yea there's only 2 genders too
The first thing for all of us who believe in Life to do is to STOP using the term Pro - Choice. We must always use the Correct term. PRO ABORTION/ ABORT ! Words have meaning ! We must take the arguments to them and be on verbal offense ( never physical, or violent) never be on defense. The Pro Abort is a master at using words to distract from the truth, and control the discourse putting us on defense. So be respectful but control the argument.
Except the truth is your ignorant of how everything works. You think that eliminating abortion is going to be good thing for those children. There are 600 thousand abortions a year. Now what do you think is going to happen to most of those children if you eliminate abortion? I'll tell you what will happen to them. They will end up in the child welfare system. Now you have hundreds of thousand of children in the system and not enough couples adopting. So now you have all these children in a system that isn't equipped to handling that many children as there not enough homes for all those children. Group homes will be over run with kids that really don't need to be in group homes. Then kids with mental health issue will end up in mental intuitions because its the only place they can get any help. Let's not ignore the bigger elephant in the room. 38% of children in the system are abused in some way or another and that is just based on the numbers we know of. That number is more likely 45 to 60%. That number will skyrocket if you suddenly eliminate abortion. Because the child welfare system will relax its standards even more and more bad foster parents will get through. You won't have enough cases works to handle the amount of children that will suddenly flood in to the system. A system that as of right now is utterly broken and overwhelmed as is. Even if you can convince those women to keep the child most of them will turn to welfare to make it. The welfare system is basically a form of slavery and does more harm then actually good not only for single mothers but for society as well. Why because we as tax payers have to pay for it. That system keeps single mothers dependent on the state instead of helping them get to a point were they don't need the state and can do it on their own. Don't forget that a lot of those children will also end up back in the system for various reasons. You want to eliminate abortion then first fix the welfare and child welfare system first then we can talk about eliminating abortion. To do other wise is going to only make things worse then it all ready are. But he guess the child all ready born don't really matter which is why I feel pro-lifers are all hypocrites.
@@avishevin1976 pro preposition : in favor of : FOR Choice = Abortion. Unless you are not grasping in this context what the Pro Aborts choice is. Just Saying. Or what are you implying ? because You can't be both. You may define the circumstances you use to decide when it's ok to kill the baby .( example of not it after 20 weeks ) but the position is still For. Only those who are against it with No Exception are actually Pro - Life. IMHO there is No such thing as the exception to save life of the mother. Removing the baby and trying to save it ( ship to NIC unit if posible) and the mother at the same time. Is not the Same thing as taking the Extra step of intentionally killing the baby. Sad people do not understand this important distinction. Doing something morale and with all good intentions may result in negative side effect of the death of the baby . But it's is not the same thing as killing the baby as the intent.
@@avishevin1976 LOL try reading a book or two. True my spelling and grammar is awful but I can read and understand. And yes I'm not very good at debating unlike you whom from your comment are surely a Master Debater..
If I have learned anything from History, it's that when it comes to atrocities committed, the perpetrators must first remove the Humanity of their Victims.
the humanity of human persons, not the biological humanity of species members
@@etchalaco9971 we have human rights not person rights
@@Allthewayhome781 all human rights are person rights
Nah. Serial killers do it exclusively to humans.
@@etchalaco9971 Yes... and all humans have the right to life. Babies, fetes and all humans (Homo sapiens) regardless of development, intellect, appearance, size, viability and environment
So I work as a paramedic and not too long ago we responded to a OB emergency where the girl who didn’t know she was pregnant miscarried.
The baby was about 10 weeks, she had passed it and the umbilical cord was still attached to baby and still attached to the mother.
10 weeks old and baby had nearly every single human characteristic including fingers and toes, only they were as small as you can imagine.
The idea that it’s not alive or that it’s just a clump of cells is absolutely stupid.
No it’s evil imo
This is just an appeal to emotion. A fetus has no capacity for consciousness or pain before week 24. They do not possess the required connections between their immature brain and their sensory organs. This video is full of misonformation
pro-choice = anti-accountability
all arguments for "pro-choice" are just blatant lies to conceal this obvious truth
@davidsellers3639 what exactly is evil about that? That the girl miscarried when she didn't even know she was pregnant?
so what? the nervous system is still not developed so it still didnt have memory, self awareness or anything of what we makes us a person.
“Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have victims.”
I have chills.
Is that what this loon said? Discarding a lump of cells that's been growing 8 weeks doesn't create a victim. It creates biological material that needs to be disposed of, nothing more, nothing less.
I have many victims... leftists I've destroyed. Body count: Impossible to say, some of them were theys
Ignorance causes your chills.
@@daveken9936 ya know, a lot of progressives charge others with ignorance without providing anything related to perspective or insight of their own. It’s ok to be conflicted with your own cognitive dissonance, but adjust your priors before attacking somebody else for their opinions.
🗿
When you understand how these babies are killed and understand that they feel pain extremely early (8-9 weeks), you begin to realize just how sadistic and inhumane this "pro choice" practice is.
True. It's monstrous. Even worse, the majority of them understands exactly what it is and insist it is the mother's choice, some of them say right up to the point of birth. And people still think witches don't exist.
I voted pro choice and I regret it, I didn't realise the facts of the issue, I feel ashamed I voted for it 😢
@@pietro4772that's BS... you're rhetoric shows your ignorance of this topic... educate yourself before you repeat ridiculous lies that these people are feeding you! Abortion up to birth? Really? You really believe that? Ugh..
@@truthmatters7997No..your comment is BS! Educate YOURself.
@@MsGreenmermaidyou’ve learned the truth. Now you can help educate people about truth.❤
I was born at 24 weeks and the doctors all said there was a good chance I wouldn't survive, or that I'd be born with severe disabilities. My mom is a strong Christian woman who never even considered abortion, and I am so thankful for that. The doctors saved my life, and I had a mostly normal childhood with no disabilities or problems like that to speak of. I will always be against abortion because there are so many pro-choicers out there who would've told my mom to kill me. I can't live with the fact that any of them could possibly think that's ok.
Thanks for the video, I enjoyed it and you made some really good points. God bless you my friend.
Edit: I was actually born at 24 weeks, not 21. Someone in the comments pointed out the typo.
My mom discovered I had severe spinobifita in the womb at 6 months pregnant. Took her a while to find out, many of her doctors were withholding the info because they were afraid my mom would abort (Catholic hospital). She's a strong Christian, and took the information in stride. One argument the Pro-choice side has is to save the child from hardship of disability. What they don't know is that many diseases, disorders, or disabilities like the one I had are capable of healing/correcting themselves.
I was born with no issue, and have lived my life normally without knowing about these prenatal issues until I was 17 while talking about abortions with my mother.
God bless you and your mom, I admire her resolve in holding on to you. Many nowadays, it seems, would have given up and gone the "easy" route of abortion. But I'm glad there are some who hold a testimony against the horrors this world wants to push as the "easy route".
We’re celebrating mediocrity by celebrating femoids who did their job as females by not murdering babies and raising the babies they made. What a world.
well IM no Christian, and I walk in a body that has a womb attached to it. and me as a person know i will never be able to be a "mother" (I am a young pre T- POC Trans man ) so me getting r@ped and impregnated is still possible and if I were to be denied an abortion that would put my life that I have fought to keep in a bigotry world to breath and I would not throw it away just because some person that doesn't even know me, tells me that I have to keep that abomination is absolutely horrible and to me unthinkable.
STAY STRONG PRO CHOICE PEOPLE 💅💁🏽!!
@@words-with-wooly I'm sorry but for a lot of abortion path takers it's most of the time not easy, there are usually consequences that come with it but that's THIER consequences to deal with.
@@ElMichiiVolador it’s not the people who believe it’s wrong to murder an innocent human who force pregnancy on someone who was raped, that’s the rapist who’s responsible. It’s an important distinction. I don’t know one pro-lifer who is pro-rape.
Every atrocity begins with dehumanizing the victim. Abortion is no different.
You got it!
The problem there is abortion is not an atrocity
Exactly
@@keithziegler8881 You can only say that because you have dehumanized the human life maturing in a woman. You actually proved my point. Thank you.
@@josephwheeler2672
Once again, abortion is not an atrocity… But stealing women's human rights IS
When the killing of the most innocent is not just tolerated but celebrated, every evil is suddenly permissible.
then go adopt a child today n help them live, if not then shut up n sit down
@@y3llowpersuasionz18 Wow, that is the most shite argument I have ever heard.
Americans have to go over seas to adopt because so many American babies are aborted instead of put up for adoption.
No, I think it's YOUR turn to sit down and shut up while adults have a conversation.
"How terrible it will be for those who call evil good and good evil, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness"
They're not our most innocent, they're less human than the cow which became the burger you ate.
@Billy William I'm what? Accurate and understand the situation and ev...erything you wish you could be?
Children never need as much nurturing and protection as they do in the womb. The slaughter that is abortion is not only murder, but it's the worst KIND of murder.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣if that was the case then why have anti abortion laws caused so much death? ”Some 2,200 infants died in Texas in 2022 - an increase of 227 deaths, or 11.5%, over the previous year, according to preliminary infant mortality data from the Texas Department of State Health Services that CNN obtained through a public records request. Infant deaths caused by severe genetic and birth defects rose by 21.6%. That spike reversed a nearly decade-long decline. Between 2014 and 2021, infant deaths had fallen by nearly 15%.” So it’s pretty obvious the source of this information.
“We found that maternal death rates were 62 percent higher in 2020 in abortion-restriction states than in abortion-access states.” Commonwealth Fund
You can also look up all the research papers to discover that removing access to safe abortions has a profoundly negative effect. From higher death rates for women and infants, to higher levels of poverty and food hunger, to higher levels of crime, to higher levels of domestic abuse including sexual violence, to lower educational achievements, to lower living standards, etc., etc.,. That is why internationally access to safe abortions is a human right. Whereas, forced pregnancy, which means not allowing the woman to make choices about her body and her reproductive rights, is a crime. But then again America is becoming the land of the Christian ISIS.
There are no children in the womb, just fetuses and embryos. Just keep your dirty hands and evil religion out of the bodies and decisions of women.
There are no children in a womb... only fetuses. Do you eat meat?
@@melissachartres3219 If you don't believe it's a child, then why are you using the Latin word that means "offspring"? Is it just because it sounds sciency enough to dehumanize the human growing in that womb?
@@DoubleplusUngoodthinkful I'm using the medically designated word fetus because it's common vernacular and everyone knows what it means. You're just as big a murderer. Do you eat plants and animals?
When pro-choicers argue that killing the unconscious baby is just like pulling the plug on someone who is brain dead, I like to point out that a developing brain is not the same as a dead brain. If we knew the "brain dead" person would be a completely healthy, fully-functional human being in roughly nine months time or less, there would be a lot less people advocating to 'pull the plug'.
Uh, before birth it's not a baby it's a fetus. So nobody's talking about killing babies. Also, unconscious brain is more like a brain of a coma victim. When the plug is pulled they never know. It's like passing away in your sleep. Rather peaceful actually.
Also, you don't know if a fetus will be a completely healthy and fully functional human being after 9 months as well. It's all stipulation. You can only make assumptions. :)
those who make such inhuman and sociopathic arguments to falsely equate the two only highlight the fact that they leftists are not human in the slightest
@@midnull6009 A fetus is a baby; it's not a kitten, puppy, or unicorn that can develop in a woman's uterus, afterall. "Fetus" is a lifestage in a human's life, a lifestage that you cannot skip over, and thus a lifestage that everyone alive today has gone through. If at the moment of conception a scientist ran the freshly made single-cell human zygote through a centrifuge, the DNA sequence could tell us that the fetus was a human being, that it is neither it's mom or dad but is directly related to them, that it is a boy or girl, and would be able to tell if the kid had certain genetic diseases. At the moment of conception, a zygote is a complete human being - it's just small because even multicellular beings need to start somewhere.
As for killing humans in their sleep, by your logic you would be perfectly fine if I killed your loved ones while they were unconscious, so long as I did it painlessly. Just like the unborn, people who are sleeping cannot express their likes and dislikes, their personality, etc because they are in a state where their brain doesn't let them show the behavioural life signs that we can see and recognize. If you give your relatives time to wake up from their sleep, you will see they are indeed alive; it's the same for the unborn.
As for having no guarantees that a baby will be born healthy, you know damn well that the vast majority of them are born with no defects. Babies aren't generally aborted because they are unhealthy, but are aborted because they are inconvenient.
@@rollinOnCode Nah man, I've found that most people who are pro-choice are those who simply aren't educated in the philosophy behind the pro-choice/pro-life movements. When you can show how one argument is emphatically stronger than another, people tend to be swayed. The problem I run into most often is that they don't want to listen to how weak the pro-choice argument is, and so they never learn.
@@toniduval4350 leftists though are not pro choice. Understand that it is total false dichotomy since human life is defined by choice. And choices have consequences- human beings must take personal responsibility for their choices. That is what freedom means. But democrats hate any semblance of freedom aka personal responsibility. Leftists are overgrown infants if not braindead degenerate cancerous parasites- basically not even human. If you try to treat leftists like human beings then they will scream and yell at you or even threaten you and your family
OK, I'm convinced. I am a right leaning former liberal who "woke" up one day to find the liberals I loved had gone completely around the bend. Up until watching this video I was pro choice for my own reasons, but you have concisely broken down the arguments of the left that really opened my eyes- and I think their ideology is basically; "you are boring, I see no value in you as a person, I'm not gonna get anything from your existence so go away". They, especially the woke guy culture has that kind of vicious attitude toward people in general. Ty for this video
The only reason that some people feel that abortion should be a right is because it's convenient. In Sweden I have a right to free healthcare (for the most part and even though it's paid from tax) and I don't think a lot of people want to take that away in Sweden even though we have to pay so much in taxes that almost half our wage is spent on taxes
It's also that free sex is of course something most people dream of, but doesn't work well IRL
@@theglobalswede760 the idea of convenience is still not an excuse. We can normalize talking about hardships and how communities can help women and children...normalizing terminating of the child's life is violence and barbaric. Also, given the stories of rich actresses aborting babies because of their schedule makes the poverty and convenience excuse moot.
@@theglobalswede760 I also agree with you on free sex thing. I was recently considering the shows put out by Hollywood and how reckless they are as well as full of bad behavior made to look normal. Free sex can happen in movies, but the billions of dollars spent on stds and the fact that a good number of people are fighting to have some imaginary right to terminate developing little humans at will, shows that in reality there is a cost to promiscuity. Why risk higher chances of cancer and in some cases deadly infections for a few minutes of fleeting pleasure. People are insane. Sex has consequences, if the person got aids, they wouldn't be aborting the virus...so they can leave babies alone.
@@STak-ju7gx I was just explaining how some people justify it for themselves
To take viability one step further. A baby can’t survive outside the womb for years after they’re born. If their parents left them alone, they would die without intervention.
People who don't understand the difference between handing a child food and a fetus taking the nutrients that someone need right from their body without consent, shouldn't comment on things they don't understand.
@@LJMCKIDD I think they got consent when someone spread their legs so maybe you shouldn’t comment on things you don’t understand. If you don’t want a fetus taking food from you then keep your legs together. Problem
Solved but no you would rather get your joy and then murder the consequence of your action
But it's an arbitrary distinction that you made up because you feel like it makes sense. No other reason.
@@twrecks6279 Yeah, and there's no difference between a fetus being inside a specific person's body, damaging it, stealing their nutrients and using their organs, and a baby that is already born and uses it's own organs and can be fed by anyone who wants to do that. Save it, we've heard it before.
@@christinemeldrum9698 Lol I was responding to thejkennedy.
He was claiming that there's a difference between a child taking nutrients and being given nutrients. I think it's arbitrary to use that as a reason to justify killing a human.
I mean, even given that it's the left's position that those who aren't working by choice should still be given enough money to live on. It's surprising that it's a problem for them to an extent that babies shouldn't be allowed to take nutrients.
We recently had a Pro-Life march in Melbourne, Victoria.
3,000 people turned up. The Australian Pro-Life movement is strong.
And what's the population of Melbourne? That is scary
@charliemcgann979 Alot of people going to hell.
❤ awesome!!
@@geoffstokes that doesn't mean that's the only people that were pro life. It's just showing that a lot of people did show up for it. I'm incredibly pro life but I have never been able to go to a pro-life march here in the United States because of geography or work not permitting it. It doesn't mean that I don't stand strong with them and cheer them on from where I'm at, I just wasn't able to make it. 3000 is a lot for Australia because they are a very far left people!!
@@joyedwards3423my point isn't to shame people that don't turn up, it's to point out how far gone society is.
I love it when they say no uterus no opinion but they are cool with men being women.
Never heard a prochoice woman say such a thing and why do you think they are all cool with men being women? Generalize much?
I find it hilarious when a woman says breasts and vagina's don't make a woman ....
But then a man will have a sex change and want those things to make herm feel complete as a woman 🤨
Great point
The perversion of Satan.
As do they
My eldest son was born 1 month premature which was a terrible thing back then, he had the last rites and we were told to prepare for the worst as he probably wouldn`t survive. He`s now 47 years old, is a completely normal "male human being" 😅 and works for Martin Baker Aircraft Company.
Bless you momma
You were lucky. Not everybody is. And one shouldn't make a determination based on exceptions.
Completely irrelevant.
@@stephaniezank7717 like a human life?
@@rayshamrock still irrelevant.
exceptions are always there and should not be used as arguments.
I am genuinely for the kid to have survived.
A very honest prochoicer -- I think it was Magda Denes -- said that arguing that it's okay to kill a fetus because it couldn't survive outside the womb makes no more sense than saying it's okay to drown a non-swimmer in the bathtub because he'd drown anyway if he fell into the ocean.
Or a newborn if you don't care of it. That's prosecuted as child abuse.
So how can you seriously be pro choice.
The Sisyphean Journal..
It's okay to kill a fetus because it couldn't survive outside the womb 🤔🤨
Killing the fetus inside the womb doesn't give it a chance to survive either 🤔🙄🤪
This is the current legal standard in the US - they call it "viability" of the fetus. It is abhorrent because it leads to infanticide laws that California, Maryland are pushing now. Former Virginia Governor Northam also let the cat out of the bag when he voiced he would terminate a baby but in a humane/comfortable way.
@@dorakinwarhammer2946 They tired to pretend that "perinatal" was an oops -- "We didn't mean that you could wrap little Emma in a towel and stick her in a closet to die 28 days after she was born!" Nope. These laws were written in consultation with abortion lobbyists who knew exactly what they were doing.
NO babies survive outside the womb WITHOUT intervention from another human CARING for their needs
Many elderly people can’t survive outside the womb without another human caring for their needs..
When you cause that person to be there with your actions, you already gave permission.
Either can a one, two ect year old. Just be real don’t lie to yourself.
"Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have victims."
May I ask your opinions on the victims of transphobia?
@@King_Gum First please tell me what a transphobia victim is. Not trying to troll or anything, but honestly want to know what you mean.
@@nehemieetaka2849 People whose lives are made worse by the spreading of transphobic rhetoric. Most importantly is ofc trans people who are abused, attacked and killed because of their identity. But let's not forget cis(non-trans) people who are abused, attacked and killed because they are mistaken for trans people or do not fit into the gender binary.
@@King_Gum That's horrendous! I live in South Africa so abuse of that kind directed to trans people is quite rare. We do see a lot of abuse of women and children though and I'm sure the same disgusting taste in my mouth caused by femacide is the taste in yours caused by transphobia.
I misunderstood your question because you asked about my opinion on the victims. Did you mean my opinion on the perpetrators? Or maybe the phenomena in general. I thoroughly disagree with anyone that believes one is less human due to anything that makes them different other than being of a different species. Every human is made in the image of God and if you like nothing else about them, you still have to respect them on that account.
@@nehemieetaka2849 Well my friend, you are at least consistent.
I think these pro choicers don’t want to feel like they’ve committed murder
Mitt Romney is a pro choice Mormon. Hmmmm?
@@quantumtechcrypto7080 He's a politician that wants reelection. Biden is a pro-choice Catholic. I bet several congressional seat holders agree with pro-choice because they want reelection.
@@quantumtechcrypto7080 He's a politician. He is whatever he needs to be to get the vote.
You know that how?
Stop using their words. Stop calling it a choice. Call them and it Pro Abort / Abortion. Don't let them frame the argument and try putting you on defense. After all who would not be for people to choose ?
I love when the pro-choice crowd uses the ‘it’s cruel to have a baby if you are in a bad financial/socioeconomic situation.’ They are literally making the argument that poor people shouldn’t have kids.
That is straight out of the eugenics manual.
Mankind in its infancy didn’t have “money” to begin with but they still reproduced.
The financial argument is a logical fallacy wrapped in a delusion. (I agree with you)
Exactly
They are making the argument that poor people should decide for themselves. They don't tell poor people not to have kids even if they can't afford them. That's 100% the anti-abortion crowd.
@@avishevin1976 *They don't tell poor people not to have kids even if they can't afford them*
Wrong. One of the prominent arguments from the pro-abortion crowd is that “your child shouldn’t be born in poverty, if you yourself are poor.”
That argument is moronic based on the reality that humanity has been reproducing long before the concept of money even existed.
@@chosenone8408
You are simply wrong. Being pro-choice is exactly that: it's saying that the choice of raising a child in any condition is up to the mother. They don't say that a poor mother shouldn't have children. They're saying that a poor mother should have the _choice_ not to have children, even if that choice involves abortion.
It is the anti-abortion crowd who say that poor people shouldn't get pregnant (up to and including never having sex) if they can't afford to have a baby.
I identify as an innocent defenseless unborn baby. My pronouns are please / don't / kill me.
Oh that's good. We'll said
You broke me. I’m crying now.
Hey God, @sssssnake222 would like to have a word with you.
@@ADanZLifehave you ever spoken to god?
@@sssssnake222 Define "god"
Didn’t think any more points could be made that I hadn’t already heard, but this was brilliant.
Agree! And, like you, I didn't need all this reasonable explanation. Abortion is barbaric. And murder. Period.
Maybe I'd agree, if all his examples he used could apply to every "rule" he stated at once. Instead his examples only apply to one specific rule. When he says "well what if I slit the throat of somebody in a coma". Well yes the person in the coma is not conscious, but what about the rule of being self aware? The person was self aware, and possibly is still self aware because we dont know what happens to somebody subconsciously when they are in a coma
@@ethancole9168 but why does self awareness make a human life more valuable?
@@ethancole9168 but why does self awareness make a human life more valuable?
Remember, failing just one criteria disqualifies someone from personhood.
It seems to me that collectively we are being dehumanised and devalued more each day across the board. The family unit and more traditional way of life is being dismantled and seen as being wrong.
Yes, and it’s eventually going to cause the breakdown of society if left unchecked.
@@clairebordeaux I agree, certainly in the West. None of this is tolerated in other regions of the Globe. Look at Africa, South America, Middle East, Far East, and SE Asia. This is a European, North American and Australian issue. Basically anywhere with a Western Culture.
It sounds to me that you are trying to justify your bigotry.
@@anthonymitchell9793 it sounds to me as if your trying to justify your own 👍
@@svy99n The "family unit" concert was a shot at the LGBTQ community. They harm nobody and their families are just as viable as heterosexual ones. People against gay marriage are bigots.
So the original comment was a bigoted comment against innocent people who harm NOBODY. My comment, if bigoted, is against bigots that harm innocent people who harm nobody.
“The nature of evil is determining whether something is or isn’t a life based on you own convenience.”
100% agree. That’s why we should allow abortion.
We financially support child slavery through the likes of Amazon, Nike, Disney, Apple and etc. For convenience.
For our convenience we ignore all but a small portion of human suffering (Yemen/Palestine/Sierra Leon... the list goes on and on).
We continue to slaughter billions of animals in cold blood. The accomplishments in cruelty inside slaughter houses embarrasses the most ambitious of Jewish concentration camps from WWII. For pure convenience.
Now our cherry picked Judeo-Christian values allow us to pass on judgement, as if we were any better, on those who wants to exercise the convenience of not raising a child. You need this idea to stand behind to ignore how much of a convenience based monster you already are. Your defense of “life” is a convenient way to lie to yourself that you have real values.
That makes no sense.
@@derekspitz9225
Most abortion is committed based on the convenience of the mother.
@@177SCmaro You've missed my point. It's the 'nature of evil' rhetoric and the faulty connection between that and 'abortion for convenience' that makes no sense.
@@derekspitz9225
No, you failed to make one. Ignorance and/or incredulity are not actually points - you're not actually conveying anything with, "I don't understand..." and you're not making an argument implying "...therefore it's incorrect." You still havn't made one. Merely making vauge claims are not a disproof of anything.
Viability is the dumbest argument. My 1-year-old is not viable. She cannot survive outside the womb without the support of her mother and I.
I know teenagers who cant survive on their own. It’s insane argument
@@johnmcclain2848 exactly
Sentience and consciousness is amusing as well. They’ll go to the mat for animals and the Earth (at the expense of developing countries) but argue when a fetus becomes a Being because a fetus can’t take an iq test in the womb.
@@malletandchisel5154 an excellent point.
Which is very concerning, because there are several states that will be voting on abortion rights until viability, except in cases where the mother is in distress, which includes anything and basically just means she doesn't want it. They pretend they are making it seem conservative, but it actually means abortion up until birth.
Who’s watching in 2024 so you can help argue for babies and their lives ? Jesus help us end abortion ✝️🙏🏽 and do so lovingly and with truth ! Amen💛
Here!
Amen
This video should have had millions of views by now. I feel like RUclips is suppressing it.
Abolitionistsrising.com
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣so why does god give instructions on performing an abortion in the bible?
perfect.. this also explains why i say that abortion is the biggest stain on human history since slavery
So why don’t you believe in human rights? Why do you support the committing of war crimes in times of peace? Oh, your first statement was made to make you look humane.
You do realise that to impede abortion you must restrict women's bodily autonomy? And restricting bodily autonomy is actually slavery?
I believe slavery was around before child sacrifice.
@@stephaniezank7717even if we include war, 60M dead defenseless babies is more than all soldiers we have lost in all wars.
In fact there are individuals years where we have lost more babies than in all our wars combined.
@@starspaceschool587 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣what babies? Do you need a dictionary?
When I was young and everything was based on feelings, I was pro-choice. Then I learned facts and started learning how to think and reason like a grown-up. I am now totally pro-life, and regret my former smug, self-centered beliefs. And I thank God every day that I never had to make that choice.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣I’m not sure why you needed to make up that you were pro-choice because it’s obvious you weren’t. The facts are unanimously in favour of abortion. And your god doesn’t care one bit about fetuses.
Hosea 13:16
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.”
Or
Numbers 5:22
May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
If you're not liberal when young, you're heartless. If you're not conservative when older, you're brainless.
Before any mass killing has happened in history....there HAD to be a dehumanizing of those to be killed and you nailed that point here.
And this comparison is horse shit because the pro-choice movement is only offering the right of abortion to the MOTHER. Go ahead and cite a mass killing in history that occurred after a group of mothers dehumanized their own babies? This comparison doesn’t work.
@@nicholasmiller668 so I guess slavery would have been justified because people weren’t required to have slaves but they were just offered the option of having a slave if they wanted to. Because black people were seen as “less than human” or “parasites of society”. Sound familiar? A mass atrocity has already occurred since roe vs wade was passed. 60 something million abortions have taken place since then.
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity?
2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does.
3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
The reality is that now women have been dehumanised by removing their foundational right to bodily autonomy. Why do you want to kill women? Why do you want to commit human rights violations of forced pregnancy and for birth? Why do you feel so threatened by women? Are you that weak?
@@nicholasmiller668 not a real point no matter who is given the authority to kill many mothers have been told the babies aren't living so people have manipulated them into believing they aren't human on the same level as them it doesn't matter who is dehumanizing it killing is killing and in history it is always one group mass killing others or one group they didn't like same here
An unborn baby can hear noises inside the womb. They can hear their mother's voice so when they're born they already know their mother's voice. That is memory so that is a form of conscience.
There are also others like myself that can remember before we were born. Look up prebirth memories!
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity?
2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does.
3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
@@GangstaViolin you're just as wrong as abortion. It's a horrible thing. If you don't want kids, then don't have sex that can result in procreation. Period. Otherwise the consequence or result could potentially be pregnancy. If you are raped, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because someone does something horrible to you, doesn't give you free reign to do it to someone else. Incest shouldn't happen but even then the baby shouldn't die because of it. Maybe, just maybe, we should give our focus to rapists and people who commit incest and make them pay the price. Not the baby. Therfore any woman that gets an abortion, trying to make a baby pay for a crime they didn't commit, should be charged just as well.
@@royflora2338 Yeah, and if you don’t want car accident, don’t go out of home. But people can’t stay whole life at home same as they can’t stay whole life without sex. Why you need to enslave the future of pregnant women only because of a broken condom? That’s bollocks
You pro death moan and b1tch around for embryos who think and feel less than a mosquito, but eat dead animals (who are much more intelligent every day).
At least abortion doesn’t damage environment and helps pregnant women who wanna abort, which can’t be said about eating meat.
While watching I had several thoughts provoked and the longer I watched to my amazement those thoughts were included in his words I can't even begin to explain the way this spoke to me!
If instead of humanizing an embryo who thinks and feels less than a mosquito, you Pro Death would say USE CONDOMS, that would be an actual help in order of decrease abortions. The only thing you accomplish instead is increasing abortion black market, expensive, illegal clinics where pregnant women die every day.
Thank u, you Pro Death suckers.
I saw a women who was asked "If you had to choose just one, would you give up Democracy or abortion?" She chose to keep her access to abortion. Too many women flee from accountability. Repeal the 19th amendment and return sanity to this once great nation.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣ah, so you’re fighting to remove people’s freedom and bodily autonomy, right! I thought that Americans prided themselves for having freedom. Why do you want the government to decide whether your body is used for live organ harvest? Why do you want to bring back slavery?
I'm a woman and I tend to agree with you
@@VintageCardinal 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣have you ever asked why abortions were made legally safe to begin with. This is where the stupidity of anti-women’s healthcare is leading.
”Some 2,200 infants died in Texas in 2022 - an increase of 227 deaths, or 11.5%, over the previous year, according to preliminary infant mortality data from the Texas Department of State Health Services that CNN obtained through a public records request. Infant deaths caused by severe genetic and birth defects rose by 21.6%. That spike reversed a nearly decade-long decline. Between 2014 and 2021, infant deaths had fallen by nearly 15%.” So it’s pretty obvious the source of this information.
“We found that maternal death rates were 62 percent higher in 2020 in abortion-restriction states than in abortion-access states.” Commonwealth Fund
You can also look up all the research papers to discover that removing access to safe abortions has a profoundly negative effect. From higher death rates for women and infants, to higher levels of poverty and food hunger, to higher levels of crime, to higher levels of domestic abuse including sexual violence, to lower educational achievements, to lower living standards, etc., etc.,. That is why internationally access to safe abortions is a human right. Whereas, forced pregnancy, which means not allowing the woman to make choices about her body and her reproductive rights, is a crime. But then again America is becoming the land of the Christian ISIS.
I saw that interview! I got a feeling she wasn't quite sure how giving up democracy would affect her life
@@traciemorarity1924 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣well it’s quite simple what happens when democracy goes, dictatorship takes over. The way America is headed that dictatorship, like Trump, will be far right wing or fascist with Christianity being the religion. This is precisely the political ideology America fought against during WW2. Fascism strips people of choice, of rights, demonises those who don’t fit their ideology. Fascism strips freedom.
One of the most dangerous abilities of the human mind, is the power to justify. . .
Great talk! This should really be spread far and wide 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
I have a solution that negates the need for abortions. How about making vasectomies compulsory for men. Why men? Because men are the makers of babies. A woman can’t regulate her ovulation but a man can regulate his ejaculation. This will remove the need for women to rely on contraceptives that are tremendously harmful but frequently unreliable especially if taking antibiotics for example. Reversible vasectomies of course which can only be reversed when the man can show that they’re earning enough to support a family (in case the woman dies during childbirth) and are mature enough to stay around and not be abusive. Also, let’s record the DNA of all men so that we know if they’ve broken the law, making finding and prosecuting them easier. As a bonus it will also make finding rapists and peodophiles much easier. Win, win!
I’m sure it has in the gay community.
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity?
2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does.
3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
The last 30 seconds was so good. I never heard those arguments before. I think about our Rights as a protection to do what is right vs. every alternative to do otherwise. That that right decision is Right, approved and granted by God, because it allows what is humankind to go on existing in the way that God created it and gave duty to.
The problems with your statement are: 1. What is 'right' is subjective and therefore inconsistent with what various individuals will think is 'right', and 2. The god you claim is not the same god everyone claims, so there would need to be a determination of which god-directed behavior is 'right'. You assume your god is the right god. Billions of people would disagree. How do you justify your god being the correct god? How have you eliminated all other gods?
What do we all have in common? WE ARE ALIVE. WE WERE BORN ALIVE. Just as Adam took his first breath and "became a living soul". So do we also become a person at live birth. This was the standard in legal history, medical history, and Biblical history. This not an arbitrary standard. This guy is missing a lot of stuff. Does he deal with the FACT that the states that restrict (or ban) abortions are the same states that lead the nation in infant mortality and maternal mortality? Does he deal with the FACT that we are now jailing women because they had a miscarriage?
Watching a clip of Anne Hathaway as a guest on The View saying that “abortion is a mercy” while smiling, was the most demonic thing I have ever heard said…the smug look in her eyes was appalling. 🤮😡
Saw that too. Instant boycott of her films.
I saw that and she was smiling and literally proud of what she said. It was painful.
I don't really watch too much TV or movies anymore. Not even from home. I have cable so that I can have the Hallmark family channel and I really love Little House on the Prairie, Highway to Heaven and some of the older shows like that but I don't watch a lot of TV anymore. The devil is in plain sight!!
Never liked her. She's a total fence-sitter who goes with the mainstream. Awful person, too.
I am pro-life and I have argued much the same against abortion as this man. I have allowed teen girls to move in with me so that their parents weren't able to force them into an abortion. My own daughter got pregnant at 17 and wanted an abortion, I told her I'd adopt her baby and raise her. Of course, she changed her mind when she saw the baby (my granddaughter) on the sonogram. I have taken in pregnant homeless women and helped them get free of their addictions. I have ended relationships and friendships because the other person is pro-abortion and will not see reason. I am really pro-life and this man gave a good argument for life. After years of debating this topic online and in person let me give you the strongest argument I've ever heard FOR abortion.
It is a rather simple argument. I was taken aback when I heard it. I had been debating with a man about abortion for a few hours and he basically said this "You've told me that you believe that abortion is the murder of a baby. You've told me that you believe we are people at the point of conception, and you've stood outside an abortion center when women were going inside to murder their children, I don't believe you believe what you're saying. And neither does anyone else who says it, especially not 50% of the country because people don't just stand by and protest as other people murder babies. You don't have a philosophical debate as children are dying, you stop them. Your side doesn't act like they believe their own rhetoric."
I remember watching a news story about ISIS, where the terrorists had taken over a village and they had taken all of the children into a bakery, the adults were all gathered outside and there were about 3 guards with guns at the bakery door. They were killing the children inside, you could hear them screaming. They were killing them in horrifying disgusting painful ways. The adults were just standing there huddled together terrified and crying. And a lot of the adults standing outside the bakery had children inside. I didn't believe the news report because I couldn't imagine standing there and doing nothing even if it meant getting shot. I wouldn't want to live in a world where some sadistic bastard could torture my child to death in front of me and I do nothing about it. But that is us now. We're standing outside the bakery while the terrorists are inside sadistically dismembering babies. We are the farmers who lived in the lands surrounding the gulags, who smelled the smoke from the showers and did nothing. That is us now and I am ashamed.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣what you’ve admitted to there is actually considered criminal. The police have been informed.
I'm sorry, could you clarify the meaning of "We are the farmers who lived in the lands surrounding the gulags, who smelled the smoke from the showers and did nothing."
I ask because it would be difficult to take you seriously based on that statement for several reasons. Neither the farmers or any other citizen knew what was happening. Smelled the smoke from the showers? Smoke from the showers? Whether you believe it or not, no need to get into that, Zyklon B is claimed to be used in the showers. There would be no smoke. Anyone smelling it would be dead.
Please don't take it as a personal attack against you, it could be a misunderstanding on my part. I just think it's important to keep the facts straight.
A child in the womb is FULLY capable of emotions. See Luke 1:41-44 "When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy."
Rubbish
@@stephaniezank7717 It is a FACT! And it has been proven scientifically that unborn babies feel the pain of dismemberment!
@@stephaniezank7717 The overwhelming number of people that believe there is nothing wrong with abortion simply do NOT understand the science behind abortion! Abortion at any point ends a human life. And the later term abortions violates the Eighth Amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
The little baby girl or boy is dismembered limb from limb and then has his or her soul crushed and then vacuumed out without even shown the courtesy of receiving an anesthesia!
They call the baby being aborted “tissue” and then the abortionist “Dr.” Carefully avoids damaging the human babies organs the heart lungs kidneys livers etc. etc In case the mother signs the form saying it is ok to use the parts for research so they can be sold.
And if you think I am lying then I suggest you watch a few videos of babies being aborted or this one from a former abortion doctor. I have read the Constitution from cover to cover, it says “nobody can be deprived of life liberty or the pursuit of happiness! If you do NOT want the baby put it up for adoption! Pro abortion democRats have no souls!
@@stephaniezank7717 2nd trimester surgical abortion: Dilation and Evacuation (D & E). ruclips.net/video/jgw4X7Dw_3k/видео.html
Dr. Levatino Destroys abortion in 2 minutes ruclips.net/video/OZXQBhTszpU/видео.html
@@ricksteelcustoms3196actually they aren’t capable of feeling pain until around 20 weeks. They also don’t develop a memory of pain because they’re not conscious. It is the memory of pain that causes harm. You can be unconscious and lose a limb and since you’re unconscious you can’t develop a memory of the loss of the limb and you won’t remember the pain. Since foetuses aren’t conscious they won’t feel the pain.
If nothing else, you’ve made me think. What an intelligent & marvelous set of facts to lay before the masses. If people don’t listen & take to heart what was uttered here, what chance of survival does our species have?
Probably less then you think and more suffering then you want
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity?
2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does.
3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
Barely 2 minutes into the video and Seth has already become one of my favorite people.
Did he satisfy your intellectual bias so quickly? Did you determine that a critical analysis of his presentation wasn't necessary since he made you feel confident in your own beliefs? Nice work. Stay in your bubble.
If instead of humanizing an embryo who thinks and feels less than a mosquito, you Pro Death would say USE CONDOMS, that would be an actual help in order of decrease abortions. The only thing you accomplish instead is increasing abortion black market, expensive, illegal clinics where pregnant women die every day.
Thank u, you Pro Death suckers.
@@danbailey2964 provide one reasonable thing that makes a fetus not a human
@@Qaptyl a human what? Cancer cells are human cells. you have a problem killing those? Refine your question. A mass of cells is not a human being.
@@danbailey2964 what trait differentiates the fetus from a human. i want more than name-calling and linguistic manipulation.
Man, this guy kicks ass! Never heard of him before. Makes such good points from a variety of angles.
Shame they’re all wrong then isn’t it!
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity?
2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does.
3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
@@stephaniezank7717 lol prove it then
@@jimmy_xi9342 Access to safe abortion is a human right and protects women’s health as declared by the WHO. Or don’t you believe in human rights?
Every individual has the right to decide freely and responsibly - without discrimination, coercion and violence - the number, spacing and timing of their children, and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health (ICPD 1994).
Access to legal, safe and comprehensive abortion care, including post-abortion care, is essential for the attainment of the highest possible level of sexual and reproductive health.
Abortions are safe when they are carried out with a method that is recommended by WHO and that is appropriate to the pregnancy duration, and when the person carrying out the abortion has the necessary skills. Such abortions can be done using tablets (medical abortion) or a simple outpatient procedure.
When women with unwanted pregnancies do not have access to safe abortion, they often resort to unsafe abortion. An abortion is unsafe when it is carried out either by a person lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards, or both. Characteristics of an unsafe abortion touch upon inappropriate circumstances before, during or after an abortion.
Unsafe abortion can lead to immediate health risks - including death - as well as long-term complications, affecting women’s physical and mental health and well-being throughout her life-course. It also has financial implications for women and communities.
So why do you want to strip women of a basic human right?
@@stephaniezank7717 prove it 😊
All human life must have value, from conception to the grave. Otherwise we start splitting hairs, and from there we invite hell on earth.
so hitler's life have value? serial killers? rapists?
Why draw the line at conception? Isn't sperm human and alive?
@@adamradley4016 Because life begins at conception. But to be clear I’m against wasting sperm as well. But life starts when the sperm fertilizes the egg not before hand.
@@KINGANIMEREVIEW that's simply not true. The sperm is a live. It an organism. A human organism. Life is an ongoing process. It doesn't begin with conception because it is compose of living organisms. Also - define wasting sperm. Most sperm is "wasted" because in each ejaculation only one fertilizes an egg..
@@adamradley4016 sperm is alive, but it's not a LIFE. It won't survive or create anything on its own. This is like saying your liver or skin cells are a life. Just no.
It is pretty much universally accepted by both men and women that during her term of pregnancy a woman has a unique and elevated, somewhat special status. She is typically viewed as someone who is making sacrifices for the benefit of her precious cargo in terms of behaviour and time dedicated to her task. We will collectively make allowances, but above all else we offer her our care and protection, regardless of a baby being unrelated, or that the mother happens to be a stranger. There is an innate understanding and acknowledgment amongst decent members of society who concur, as to the importance of the sacred journey she is taking.
Should we have the same attitude and concern for a woman who has previously had 2, or 3 abortions. Why should it be considered as anything other than a car, or piece of clothing that can be discarded on a whim. My concern is the danger that human life will soon become as disposable as the aforementioned items, and women are at risk of losing their precious and valued status.
Peace.
Unless you're a conservative who rails against mandatory maternity leave and free healthcare. So you're all for allowances as long as they don't inconvenience you in any way.
I don't have understanding of terms "sacred' you used, also "previous cargo", you know that this cargo "preciousness" is just subjective perspective, on boat with limited resources for 2 people (you and mother), this "precious cargo" will cause both of you to die, very simple example.
@@dod-do-or-dont Everything is subjective. Everything is a concept. The latter, being the only way for us to make sense of what we know to be apparent, but simply have no explanation for.
In 1970, a woman I know very, very well, intended to have an abortion. The Father of that baby intervened. He promised to marry her and take care of them both. Almost 52 years to the day, the foetus in question has the ability to voice his opinion and concerns over the very subject matter that almost prevented him from doing so. The irony is palpable, but when he interacts with his own children it is tangible.
The analogy of a desperate scene on a lifeboat is far, far removed from an analogy of having casual, irresponsible copulation, and to then jettison the "not so very precious" cargo.
@@dendemano OK. That is a self- defeating argument. Everything is not subjective. There are these things called absolutes & absolute truths. Because if "everything is subjective" then how could you possibly claim that "everything is subjective" if everything's subjective because by claiming that "everything is just simply subjective" your claiming there to be an absolute truth-"Everything is Subjective". And that can't be true if everything's subjective. So see. It's a SELF-Defeating argument that violates the law of non-contradiction.
Oh and by the way. How could you possibly tell lies if everything is just a matter of opinion. Because if there's no such thing as truth, then how could there possibly be truths.
And if "everything is just a matter of opinion," then how the hell could you possibly call Hitler or Stalin bad or wrong for murdering millions of people. Because if "everything's just a matter of opinion," then how the hell could you even tell a difference between right and rong, let-a-lone do right or wrong.
@@jonathanehlers2654 Tell me something that isn't subjective in the first instance. "Opinions" whether they prove to be wrong or right are still opinions.
Man, the bigots really came out the woodwork on this one. The discrimination against those with lower brain function, smaller size, shorter development is really sickening.
Those are the least persuasive euphemisms possible so good luck with that.
but its not sickening when your side wants to cut the government checks that feed them and keep them alive?
@@sweetgal7644 5 of the top 6 states that spend the most on benefits are Republican. The "Republicans hate everyone who aren't straight white males" thing is a modern day hoax that you fell for.
@@MrTheclevercat Euphemisms?! Lol You mean descriptors? I think you need to look up the definition of euphemism. You must have flunked 5th grade English. Or maybe English is your second language.
@@sweetgal7644 I don’t have a side, but nice try with the red-herring! Great counter argument.
Abortion is the most selfish act a woman could take part in.
Outstanding.
Doing Gods work
Protecting those who can't protect themselves
From himself
@Hustle Band what are the real arguments then?
Relax white knight.
@Hustle Band LOL, someone asks you to explain your statement, and you restate the same thing without an answer. 🤣
@Hustle Band let's do a live debate on this
My history teacher said "If you have sex, chances are high that you're going to get pregnant ". Do people still need warning labels for this?
Today that teacher would be labeled as a groomer and sexualizing children. Right Gov. DeSantis?
Darla Lei
I've also heard it only takes one time.
That is not true.
Sometimes it takes several tries to get pregnant.
Yes because new people are born every day who will eventually need to be taught these things and the only thing being taught about sex in schools is to do it as much as you want with whomever you want just use a condom.
@@eyemnew2991
_You_ are wrong. It always only takes one time. It's just that you don't know which one is "the" time. The point of making this clear is to counter the precise myth that you're propagating, albeit unintentionally. That myth being that you can't get pregnant having sex only one time, or even on the first time.
What if they were a Condom....
It’s the wickedness of the heart.
I have no idea why this was recommended, but the points made were so well articulated and explained in such a way that my (relative) lack of knowledge on the subject was able comprehend and easily understand what he was saying.
If more people were able to speak on subjects with this capability I think more people would get involved (or at least make informed decisions) in society's issues and make actual substantive change instead of the smaller nothing changes because people don't actually understand either side, or what is actually being spoken about
Not trying to sound snarky so forgive me but you should really watch more of these kind of videos.
There’s Kristen Hawkins President of Students for Life. She has a bunch of great videos speaking..cough..debating college students. Pretty fiery content. Lol.
Oh! A really good person to listen to is Abby Johnson. She used to be the director of Planned Parenthood and assisted in many many abortions till she came to her senses and now works with Right To Life. There are just so many interesting and informative options. Check some out. 👍
Probably recommended because this topic is hot rn. Roe v Wade may be crushed. I pray so
The pro choice advocates can’t decide among each other when life begins because their own medical science keeps proving them wrong, but they must remember that they make Stalin, Hitler and all the other inhumane murderers in history look like pussycats in comparison to the heinous crimes they are committing against the most vulnerable and innocent members of the human race.
To be honest, when listening i more or less felt like the words were picked very carefully to ignore everything that might undermine his arguments.
He is basically a good speaker And sales guy who could most likely sell his own shit in a jar if he wanted to.
The masses objective of the pro choice advocates seems to be “I want to make poor choices, then flush my poor choices down the toilet.” The speaker just outlined how vacuuming a baby out of the womb causes just as much pain to them as it would cause to you if you were ripped limb from limb. That is exactly what is happening. Sometimes the doctor has to get in there with some tweezers and physically rip out partially formed body parts piece by piece. Arms, legs, little faces. Absolutely horrific. Does this make ANY pro choicer in the comments pause and say “wow that does kinda sound terrible”. Of course not. They are only interested in arguing the point to prove to themselves somehow it is all good.
No don’t get me wrong, I am not of the mindset we should make abortion illegal. It is a social issue, a moral issue, and a personal decision. But the fact many pro choicers can’t even admit the facts and the weight the decision having an abortion holds proves to me they don’t have a moral foundation and are only concerned with their one selfish desires, to flush their bad life decisions down the toilet without a care in the world.
What I find the most perplexing, is that the same leftist minded thinkers usually suppose evolution is a theory they believe. At the same time they are usually also the crowd which believes things like gender is a social construct and homosexuality is just a normal orientation. They usually have a strong dislike for organized religion and will argue the idea of God the same they argue the idea that a baby should have any rights. But how does all this fit in with the idea of evolution? That each species is constantly evolving to survive more easily and more consistently?? We currently have a declining birth rate. Trans persons and homosexuals can’t have children, and pro choicers often choose not to. So their survivability is zero.
We nice again I think homosexuality and transgenderism are not something government should have ANY say about when it comes to the rights an individual should have. But every time I hear a leftist try to talk about ANY of these issues I can’t help but think “they have no fucking idea what they actually believe, they just never really thought about it. They want to confirm their bias, and have no desire for a rational thought.”
Murder is a social, moral, and-except in the case of assassin for hire-a personal issue. Should we not criminalize murder?
@@davidhoffman6980 Your argument fails, because we already don't criminalize homicide in many cases. If someone kills another person by reasonable accident, in self-defense, etc., it is not typically criminally punished. Yet we as a society still frown upon it, still discourage it, still acknowledge that something bad has happened, and still take steps to prevent it from happening again, even if it is not a criminal act.
The same attitude should apply to abortion. There may be times where killing the unborn child for the mother's sake is warranted, and it would not be inexcusable to allow people to do that in the right circumstances. We can allow that to be a legal option while still maintaining a culture that discourages it and does what we can to prevent it from happening.
@Myles Leggette Hi and thanks for the polite response. First of all, I didn't make an argument. An argument is a proposition with supporting statements. I asked a question to see if the original commenter can be consistent in his philosophy. Second, I didn't say "homicide"; I said "murder", which typically means "wrongful killing". I did not and do not propose that all homicides be criminalized. Killing in defense of the innocent is permissible. I asked Donald if murder should be permissible for the same reasons he proposed abortion should be permissible.
Thanks.
@@mylesleggette7520 The child is INNOCENT. Tell me the instances when it's okay to deliberately take an innocent human life
@@mylesleggette7520 Killing a defenseless unborn baby is not self defense.
7:41 "Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have victims"
I have found 3 simple questions that end the discussion on abortion, and prove pro-abortion advocates are either uneducated, or evil, if they disagree. 3 questions, 2 are scientifically backed and 1 is common sense;
1. Is it human? Yes.
2. Is it alive? Yes.
3. Did it choose to be there? No.
The importance of the 3rd question is to point out the lack of responsibility on the child's part, which establishes the child's innocence, and dispels the idea of bodily autonomy in pregnancy.
So the argument proposed after the questions are asked and answered correctly is;
In what situation is it ever morally OK, to kill an innocent human being?
Other than extremely rare cases, like a severe physical health risk to the mother, in which most of those don't require killing the baby to solve, could an argument be made.
If they can't answer the first 2 questions, yes, then the conversation cannot go forward until they have sufficiently educated themselves on biology. If they can't answer the 3rd question, no, the conversation cannot go forward until they understand personal responsibility and the concept of risks associated with actions.
With these questions and final argument, all abortions, but a rare few, of the rarely required due to physical health threat posed on the mother, are eliminated due to the moral and ethical wrong perpetrated on an innocent human life.
I mean you better be doing something to help these kids you want to be born in America so bad with the price of medical bills and the price of living going up and global warming,2 billion people living under the poverty line,the school shootings,the abusive foster/adoption system not to mention if the parent does decide to raise them they're probably not gonna have the best parents/parent because that's has been proven time and time again to be a disaster also miscarriages or "miscarriages" you can't stop those can you? and oh yeah the amount of youth suicide and depression rates so far I haven't seen any pro lifer make this country any better for a child to born into
@@childx81 It's not about ensuring a many births as possible, it's about not killing innocent humans.
@@childx81 No one is suggesting that miscarriages need to be stopped or that they are illegal, that is a natural condition.
@@childx81 Youth suicide is on the rise because of the detrimental affects of the covid lockdowns, and the psychotic imaginations of leftist woke ideologies.
@@Oopsy75254 that's just not true also it's not always natural people are literally telling women how to force a miscarriage hence why I put "miscarriages" and honestly as they should
A new-born baby is fully aware of a wet diaper, the urge to eliminate waste, a hunger pain, a tummy ache, the mother's voice, a warm embrace even the moment it's born. While in the womb, a baby recognizes its mother's voice, noises, music, etc. and to say the unborn child doesn't experience is wrong - traveling through the birth canal certainly doesn't feel good.
It doesn't experience any of those things until after 20-22w aka the same point as viability...
@@nickgiglio7109 Time racist
Nobody is saying a fetus doesnt become sentient at a point. We are saying there is a point it becomes sentient. An egg and a sperm dont come together to instantly form a functioning brain. There is time in between sperms and brains
@@ethancole9168 and until then the woman has the right to remove the fetus from her body no questions asked... Which is up to about 22w.
@@ethancole9168 You are assuming that human worth is predicted on the awareness or sentience.
Firstly not everyone agrees but even if they did, would you apply that logic to yourself, would you cease to have rights while lacking awareness while under anesthesia on the operating table? If you reply that you'll regain awareness in the future, why is that substantively different than the fetus gaining awareness in the future?
YOU'RE AMAZING Seth! So great to meet you at Awaken last Sunday (& Mars Hill 4 years ago) PRAYING for you & yours!
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity?
2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does.
3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
I love the argument, “someone who needs an organ to live can’t force you to donate.” After conception, the donation has already occurred. Abortion is the equivalent of ripping a donated organ back out of the recipient because you want it back.
Interesting argument. If someone stole your organ rather than you donating it should you have the right to take it back?
@@uabjf Good question. Except in conception, nothing is being stolen. A primary bodily process is merely carrying out its function.
@@TheNightWatcher1385 I think it could be argued that the fetus has taken at least partial possession of the uterus for the duration of its stay.
I can agree with this. In Michael Knowles' recent debate with a pro-choice med student, the student tried to argue on the grounds of consent, that a woman at any time can rescind consent to the use of her uterus. Your comment shows how cold and ridiculous that premise is.
@@uabjf if you did something knowing that it may end up with you having to give up your organ (knowing sex could make baby) and still do it anyway then you can’t take it back, you consented.
Oh how delusional this world has become , just because you’ve changed the name from a baby to a fetus doesn’t change the nature of the act . MURDER !
Yes, it is murder and should always be referred to it as such.
@@CD-vb9fi 1. Abortion exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. If helping women is atrocious, then I’m proud of this atrocity.
2. Embryo is innocent? So are the animals you eat EVERY DAY (all of them smarter than a human embryo). Difference is that eating a steak you help nobody but your addiction (and damage environment).
Affirming that you can’t compare humans with animals is ridiculous. I mean, why can’t you? Is it forbidden?
3. Humanizing the embryo has never proved to be an effective strategy in order of decreasing nr of abortions, as recommending use of condoms would. So you’re basically NOT helping.
4. Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
@@GangstaViolin 1. Abortion is murder, you are killing a human. The definition of Murder is "taking the life of an innocent human". You cannot murder an animal for example. You can only kill it.
2. Yes, embryo is innocent. Animals are not judged by innocence or guilt, they lack knowledge of good and evil, though I understand why you are not intelligent enough to understand this nuance. Grass is alive as well. But if you justification for "being smarter" means it is okay to consume anything less smart. Then shall a person with a 150 IQ be allowed to consumer a person with a 120 IQ? Did you not think about the implications of what you have said? Of course you didn't... you are not smart enough.
3. But according to the Science, it is factual that the embryo is human. I know humanizing them does not work because people like you have been ignoring facts and have been trying to dehumanize all sorts of black, brown, yellow, red, and olive skinned people. You immediately refuse science the moment it does not serve your purpose.
4. So laws against killing and murder increase killing and murder too then? Your logic is so juvenile and flawed you cannot be reasoned with. And you know what that means right? Just like any Nazi... You are openly saying you desire to kill people. After a long train of abuse people get tired... and they rise up and destroy their oppressors!
People like YOU are the ones that brought us slavery. Said those humans are not humans treating them like chattel. People like you bring tyranny and oppression. Saying they have "offended" you and are deserving of death or imprisonment. You are the evil in this world. You are the people God will come to destroy so that people like me can live with peace and harmony without death, lies, tyranny, and evil!
@@GangstaViolin 1 equating abortion to helping women is laughable it causes severe mental trauma most of the time and takes recovery also you are no way helping the second human being I would rather have one human being not die for the other to be in discomfort for 9 months and both humans come out alive helping isn't the the only thing abortion causes
You know slavery helps plantation owners produce more with less costs but that doesn't make it right .
2 a human embryo has more moral worth than an animal because 1 again it has in common with every other human the same species and human nature animals do not so they don't have the same moral worth simple as that and yes that is why animels and humans are on different levels animals kill other animals in nature all the time also eating steak doesn't damage the environment complexity delusional on that
3 humanizing embryos is not necessary they are simply human and that is an issue needed to be addressed controceptives have nothing to do with that but when we admit embryos are humans then abortion becomes inherently wrong on a moral standpoint of murder or not
Fourth point is illogical you are equating that if we don't stop one crime another crime will follow that will be far less prevalent which doesn't convince any person with reason this is like saying if we don't sell illegal drugs drug addicts will kill people so we have to keep selling drugs completely illogical the woman knows the risk of illegal abortion and that it is a crime
He's so dead on, and we are currently undergoing political dehumanization by the same group. Good thing those of us right-of-center are actually fighting back now.
We've been fighting back for decades. And lost. That's when we learned it really matters who sits on the courts. That's why the left are so mad now. They thought they had that settled.
So true. It’s about time.
BARRRR
What’s crazy is knowing plenty of “center” people, not one is against abortion.
@@vintagerose9186 because the realistic among us understand that abortion is not murder and that only caring before the birth of a child and not afterwards shows very clearly that this isn’t about the life of a child to those right wing loonies it’s about just arguing because they want to.
It's like I've always said - there is no pro-abortion argument that does not also by its logic demand the death of a demographic of already born human beings.
Does it blow your mind to know that we'd be better off if a certain # of people got aborted?
@@MrTheclevercat
Are you referring to People like you?
@@clairebordeaux You really turned that one around on me. Cringe.
@@MrTheclevercat First, I assume that those to whom you're referring who would be in that certain number are the undesirables of society--the dregs, the criminals, etc. My response is based on that assumption. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but any other possibility makes your statement absolutely deplorable.
Does it blow your mind to know that I'm a deeply religious man who believes that no one is beyond God's reach, redempion, and life-changing forgiveness?
Ezekiel 33:11 (NKJV): Say to them: "As I live," says the LORD God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of israel?"
So since you thought there was even a remote possibility that I'd actually have my mind blown by your statement (there wasn't, by the way), then maybe your mind could be blown by this concept: if the world would be better off if a certain number of people got aborted, how much better than that would it be if those same people turned out to be great, awesome people in the end?
@@germanwulf40 I mean in the simplest terms that people who can't afford to add the responsibility of another child are creating a great deal of evil in the world if they choose to have one. And no, its not a mind blowing concept that some people who might have been aborted turn out alright. It's hilarious to dream that they'd all turn out great though. Very nice thought. Very far from reality. If your brain gets stuck on the idea that every fertilized egg has a soul and you're murdering it with an abortion you aren't a very serious person lol. That's just honesty.
That title did not lie. He was short, to the point, and 100% accurate. Boom to that guy.
1. Abortion exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. If helping women is atrocious, then I’m proud of this atrocity.
2. Embryo is innocent? So are the animals you eat EVERY DAY (all of them smarter than a human embryo). Difference is that eating a steak you help nobody but your addiction (and damage environment).
Affirming that you can’t compare humans with animals is ridiculous. I mean, why can’t you? Is it forbidden?
3. Humanizing the embryo has never proved to be an effective strategy in order of decreasing nr of abortions, as recommending use of condoms would. So you’re basically NOT helping.
4. Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
@@GangstaViolin I'm commenting late on this, but a couple comments.
1. Just because you help someone (whether they're vulnerable or not) doesn't make it right. I could say I was helping Hitler by creating Nazi Germany as it helped to bring the vulnerable German people out of depression and hyperinflation. That doesn't make it right.
2. You don't know whether the person was a vegan, but you're essentially making one of 2 points. Either the embryo is innocent just like animals (in which case we SHOULDN'T kill them), or the embryo has every right to die (just like animals). So essentially you can't be pro-choice and vegan at the same time.
Additionally, a human life is very arguably more important than the life of an animal.
3. The point of this was to raise awareness so that policies could be put into place banning abortions (at least under certain circumstances), not to convince women to commit less abortions (This is purely my opinion).
4. While women dying in illegal abortion clinics is terrible, more lives would be saved by banning abortion.
My God! I have never heard this topic explained this, never. The immediate clarity is astounding.
Your presentation was brilliant, and your commenters are also brilliant! I am so glad my son showed me this!!
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity?
2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does.
3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
If a woman has the final say so over "her body" and giving birth. The man should be able to choose if he's going to pay child support. If the father has no say so in the birth then he shouldn't be forced to pay for a baby he didn't want.
Your argument is illogical.
A woman gets to make choices that affect her body. This has absolutely nothing to do with the man who impregnated her.
The man's responsibility for child support is based on _his_ choice. Just because he doesn't get to choose for the woman does not mean he can just absolve himself of responsibility for his own choices. They are not connected.
@@avishevin1976 excellent reply.
@@avishevin1976 we seems to be on the same foot regarding main topic but i will disagree regarding father rights. I think that man should have right to resign all responsibilities before intercourse, sometimes woman can tick you that she take hormones etc (any form of contraception) and she will trick you to pay for her and her kid (because she is not working you will have to pay also for her in my country), so there should be possibility for man to don't get tricked.
@@sabinekoch3448 what if the woman rapes the man?
Does a man have the right to the baby? So can they deny the female an abortion if they are the father?
What I can't understand is that pro choice (death) people are always going on about protecting the rights and bodily autonomy of marginalized people except unborn people! It's just weird!
What I can't understand is that pro life people are always going on about the sanctity of life and the responsibility to the unborn, but as soon as they are born, they no longer care! It's just weird!
@@mikehill1114 That's all you got? Did your girlfriends boyfriend put up to this? Cuz this is some weak shit!
@Hustle Band yep, as the defund the police crowd let murderers and sex offenders go free!
@Danny Timms I really like how you came at me with a cogent, thought provoking response to really make me analyze my position.
I'm glad you didn't just go with the "liar liar pants on fire" bit.
Oh, wait...
NM
@@mikehill1114 What's even more hilarious is you bring up a fallacy that has nothing to do with all the points he made in the video, good on you, you're so intelligent. Keep on bringing up random non arguments and not replying to the direct assault on your pathetic beliefs. He put an absolute sledgehammer thru your face and you have to bring up some random BS argument that doesn't relate, AND that you don't live up to yourself. If you don't know what I'm taking about, don't bother responding, you don't have the mental capacity, seriously. Very funny though...I'm very amused. 😂
Listening to you gives me hope that there is "Hope" for the next generatión. Thank you, thank you, thank you! God bless you and give you courage to keep fighting the good fight!!!
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity?
2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does.
3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
“You hate life if you hate the beginnings of life. You serve death if you only value developed beings and not growing beings. Your arbitrary and convenient standards of what constitutes life and beings are not something life, nature, reason, science, or religion agree with. All sane and sound systems understand the origins of life to be the most precious and sacred forms of life that are deserving of all honor and protection. Pro-abortionists are anti-life. Pro-abortionists are haters who are going to hate because it is what they do best.” -Kevin Everett FitzMaurice
No one really cares what religion agrees with. Well, no one with an IQ over 50 that is.
Satan is everything opposite to God. Anti-creation. Anti-life. Anti-logic
@@Andromedon777 Yes, and wokeism is also everything opposite from God.
@@KevinFitzMauriceEverett If you hate life, you hate God. The creator of life!
Wake Up Church! Time is short...
"Your country is desolate, your cities burned with fire; strangers devour your land in your presence; and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers." Isaiah 1:7
"The people will be oppressed, every one by another and every one by his neighbor; the child will be insolent toward the elder, and the base toward the honorable." Isaiah 3:5
"When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil ( including filthy language - Isaiah 6:5-9) of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil. Learn to do good; seek justice, rebuke the oppressor, defend the fatherless , plead for the widow." Isaiah 1:15-17; Isaiah 1:2-6, Isaiah 8:12-13
The Bible says that the world will get worse and worse, faster and faster. Matthew 24, Book of Revelation, Daniel, etc. True Believers who are born again in Jesus Christ, will be Raptured, called UP to meet Jesus in the air, then the Wrath of GOD known as the Tribulation. It is in GOD's timing, but it is so very soon! The Tribulation will be so horrible that unless Jesus returns at His Second Coming, no flesh will be left!
Jesus has given you a Free Gift of eternal life and forgiveness of all your sins, by His sacrifice at the cross. What is keeping you from accepting His Free Gift of salvation today? Jesus Loves You More Than Anything.💜💜💜🙏🙏🙏📖📖📖
Wow! This argument was amazing! Thank you for this!
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity?
2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does.
3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
God will judge us for our choices.
Absolutely brilliant! First time I ever heard him, and I am blown away. Speechless.
1. Abortion exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. If helping women is atrocious, then I’m proud of this atrocity.
2. Embryo is innocent? So are the animals you eat EVERY DAY (all of them smarter than a human embryo). Difference is that eating a steak you help nobody but your addiction (and damage environment).
Affirming that you can’t compare humans with animals is ridiculous. I mean, why can’t you? Is it forbidden?
3. Humanizing the embryo has never proved to be an effective strategy in order of decreasing nr of abortions, as recommending use of condoms would. So you’re basically NOT helping.
4. Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
I find this issue to be at that moment where individuality is not discrete. However I also think that the loss of the unborn is self punishing since it was the death of true love. It is unnecessary to add to the loss. But the loss is huge and ripples through how the larger group sees itself and how mourning is to be handled.
"...it was the death of true love." What does that mean?
1. Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. So it has a reason to be.
2. Embryo is innocent? So are the animals you eat EVERY DAY (all of them smarter than a human embryo). Difference is that eating a steak you help nobody but your addiction (and damage environment).
Affirming that you can’t compare humans with animals is ridiculous. I mean, why can’t you? Is it forbidden?
3. Humanizing the embryo has never proved to be an effective strategy in order of decreasing nr of abortions, as recommending use of condoms would. So you’re basically NOT helping.
4. Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
This right here, my good sir, earned my subscription. Well done 👏
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity?
2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does.
3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
If there’s more criminal charges to kill animals then why is there not more laws in killing a human life born or not born ?
These are all terrific arguments. However as someone passionately pro-life, I don’t see this as particularly helpful for the goal of swaying people who might actually have abortions. This’ll be a tremendous hit with people who are already pro-life, but will this sway anyone on the other side? And this is the issue I have with the pro-life movement: the condescending, supercilious tone & posture makes nearly any otherwise great point unheard by those of differing opinions. We must approach with grace
Please explain how you would tell someone murder or even slavery is bad if you don't state the moral parameters that define what is acceptable within a 'good' society'? Yes it is important to win over hearts and minds, however pro-life advocates should not have to make concessions when it comes to the emotional appeals of 'you don't know what its like' or 'you could never imagine what (fill in the blank)' then this allows for the exceptions to chip away at the resolve of protecting and enshrining protections for the unborn that's why you have people who will cave to issues of rape or incest or in the health of the mother and so on. We need to be compassionate but we can't let that compassion skew the scientific and legal realities that exist. Kindness is truth shared and sometimes that is difficult to grasp but we shouldn't shy away from it.
@@katherinecampbell9772 Hi Katherine! Thanks for your reply. I think it boils down to the tone we engage others in. I think the sarcasm & detectable disgust many in the pro-life community as well as the man in this video speak with is counterproductive to swaying anybody to the side of good & truth. Certainly using the term murder or calling someone a murderer is not helpful & immediately activates the opposition’s defensiveness & hostility, & in this way no progress is made as it’s an immediate turn off. You have to ease your way in if we’re to make any headway with individuals with just twisted beliefs as to think one can discard a child when we can’t discard a speeding ticket-both consequences of willing actions. Definitely not saying to sacrifice truth! I just look at the polarization of pro-life vs pro-choice & see that only furthering because of our current atmosphere where both sides look at the other side as disgusting. We are witnessing the pro-choice group go further & further into radical irrationality-these days saying you should ‘shout your abortion’ or celebrate even-because of the ineffectiveness of the pro-life voices not speaking truth in love, as the Bible calls me to do. They’re speaking truth in condescension, in my opinion
@@AustinLNale the difficulty is that even Jesus, in love, called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers". I wonder how we would treat if people tried to legalize poedophilier, or legalize racism. We would show a level of outburst that might not seem "loving". I do believe there's two sides: one is to realize that the person having an abortion is broken and needs help, and then there's the correction of the wrong view.
@@AustinLNale Hi, thank you also for sharing more on your perspective. You are right to bring up how ideologies may overshadow the real issues when it comes to wanting to protect both vulnerable parties of mothers and unborn children. That often leads to either the mother or child's well-being potentially being 'devalued' and thats usually what the opposing side will claim in the course of an argument. The condescension is also an important obstacle too like you mentioned. What would you like to see the pro-life side do in the future going forward to address those types of issues that tend to turn people off?
We actually are called to speak truth! Yes do it with some integrity & dignity! But we also need to stop rolling over, & fearing we may offend someone today! They may act offended today, but the words of truth planted seeds that germinate tomorrow!
In my country (Switzerland) we have something called "Fristenregelung" witch broadly translates to deadline regulation. It's 12 weeks from the beginning of pregnancy where you can abort your unborn child. To abort you have to make the following points: You have to be in the state of an emergency, you're willing to abort and you had a consulation with a gynologist which is mandatory by law. In this consulation, they show you way how to get along with the child, which public services can help you with the child and much more.
Since we have this law, the number of abortions dropped and even if it's not zero, it's waaays less than before. I perfectly know that this solution is not perfect and in my personal opinion an abortion is never a good answer. But i still think, it is a acceptable balance between "completely forbidden" and "do as like".
That's your opinion you never been raped or have a family member forced you. Speak for yourself.. I'm for women rights to choose i didn't get to choose at 14, told i had a bad appendix appendix. Was put to sleep.. a nurse slept and told me. So yes it's a women's Choice and no one else's you do what you want with youur body I'll do what I want with mine i love you anyways
@@jannett4333 yes this is my opinion as i clearly stated with "and in my personal opinion" and yes i speak for myself and i never made any point to speak for others. On the other hand, why are you so sure i never was raped or a family member forced me?
Im sorry for your personal history and suffering but you just assumed a bit too much and came to conclusion a bit to fast.
Amazing points, and so well articulated! These are probably the very best points I've ever heard, and I listen to a lot of pro life advocates! Thank you for helping arm us pro-lifers with these amazing and truthful points to fight for life!
You realize how much pro-lifers are hypocrites right? You argue for the life of unborn children but Pro-Lifers ignore the lives of the children that all ready born and in a system that is so utterly broken. There are 600 thousand abortions that occur across the US in a year. Do you realize what will happen to most of those children if you eliminate abortion. They will end up in welfare system. 38% of children that end up in the system suffer some sort of abuse. Those are just numbers documented. That number is more then likely more like 45 to 60% of children. Eliminating abortion is going to flood the system with even more children that the system is all ready overwhelmed and cant handle.
For ever action their is an equal or greater reaction. If you eliminate abortion more children are going to end up in child services. More women will end up on welfare which is basically a form of slavery when you actually understand how welfare works which we as tax payers pay. Pro-lifers are all hypcrites in my opinion. They don't give a crap about the thousand up on thousands of children that are in the system that are lost and many of them being abused or ignored. People like you don't stand up for them and shake the same anger and wrath about that as you do abortion and it's sad.
When I was in foster care for a brief time I met a girl who had been sexually abused by time she was 7. From the time she was 9 to 11 she was raped by her foster parents for three years. She suffered other mental and physical abuse over the years as well. She hated her mother for having her. She hated being alive so much that three days after telling me the horrors she endured she went in to the bathroom and slit her own wrist. Yet no one has advocate for children like her. People like me are rare because I actually know the problem exist.
Its not just about being born its also what kind life are you being born in to. Some kids who grew up in the system if given the choice would have rather never been born at all then to suffer the horrors they have had to endure. Yet Pro-Lifers don't care about those children. They don't matter to them. Very few people are advocating for them. The point is if you want to eliminate abortion fix welfare and child welfare system. Then we can come back and talk about eliminating abortion. Till then your only going to make the problem worse by elimination abortion.
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity?
2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does.
3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
Best articulation of the pro-life argument I've ever heard! Time to go on the intellectual offensive!
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity?
2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does.
3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
For those without any education perhaps.
The right to bodily autonomy is contingent on the right to life. The people arguing for abortion benefit from the fact their moms gave them their lives to have bodily autonomy to begin with. They do have it, too. But it ends when someone else's body begins. Their fetuses body is not their own. It may be within it, but it doesn't belong to them. It isn't their property.
"Bodily autonomy ends when someone else's body begins. Their mother's body is not their own. It may be around them, but it doesn't belong to them. It isn't their property."
Don't just look at one side of the coin. If you want to use bodily autonomy as a pro-life argument, you better have a damn good answer to this very simple perspective change.
@@Gargboss Babies aren't trying to kill the mothers. If babies were going to doctors and trying to have their "casing" removed because it causes them pain or they just don't want it around them, then pro life people would be saying "No baby, you can't have your mother killed, she is a person not a casing."
@@FH-cn3mg Your answer walked right into what I've critiziced about the original post and highlights it quite well: Bodily autonomy doesn't work as an argument for pro-life. Because one can't follow it to its logical end without running into an unsolveable conflict of interests. Your answer switches from the discussed bodily autonomy for everyone as the highest principle to something I would describe as "trying to pick the lesser of two evils". That's a different conversation. One that still should be had in my opinion! But it requires truth and honesty about the limits of ones own argument, not this "I claim argumentative superiority based on a principle" falsehood. Of course, this goes for both sides. Because bodily autonomy doesn't work as an argument for pro-choice as well! On this side it leads to the issues of determining when life and therefore bodily autonomy starts, since our current understanding of this process has blind spots which need to be answered first but aren't atm. The presentation touched on that, sadly it didn't explore all avenues.
This conversation about "the lesser of two evils" would be much more complex and have much more nuance. The results likely would be much more situational and wouldn't produce a simple answer like "fully illegal" or "fully legal until week X", which many people seem to crave on both sides of the discussion. But that's lazy at best and ignores the seriousness of the issue. Serious and complex problems need serious and complex answers, that should be obvious. Sadly, the discussion usually gets dragged down by an unwillingness to question ones believes, faulty arguments and the tendancy to fall into a rigid tribalism of us vs. them. Again: You can see this on both sides!
To refer more to your comment and give you a bit of an example of what I'm pointing at here: Yes, babies aren't trying to kill their mothers and in most cases the matter would be as clear as you've stated, I'm with you there!
But sometimes they still do, intention doesn't matter then. Following your argument, are you okay with abortion if the pregnancy would result in the mother's death? That already means you wouldn't be 100% anti-abortion, right? That's not a critique, but an observation.
Until here it's a comparatively simple situation, but real life isn't always simple and the potential results not as clear. What if pregnancy might cause the mother's death with a likelyhood of ~80%? Is it still okay then? What about 50%? Is 20% still okay? What if there a 1/3 chance mother and child live, 1/3 both die and 1/3 only the mother dies? What should be done then? It also raises the question: Who should have the power to decide in the end? The mother who will bear the full or at least partial consequences? Or the state, who could advocate for a baby that's unable to speak (or have) intentions at the time, but, in doing so, might obligate a women to die?
I hope I've got my point across and gave you, and/or any reader, some food for thought and reason to not shy away from the nuances of hard questions and not to fall into a tribalism that's so common with this topic but doesn't cover the scope of the issue.
The desire to want no desires is a desire, so self defeating.
you are correct
True. But they would still lack the desire to live, in theory, right?
@@ryanpowell9003 absolutely!
@@Lady_de_Lis existence is better than non existence so the desire not to live is self defeating.
@@williamprice1844
That sounds more like an assertion than a proof to me. Not everyone agrees that existence is better than non-existence. So that's not self evident. (I do agree that existence is better, but you can't deny that plenty of people disagree)
Excellent! I wish more pro-lifers including me had known about this (or know it from now on). Thank you for the presentation and for uploading this.
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity?
2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does.
3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
@@GangstaViolin I'm wondering if you watched the video or are just choosing to ignore its content. The video was discussing the definition of what it is to be human and how the pro-choice ignore that in favour of arbitrary "requirements" designed to deem those they already choose to kill as not being human. It is an attempt to make the immoral seem moral perhaps to lessen their own sense of guilt by fooling themselves that murder is not really murder.
I'm afraid your clever "You're welcome" is unfounded.
@@tomcha75 We don’t “ignore” anything. We prioritize CHOICE of pregnant women over some bloody embryos who think and feels less than a mosquitos. As should everybody.
It’s amazing how you Pro Death go moaning around about your mosquitos but eat dead animals every day. You filthy hipocrites.
Pd: humanizing mosquitos never helped decreasing nr of abortions.
I can't believe it! I have had a lot of the same thoughts as him, but he really explained it well! Also, something to note is that personhood is given by government. Corporations can be considered as persons and have rights because of it. Personhood is not equal to being human. That's why there were slaves to begin with. They didn't have rights like citizens did. They were human beings, but had no rights. Therefore they were property. Its sick to equate the value of life to personhood. Personhood can be taken away at any point by the government.
1. Abortion exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. If helping women is atrocious, then I’m proud of this atrocity.
2. Embryo is innocent? So are the animals you eat EVERY DAY (all of them smarter than a human embryo). Difference is that eating a steak you help nobody but your addiction (and damage environment).
Affirming that you can’t compare humans with animals is ridiculous. I mean, why can’t you? Is it forbidden?
3. Humanizing the embryo has never proved to be an effective strategy in order of decreasing nr of abortions, as recommending use of condoms would. So you’re basically NOT helping.
4. Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
I think the ripping the limbs off is so compelling, as it brings it to life the death and pain your causing
Por-choicers always talk about abortion as if the mother is simply denying care to the unborn. The way they describe it, you'd think the doctor was carefully taking the unborn out, setting them on a table, and saying "good luck, kid". They intentionally obscure the fact that abortionists actively kill the unborn by ripping them apart, cutting their spinal cords, or chemically poisoning them.
1. Abortion exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. If helping women is atrocious, then I’m proud of this atrocity.
2. Embryo is innocent? So are the animals you eat EVERY DAY (all of them smarter than a human embryo). Difference is that eating a steak you help nobody but your addiction (and damage environment).
Affirming that you can’t compare humans with animals is ridiculous. I mean, why can’t you? Is it forbidden?
3. Humanizing the embryo has never proved to be an effective strategy in order of decreasing nr of abortions, as recommending use of condoms would. So you’re basically NOT helping.
4. Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
@@GangstaViolin I am sorry but your response is laughable. Equating human life with animal life is an irrelevance from any moral standpoint. It is commonly accepted by modern civilization that cannibalism is wrong (whether from a religious or secular viewpoint), so in no way do we as a species equate human life with animal life (hence why we eat animals, we accept this mostly due to our evolution of diet over time). Prohibition of abortion is wrong, as a pro life I can say that, as there are some very specific instances when it is needed. But really what we as a global society, as a species, need to ask ourselves is this- Is it morally reprehensible to allow so many abortions (many late, many early), or should we 'grow up' and accept that with great power (ie the ability to create an innocent life), comes great responsibility. (just a quick side point, its becoming more commonly agreed that early foetus may even feel more pain than a late stage, due to the lack of pain inhibitory circuits, so even early stage is morally questionable).
The clarion call of pro choice is 'My body My choice', has its roots in 'do what ever I want and shove the consequences feminism'. This early feminism was born out of the liberation that the pill gave to womens sex life. I would life to think women and society at large has grown up a bit since then, but we seem to slipping into an even more narcissistic age. The 'My body My choice' tagline carries no consideration for the unborn child. This is reprehensible from the viewpoint of anyone with even an ounce of social conscience.
Now for anyone saying its not an 'unborn child' its 'an embryo', you are merely a pedant of language, I ask you what is a foetus if not an unborn child. In mathematics you can half a number to infinity, that's because the idea of an 'integer', ie 'one or the other' is a human intellectual concept, in the real world all is connected, so therefore there is no foetus-then a baby, no either/or, its always been one life growing. The idea that because a life is in a womb means that it is less valuable is as absurd as saying a person of 30 is less valuable than one aged 20 or 40. Or take an example of an investment account being viewed as worthless if its just been opened up and has not accrued much interest, if allowed to grow, its value will continue increasing unless you take your money out and throw it in the trash. A foetus is a life with potential not a 'potential life'. For those who don't get this last statement, you are being willfully ignorant. Life is precious and we demean everyone by pretending its expendable. We live in a consumerist culture, but do we really want to make our babies commodities to be dumped whenever we deem them inconvenient. My last point is this, no one has the right to say one life is less valuable than another, some of the most successful people in this world had tough upbringings or even complex disabilities (some suffered with disability, some developed it later on as a child or an adult, when it happened is irrelevant to their value as a human being). So I don't think you can justify termination from a sociological perspective either, or from a eugenics standpoint. ALL life is precious, everyone has a place in this world, everyone has the potential to contribute to the human race, and if you reduce the value of human life to a 'lifestyle accessory' only to be allowed to live if you have the perfect baby in the perfect house, you demean the entire human race, not least yourself.
@@jamesbyrne9312 On the end, your point of view is “animals are not humans so we can kill them as much as we want”
Exactly the same that Hitler thought about the Jewish.
“Equating human life with animal life is an irrelevance from any moral point of view”
Why?
“Because you can’t compare humans with animals”
But why?
“Because is laughable”
But WHY?
I mean, you have no reasonable argument, you’re just moving in circles.
2. I don’t see what cannibalism has to do with the fact that you kill UNNECESSARILY animals every day, but since you mention it:
The opinion that cannibalism is wrong is just silly. When I’ll die, I would prefer that my flesh would be used for feeding starving people rather than being wasted in some random cemetery.
Human flesh is nutritive and tastes as pork. There’s literally no reason for what we should waste it. Of course dead is a tragedy, but wasting human flesh does make tragedy even worse.
Farms are destroying the planet and almost 100% of humans can have a normal healthy life by eating meat once per month, so no, definitely you shouldn’t do it.
3. tell me an antiabortionist who mentions condoms in his speeches. ONE.
4. No one is more valuable than another? Ok, so people like Einstein, Musk or Martin Luther King are as valuable as Putin or Hitler, right?
Recheck your approach, dog. Seriously.
@@GangstaViolin you miss the essential point which is we are animals yes but it's impossible to stop us eating animals as it's part of our evolutionary diet, but we can stop killing our own. Is that so abhorrent to you? Why do you attempt to use the fact we kill animals as a justification to kill humans lol? You think I have cognitive dissonance, but yours is on another level dog. To address your other point, evaluating someone's worth is about valuing everyone's right to live and contribute. The ethics of evaluating people's contribution is not the same as valuing someone's right to be born and is an entirely different and unrelated debate. You just want to swerve the truth, it's what hard line pro choicers do all the time
God bless you and the work you do! 🙏🏻❤️
1. Abortion exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. If helping women is atrocious, then I’m proud of this atrocity.
2. Embryo is innocent? So are the animals you eat EVERY DAY (all of them smarter than a human embryo). Difference is that eating a steak you help nobody but your addiction (and damage environment).
Affirming that you can’t compare humans with animals is ridiculous. I mean, why can’t you? Is it forbidden?
3. Humanizing the embryo has never proved to be an effective strategy in order of decreasing nr of abortions, as recommending use of condoms would. So you’re basically NOT helping.
4. Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
Firstly: you advocates for the “poor woman” who wants to abort. Who advocates for the human inside her that also wants to live? No matter the circumstances of the fetuses conception it IS also a human being and has as much right to life as the woman who conceived it.
Secondly you cannot compare animals to humans. One reason being we have a moral code, animals do not (unless you know of any animal court/legal systems set up that I don’t) another reason being we are clearly the top of the food chain with a much higher intellectual than animals. These are just the facts. Now unless you’re advocating eating babies as well, your point of comparison makes absolutely no sense. You are upset that humans eat animals, yet you are perfectly fine with killing humans? What a backwards world we live in. Also eating animals is a source of protein which our body requires to live. This is not an addiction, it’s survival.
Thirdly, what desperate women might or might not do in an attempt to end the life of their baby is out of our control ultimately, but I sure as heck don’t want to be responsible for making the choice easier. There are so many other options available to these women that don’t involve murder. I hope they have the chance to educate themselves before resorting to the drastic option of killing. YOU are welcome.
Even in the womb, the vast majority will think heavy criminal charges should be pushed on a person who assaults a pregnant woman and the pregnancy is ended because of it. The clear distinction they want to make is that the morality is 100% dependent on the whim of the woman and nothing else.
Viability is dumb in the sense that the womb is literally the environment they are meant to exist for development at that stage. All humans are engineered to develop in the womb. This is like claiming they aren't viable right now because if I took them out of Earth's atmosphere and threw them into space, they would die. "You're not viable!"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣your lot needs to invest in dictionaries because you keep confusing the meaning of words. According to the Oxford Dictionary, viability in terms of medicine means “(of a fetus or unborn child) able to live after birth.” Please invest in an education.
@@stephaniezank7717 Perhaps rub your two neurons together to grasp what I wrote before responding.
A human at that stage is meant to exist within that environment. It doesn't matter what medical terms mean, as they describe something as "dead" when everyone else does not (as it's purely based on their capacity to save something and not the biological fact of the matter).
No human has ever come into existence who didn't have that dependency. Similar to how you need atmospheric pressure, proper temperature, and oxygen to survive. Removing you or the unborn children from the environment they are literally designed to life in does not determine viability.
@@joelt2002 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣I absolutely love that and will make it into a t-shirt, “it doesn’t matter what medical terms mean.” 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 So your foot bone is connected to your ear drum and your mouth is connected to your large bowel…. I suppose that explains why you’re talking the proverbial. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣it seems as though the whole argument has gone over your head. It has nothing to do with human value but everything to do with bodily autonomy and rejecting fascism.
Humans have the inalienable right to bodily autonomy. If this right is removed then those who you remove it from are reduced to mere slaves. Slavery is based on removing this right and is the slippery slope toward creating inequality and dividing people based on a politician’s arbitrary opinion. It is the slippery slope that will allow someone else to decide what happens to another’s body, in their eyes an unworthy body. A body belonging to humans that are troublesome. The Nazis dealt with this with the Holocaust.
The Nazis and Hitler, a devout Christian with the backing of the Vatican sort to develop their “superior race” through eugenics. They incarcerated white, blonde and blue eyed women in hotels and had Nazi officers impregnate these unwilling women. Forced pregnancy is recognised internationally as a crime. Forced pregnancy creates a division based on race because the removal of access to safe abortions impacts largely the black community. This results in black women being twice as likely to die or suffer permanent disability. This results in black families with greater debt due to medical expenses etc. This is racial discrimination. This is eugenics. This is fascism.
That! Was Excellent!! That is the whole of the issue at hand. Who can say who is better or more superior, or has more rights? No one!! We are all equal!! Well done!!
Pro-Choice, "We want to be God" and we'll decide who gets to exist and who doesn't. Pro-Life, "We're not God".
It's impossible to tell if the unborn have a consciousness, you would have to be able to read their thoughts. Even the moment the child is born we cannot read their thoughts, what we see an infant could just be involuntary responses to outside stimuli or current state. I personally believe in my opinion that a child is conscious in the womb. I don't believe their longterm memory is active, but they could be conscious.
Dehumanizing is a precursor for genocide and slavery, in this case It's genocide. Abortion is a highly illogical position to support. Potential life experiences outweigh their need to escape consequences for actions they made. Of course it's hard to debate the topic when it was legalized, and also the minority of abortions; such as rape, are used as ammunition against pro-life advocates.
I spoke to a pro choice mother one time who used the rape argument so I asked her if she had kids and were they from a consensual relationship. She had 2 kids whom she loved with her husband, so I asked her what if her children today were product of a rape instead of consensual encounters, would she abort them knowing now who they grow up to be. Of course she replies "no". This is the problem, God has an amazing ability to take the most busted situations and bring out of that situation the potential for a something great. When we take that opportunity away from God, we take something spectacular from ourselves as well, a blessing brought forth from tragedy.
Yep, in 6th grade I had the honor of meeting a guy at my church who was a product of rape. In most cases of rape, the womans body rejects the seed due to stress and overall rejection of what’s happening. Not all the time tho,
Anyway, his mother almost aborted him, but chose not to. Hearing his testimony was absolutely amazing. He thrives now through Christ. Just the thought of ending potential LIFE of a human being is beyond me.
@@shleeep74 That's a great testimony
We know when they have the ability to respond in a non-reactive manner like ants... its 20-22w. That's when the brain is formed well enough.
@@nickgiglio7109 Non reactive manners are also indicative of head trauma in adolescents and adults, this wouldn't answer the consciousness debate. Correlation doesn't indicate causation.
@@countdowntomidnight692 No, lack of brain formation and inability to have activity due to lack of development is the causation...
That was easy. We don't know everything but we know a lot and we do know this.
Thanks for all the hate, blaming, and damning for protecting life at its most vulnerable stage. Only a fool or a psychotic would consider someone else's body to be their own body. “You are a human being at conception; your abilities and utility do not make you human; however, if they did, then there would be no equality, universality, or equal rights, but only ratings based on independence and social utility.” -Kevin Everett FitzMaurice
yea thats shitty, the fetus is in the womens womb and is feeding off her body so yea it is their body......tf ARE YOU ON?
Are you quoting yourself, man?
@@Aerxis “Any writer who is afraid to quote themselves should also be afraid to write.” -Kevin Everett FitzMaurice
@@KevinFitzMauriceEverett 1. Abortion exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. If helping women is atrocious, then I’m proud of this atrocity.
2. Embryo is innocent? So are the animals you eat EVERY DAY (all of them smarter than a human embryo). Difference is that eating a steak you help nobody but your addiction (and damage environment).
Affirming that you can’t compare humans with animals is ridiculous. I mean, why can’t you? Is it forbidden?
3. Humanizing the embryo has never proved to be an effective strategy in order of decreasing nr of abortions, as recommending use of condoms would. So you’re basically NOT helping.
4. Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
@@KevinFitzMauriceEverett "I admire your confidence" -Aerxis.
I'm a pro choicer but I like this video a lot. Love the systematic approach, the fact that Seth actually responds to some common pro-choice arguments, the ability to imagine hypothetical situations, and the flare.
To cut to the chase, my worldview is primarily based on the ability to suffer. (I'm drawing a distinction between suffering and feeling pain. For example, by the definitions I'm using, someone who enjoys pain doesn't suffer while experiencing it. Someone only suffers when they're experiencing something they consider to be undesirable.)
To respond to Seth's points one by one:
*Self awareness*
Self awareness is independent of the ability to suffer, so I'd agree that it's irrelevant for determining moral worth. Take a pet, for example. I think it would be wrong to chop off the paws of your cat, regardless of whether the cat is self aware.
*Consciousness*
Depending on how you define consciousness, I may consider it relevant for moral consideration. For example, if you define consciousness as a prerequisite for suffering (which I would), then I'd say a being without consciousness has no moral worth. However, if you define consciousness in such a way that it's not a prerequisite for suffering, then I'd say a being without consciousness may or may not have moral worth (depending on whether it can suffer).
*Loved ones in a coma*
Even if someone in a coma wouldn't suffer while being killed, it could very possibly cause collateral suffering, e.g. by the family. That would be especially true if someone slit the throat of the coma patient without the family's knowledge, and the family found out later. That would be wrong because of the suffering it would cause to the family/friends, not because of what the coma patient experienced or didn't experience while being killed. The end result is not the same as the family deciding to pull the plug, since slitting the throat causes more suffering.
*Desires*
The way I see it, desires and suffering are different ways of talking about the same thing. For example, experiencing what is desired would be an example of enjoyment, while experiencing what is actively not desired would be an example of suffering. If a being is capable of experiencing what it considers to be undesirable, then I consider that being to have moral worth.
*Suicidal individuals*
The same considerations of collateral suffering apply here. Even if someone would rather die, that doesn't mean that the people who know them wouldn't suffer. If you take it to the extreme and imagine a suicidal individual who doesn't know anyone else and whose death would cause no suffering, even by the murderer or the victim, then morally speaking I don't consider that to be wrong. (However, legally speaking, I'd say the murderer should still be punished the same way they would be for any other murder, unless the death was consensual.)
*Buddhists*
Same as above. If a Buddhist sincerely doesn't care what happens to them, and wouldn't suffer in any conceivable situation, then I wouldn't consider them to have moral worth. However, I'm not sure if I'm understanding nirvana quite right. Also, anyone who knows the Buddhist would most likely be capable of suffering, in which case it would be wrong to harm the Buddhist in that situation as well.
*Ability to feel pain*
Without being able to communicate with a fetus, I think this is a good proxy for suffering. Therefore, if what Seth says is true, I'd put the cutoff for the permissibility of abortions to be somewhere between 7 and 18 weeks.
*Killing people who can't feel pain*
Someone who can't feel pain can still suffer massively. Also, the collateral suffering idea applies again here.
*Viability*
I agree that viability is irrelevant for determining moral worth, since viable and inviable beings are both capable of suffering.
*Doctor-assisted euthanasia*
If the death would cause no suffering by any parties (the person being killed, the family/friends, the doctor, anyone else who knows the person, maybe even considering the person's pets), but instead would alleviate suffering, then I wouldn't consider it to be morally wrong.
*Why the ability to suffer determines moral worth*
The ability to suffer determines moral worth because, by definition, anything that's incapable of suffering is incapable of experiencing events that it considers to be undesirable. Like a pillow. And anything that _is_ capable of suffering is capable of experiencing events that it _does_ consider to be undesirable, and would rather avoid.
I consider a moral transgression to be a situation where one being causes another being to experience an event that the second being would rather avoid, while the first being is aware that the second being would rather avoid it, and assuming that the situation itself could have been avoided.
*Why the ability to play violin does not determine moral worth*
Because people who don't play the violin can still suffer.
*Slavery*
Totally agree here, that was a great description of why skin color is irrelevant for determining moral worth.
*Intellect*
Also a great description of why intelligence is irrelevant for determining moral worth.
I'd also have some questions for Seth:
1. What about being a human grants someone moral worth?
2. Do dogs have moral worth? Why or why not?
3. Is it ever morally justifiable for a family to pull the plug on their coma grandparent? If so, why?
4. Imagine someone who's doomed to suffer massively, let's say a POW who will be waterboarded/shocked/cut/whipped all day every day for the rest of their life. If you're aware that that person would rather die, is it morally justifiable to kill that person? If so, why?
Although i do not necessarily agree with all the points made I do think that it highlights inconsistencies in the positions many pro choice people hold. As for the points you brought up I found what I think is a pretty clear inconsistency in your argument about collateral suffering even in the cases where the victim can't suffer under the circumstances. In the case of an abortion would the collateral suffering of a father who does not want their son/daughter to be murdered not count, and if that's the case then why not? Obviously someone who is pro choice would say that it's a woman's body, but for people who are pro life it's about the life of the baby being taken that is morally unjustifiable. If a grieving father who had just lost his unborn child had the option of having that baby grown to full term outside of the mother's womb rather than being aborted I'm certain they would have.
Also, a side question out of curiosity. Hypothetically if you went back in time 4.5 billion years and stood on the earth do you not find any moral issue with killing the first living organisms that would eventually lead to all complex life including your own? These cells were not capable of pain or consciousness yet it would prevent all of the life that we now know from forming. Taking that same idea to abortion you can see where I'm going with this. A single cell in some woman's womb is unable to think or feel pain but once upon a time that single cell was you, me and everyone else who has ever lived or will ever be. Life is not limited to this single frame of time. Life that will be in the future is predicated on what we do now which is why I also think it's important to take care of the earth for future generations....but how can a pro choice person also advocate for leaving the earth better off for future generations if they can't consider the future of an unborn child as it pertains to them.
@@cosmossci4883 This is great, love these questions!
*would the collateral suffering of a father who does not want their son/daughter to be murdered not count*
The father's suffering would count, and the mother's would too. (This is a great callout. In my original post I was assuming that all parties agreed.) In the situation where the mother would suffer by not having an abortion, and the father would suffer if the mother did have an abortion, this turns into a version of the trolly problem, since suffering is guaranteed somewhere in the equation. I would consider it to be the parents' responsibility to work it out between themselves, and if they can't agree then I would default to the mother's side because she's the one who's _more likely_ to experience more suffering. I say that mainly because of what she would experience during pregnancy, not only the physical suffering that comes with it but also the emotional suffering of being forced to carry the baby to term. If it was somehow theoretically possible to determine (on a case-by-case basis) that the father is the one who would experience more suffering, even considering the mother's trauma, then I would side with the father in that case.
*killing the first living organisms*
This is a spectacular question. To give a straight answer, no, I wouldn't say it would be wrong to kill the first living organism.... But I'm not very confident on that one lol. The reason I answer that way though is because I think the alternative is an extremely slippery slope. That is, if life is better than non-life, then everyone would have a moral obligation to get someone pregnant or be pregnant at all times, rape would be morally permissible, forced artificial insemination would be morally permissible, etc., which I would disagree with. Do you know of a solution to this?
*how can a pro choice person also advocate for leaving the earth better off for future generations*
By realizing that their actions have consequences on the suffering of future generations. I'm not sure I followed your point exactly on this one?
@@gotatochigs314 Sorry for thr late reply I recently had a newborn son and juggling everything with my sleep and sanity has been difficult lol.
I agree mostly with your take on my first question where I think as it pertains to pregnacy, not necessarily abortion, the woman is more likely to suffer. I think a lot of abortions happen without the fathers knowing and so their suffering is not known in those cases and moreover while this certainly isn't always the case I think the fact that women who are having abortions agree to them means they're less likely to suffer than a man who is in disagreement. In the case where both parties agree I think it is probably the woman who is more likely to suffer simply because at the very least she has to undergo the process. Now don't get me wrong I don't really think that a man's suffering for having his child aborted should be the considering factor for why they should be mostly avoided. I think it's because that is a human life regardless of someone feelings towards it.
I don't agree with your reasoning behind the first living organism question however. Not killing the first living organism would not necessarily entail that someone would have to hold such a string inclination towards life that they would find having children morally obligatory or find rape permissible. Simply allowing life to exist is not the same as forcing it to exist or being obligated to make it. In the case of having a baby no one is forced to have sex and create a life but if they do have unprotected sex and a life is made at that point they should in my opinion allow it to exist. They're not even necessarily obligated to care for it there are plenty of people who would love to have babies that can't and they would care for it. There are edge cases where people use protection and they still get pregnant but again in those cases despite their efforts I think it's still wrong in my opinion to kill an innocent human life. It should be stressed though that a lot of people claim to have had children while using protection but the percentages of cases where that should happen when actually using protection the correct way are very small and especially if you double up with a pill and condom but the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of women who will take the pill irregularly and then claim that they got pregnant when using protection which is not entirely accurate.
My point on the whole pro choice people meshing with climate change issue is that in order to extrapolate into the future and project suffering onto potential people hundreds or thousands of years from now you should also be able to see where a pro life person is coming from by taking an already living being and extrapolate into the future to their being, desires, emotions, and suffering. I think doing one and not the other is a bit like picking a choosing based on what suits you rather than being consistent...and I'm not saying "you" here as in I'm saying you are this way but moreso rather as in whoever may try to hold those two positions in their head simultaneously.
Just to be entirely fair here also I will give my answers to questions that you asked in your initial post despite them not being asked to me. You can possibly find flaws in my responses or those that I have already stated in which case I'm always open to changing my mind should an argument be good enough to sway me. I like to think that I'm fairly consistent in my views.
1. I think that by being human you are not necessarily the pinnacle of life (some humans are far from it), but I think you have great potential innately granted to you by virtue of just being human. Some people use their life for what I consider to be wrong, but as it pertains to abortion I think a baby is an innocent clean slate. Plus I think most people tend to be neutral at the least if not good leaning. So I don't necessarily think that every human life has the same value, but that is because of our choices as we age which I think lower or raise our value.
2. I think dogs have moral worth. I think that all life should be considered to have some moral value although it varies depending on which. I don't think you would think that an average dog's life should be considered above that of an average humans life, and neither would I. However I think that dogs get more moral consideration due to the fact that humans and dogs can bond and as a result humans can give the dog more moral worth than it would necessarily intrinsically have without that bond. Also the fact that dogs are clearly capable of some level of emotion gives them more moral consideration than a frog for example.
3. Yes, I think it can be if there is no foreseeable future in which that person will ever wake or be anything more than braindead, and especially so if this is the case along with them not pulling the plug causing more suffering for the family.
4. Yes, I think it's morally justifiable to kill someone who is suffering immensely that would rather not live than to continue to suffer. The better question would be is it a moral obligation to kill them to put them out of that misery even if killing makes you suffer as well. That's a difficult question to answer. I personally think I could bring myself to end someone's suffering if I knew that the alternative was worse. I'd rather suffer with the thought that I killed someone than knowing that they would have suffered severely had I not done it, and this is especially the case if they were basically guarenteed to die as a result of their suffering anyways.
@@cosmossci4883
*Not killing the first living organism would not necessarily entail that someone would have to hold such a string inclination*
Ah yep that all makes total sense. Somehow I didn't realize the step that I jumped over to get there. I'm still having some trouble though:
If we accept that killing the first living organism would be morally wrong, and we accept that the reason it's wrong is that it prevents future flourishing, then isn't it also wrong to pull weeds from your back yard? (Let's assume the weeds are growing among stones and wouldn't cause any other organisms to die if they were left alone.) The weeds may not have great potential during their own lifetime, but neither did the first living organisms. Also, the weeds have as much potential to evolve as the first living organisms did, meaning you're preventing some future flourishing, even if you're not preventing _all_ future flourishing. If the idea is that it's ok to kill the weeds and prevent some future flourishing, as long as other life forms persist, then morally speaking wouldn't it be ok to abort an early-stage human cell cluster? And if the idea is that the only reason it's morally wrong to abort that cell cluster is because of the potential it has during its own lifetime, then aren't we back to square one where it's morally ok kill the first living organisms?
Lemme reorganize all of that into these couple blocks:
* It's wrong to kill the first living organism because it prevents _all_ future flourishing
* It's not wrong to pull weeds from your back yard because it does not prevent all future flourishing
* It's not wrong to abort a human cell cluster because it does not prevent all future flourishing
* It's wrong to kill the first living organism because it prevents _some_ future flourishing
* It's wrong to abort a human cell cluster because it prevents some future flourishing
* It's wrong to pull weeds from your back yard because it prevents some future flourishing
The way I'm seeing it, that means the analogy between a human cell cluster and the first living organism breaks down because the reasons for why it's wrong to kill them are different:
* It's wrong to kill the first living organism because it prevents all future flourishing
* It's wrong to kill a human cell cluster because of the potential it has during its own lifetime
That's all I've got time for right now, will respond to your other points soon!
Oh Lord let these words be heard and save these children.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣you means these words from your god.
“Hosea 13:16
16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.” That’s mass abortion.
🤣🤣🤣🤣😅oh you mean these words from your god.
“Hosea 13:16
16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.” That’s mass abortion.
Yes. I agree with every point, but there's one he forgot. You can't reason with those who seek power & control by any means necessary. They have no soul.
Thanks for calling everybody that doesn't agree with you soulless. Seems like a good point to start a discussion
@@Controvi Well, when they discredit life of a child. They are soulless.
@@gammaphoenix5893 that's already more nuanced then your first statement.
Writing off anybody that decides to go for abortion as "soulless" shows a lack of understanding.
Sure sometimes people just decide to fuck around and abort whenever they get pregnant but there are cases that parents take a very difficult decision to do an abortion because of certain situations.
Context is really really important in these situations and there is no black and white that catches all situations.
@@Controvi Lack of understanding. Bruh they are okay with killing a child. Shut up. No one should be able to kill a child Willy nilly.
@@Controvi yeah but using that example shows that they’re taking a life out of inconvenience right?
I love all of these arguments. I just wish while in a conversation I could articulate these points as well.
So everything he said was irrelevant. The truth is that Roe versus Wade is a pillar of the constitution because it cements people’s right to privacy. That is the fundamental argument of this US Supreme Court decision. So by removing Roe versus Wade, it’s like removing a card from the middle of a house of cards, the rest of the rights fall down. By removing the right to privacy for women means that not everyone is equal under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. To remedy that all citizens will lose their right to privacy. So, your phone calls can be monitored, your internet searches, what food you eat, what insurance you pay, etc., etc. In fact health insurance companies will be able to see just how much you earn, what you spend your money on including cigarettes and alcohol and unhealthy food then adjust your insurance accordingly. Oh, you’re on a slippery slope.
1) Human atrocities have no reason to be. Abortion instead, exists for helping pregnant women who want to abort. Helping is an atrocity?
2) Statistics prove that humanizing the embryo doesn’t decrease nr of abortions, recommending use of condoms does.
3) Prohibition of abortion increases nr of illegal abortion clinics where pregnant women die every day, so “Pro Life” means actually “Pro Death”.
You’re welcome.
I was a miracle baby. Born 2 & 1/2 months early, docs said I wouldn't live over a day. I had my small intestines all jumbled up, and lung issues up the wazoo. My church ceaslessessly prayed for my life, I had many surgeries and medical life support, and God chose to give me life. I just had my 23rd birthday. I can't help but think if I was conceived 10-20 years later by a mother who was raised by the new culture- I would've been killed in the womb for the mother's convienence - one of the 63,000,000.
The problem with this takedown is that the pro-murder crowd always base their positions and arguments on convenience and not principles.
You can’t argue with intent. If someone's intent is murder, there’s nothing that will stop it. You could destroy what ever excuse is used to justify it, it doesn’t change the fact that murder is what they want to commit. Same goes for this. They don’t care that it’s disgusting, barbaric or immoral, they want to be able to do it and they’re going to regardless.
So everything he said was irrelevant. The truth is that Roe versus Wade is a pillar of the constitution because it cements people’s right to privacy. That is the fundamental argument of this US Supreme Court decision. So by removing Roe versus Wade, it’s like removing a card from the middle of a house of cards, the rest of the rights fall down. By removing the right to privacy for women means that not everyone is equal under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. To remedy that all citizens will lose their right to privacy. So, your phone calls can be monitored, your internet searches, what food you eat, what insurance you pay, etc., etc. In fact health insurance companies will be able to see just how much you earn, what you spend your money on including cigarettes and alcohol and unhealthy food then adjust your insurance accordingly. Oh, you’re on a slippery slope.
RIP roe v wade you wont be missed
Since Roe was overturned, every state that has had abortion rights on the ballot has won. And it looks like 2024 election will be heavily determined on the future of abortion rights. Do you support Project 2025?
More like RIH, not RIP
It causes me unimaginable horror that a woman will kill her own child for convenience! So she can have sex without inconvenient consequence, so she can satiate a carnal, lustful desire! How low have we fallen? How heartless has human kind become? How selfish, how godless!? People with a conscience, take care. If we do not stand up for right, we will be forced to suffer the consequences along with the wicked. Where has my country gone? 🥺
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣hi deluded Debbie, Your god didn’t care about fetuses. There are numerous passages in which he asks for pregnant women’s bellies to be cut open. Why? To ensure the fetus also dies immediately. “Hosea 13:16
16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.” That’s mass abortion. Then there’s the passage where your god describes how the abortion process is carried out. “Numbers 5:22
May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
So any argument based on religion is rubbish.
”Some 2,200 infants died in Texas in 2022 - an increase of 227 deaths, or 11.5%, over the previous year, according to preliminary infant mortality data from the Texas Department of State Health Services that CNN obtained through a public records request. Infant deaths caused by severe genetic and birth defects rose by 21.6%. That spike reversed a nearly decade-long decline. Between 2014 and 2021, infant deaths had fallen by nearly 15%.” So it’s pretty obvious the source of this information.
“We found that maternal death rates were 62 percent higher in 2020 in abortion-restriction states than in abortion-access states.” Commonwealth Fund
You can also look up all the research papers to discover that removing access to safe abortions has a profoundly negative effect. From higher death rates for women and infants, to higher levels of poverty and food hunger, to higher levels of crime, to higher levels of domestic abuse including sexual violence, to lower educational achievements, to lower living standards, etc., etc.,. That is why internationally access to safe abortions is a human right. Whereas, forced pregnancy, which means not allowing the woman to make choices about her body and her reproductive rights, is a crime. But then again America is becoming the land of the Christian ISIS.
Nailed it , first dehumanizing them them take away their basic human rights , been happening in all nation since man has exised
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣you mean like religious and right wing people do to people of the LGBTQI community? Or the way black people have been treated? Or the way women are treated?
No one is dehumanising fetuses. Using correct terminology instead of emotive words that actually aren’t correct is simply understanding English.
So a woman has a right to kill her baby, but how does she transfer that right to a doctor so he can kill a baby? It's not in his body, he can't say my body my choice. He is simple doing a murder for hire. Just something to ponder.
Excellent point
Valuing life is critical regardless of belief or doctrine, we must fight for the babies that aren't given a chance to fight for themselves
There is nothing magical about a sperm that contacts an egg.
@@MrTheclevercat Except the fact that a new human, with a new DNA which will never exist ever again, has just happened. If you can't find the miracle in that, then you are likely a monster with a questionable moral code.
Here.... you want to hear a magic belief held by pro-choicers?.....
It's a widely known fact that when a mother is in labor, a magical invisible fairy arrives, waves her wand, Presto!, the baby is suddenly human.
🧚♀🤰👼
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
valuing life is important but understanding there are circumstances where that value of life can be reasonably overlooked is also important.
@@backup3142 If you have ANY mitigating excuse to overlook an innocent life, then you have questionable morals.
@@backup3142 whatever you need to tell yourself with the exception of rape and incest which is a small percentage the majority of abortions are about irresponsible people trying to not be accountable and if they can't care for the child then give it up for adoption so no.....with all respect be quiet there is no pro abortion argument oh and yea there's only 2 genders too
The first thing for all of us who believe in Life to do is to STOP using the term Pro - Choice. We must always use the Correct term. PRO ABORTION/ ABORT !
Words have meaning ! We must take the arguments to them and be on verbal offense ( never physical, or violent) never be on defense. The Pro Abort is a master at using words to distract from the truth, and control the discourse putting us on defense. So be respectful but control the argument.
Except the truth is your ignorant of how everything works. You think that eliminating abortion is going to be good thing for those children. There are 600 thousand abortions a year. Now what do you think is going to happen to most of those children if you eliminate abortion? I'll tell you what will happen to them. They will end up in the child welfare system. Now you have hundreds of thousand of children in the system and not enough couples adopting. So now you have all these children in a system that isn't equipped to handling that many children as there not enough homes for all those children. Group homes will be over run with kids that really don't need to be in group homes. Then kids with mental health issue will end up in mental intuitions because its the only place they can get any help.
Let's not ignore the bigger elephant in the room. 38% of children in the system are abused in some way or another and that is just based on the numbers we know of. That number is more likely 45 to 60%. That number will skyrocket if you suddenly eliminate abortion. Because the child welfare system will relax its standards even more and more bad foster parents will get through. You won't have enough cases works to handle the amount of children that will suddenly flood in to the system. A system that as of right now is utterly broken and overwhelmed as is.
Even if you can convince those women to keep the child most of them will turn to welfare to make it. The welfare system is basically a form of slavery and does more harm then actually good not only for single mothers but for society as well. Why because we as tax payers have to pay for it. That system keeps single mothers dependent on the state instead of helping them get to a point were they don't need the state and can do it on their own. Don't forget that a lot of those children will also end up back in the system for various reasons.
You want to eliminate abortion then first fix the welfare and child welfare system first then we can talk about eliminating abortion. To do other wise is going to only make things worse then it all ready are. But he guess the child all ready born don't really matter which is why I feel pro-lifers are all hypocrites.
Not all pro-choice advocates are pro-abortion. You don't understand the position. You probably don't understand much at all.
@@avishevin1976
pro
preposition
: in favor of : FOR
Choice = Abortion.
Unless you are not grasping in this context what the Pro Aborts choice is.
Just Saying.
Or what are you implying ? because You can't be both.
You may define the circumstances you use to decide when it's ok to kill the baby .( example of not it after 20 weeks ) but the position is still For.
Only those who are against it with No Exception are actually Pro - Life.
IMHO there is No such thing as the exception to save life of the mother. Removing the baby and trying to save it ( ship to NIC unit if posible) and the mother at the same time. Is not the Same thing as taking the Extra step of intentionally killing the baby.
Sad people do not understand this important distinction.
Doing something morale and with all good intentions may result in negative side effect of the death of the baby . But it's is not the same thing as killing the baby as the intent.
@@johnpeters3389
You write a lot. You could have just written "I don't understand". We know that already, but it would save you time.
@@avishevin1976 LOL try reading a book or two. True my spelling and grammar is awful but I can read and understand. And yes I'm not very good at debating unlike you whom from your comment are surely a Master Debater..
This explication blew we away. Great work!
I’m not a fan of his presentational style, but he hit every point in a timely manner.
And got it all so very wrong!