Amazing video! Used to think that the FLO argument was good. Read a paper revisiting the argument later that absolutely destroyed it. Great video like always!
38:38 you spend the second half of the video just equating not helping a dying being from lasting longer - to stopping an inevitable future when action is not taken, which is not the same.
So I do have to make it clear. We don’t as Christian’s believe “better off” because we don’t murder ( taking another innocent life of a human) is because a demand from God. ( this is theological) But even if! You will send someone to a better place you don’t have this right. It would still be wrong based off your act that took the life you had no right to take. But this is a good break down
loved the video. very brilliant. a do have a few thoughts on those objections often made by those who are in favor of permitting abortions. one is that, “well you never care about the child outside the womb, especially with regards to school lunches and school and healthcare for children”. while this is true, this fact is not a defeater for their intuitions or seemings with fetuses and whether or how they matter. it would seem to instead imply that, because they care so much about fetuses, they should extend their care to children, and maybe adults. another is that, “you only seem to want to control woman’s bodies, and not to merely protect those pregnancies”. this is related to the other for-permitting-abortion objection to the prohibiting-abortion view. they might be so heavily focused on woman and their actions given they probably have more deontological beliefs about the nature of killing and of letting die. to them, it may not be impermissible to not care or to not benefit others, but to them it may be impermissible to intentionally kill. also, was curious if you’ve covered, ‘if abortion, then infanticide’? if so, or even if not, what do you think of it?
Do you mean "if abortion is permissible then infanticide should be permissible"? This is a criticism of theories (like Mary Ann Warren's) that focus entirely on the intrinsic properties of the fetus (and later baby). Thomson (and by extension, Boonin), of course, has an easy response because she defends abortion on the grounds that the mother has the right to deny the use of her body to the fetus, which is irrelevant once the baby is born. But of course, Thomson doesn't go far enough for some pro-choicers, and this would become more of an issue if artificial wombs ever became workable.
@@SimonCushing That's the thing, though: The bodily autonomy argument isn't as convincing as the personhood argument. After all, it's entirely plausible to argue in favor of very narrow exceptions to the bodily autonomy principle when the stakes are sufficiently high. Mandatory vaccines and mandatory Vasalgel injections for males come to mind. One can argue that not only was the fetus's need to use your body reasonably foreseeable, but also the fact that you would literally be the only person in the world who can help the fetus out by letting them use your body for its nourishment was also reasonably foreseeable (unlike, say, in the kidney stabbing example or whatever). The fact that we have strict liability in regards to child support for males after sexual intercourse doesn't help matters either. A male could take all reasonably precautions short of surgical castration and if they all fail, he's still on the hook for up to 18+ years' worth of child support. This is true even if his female sexual partner(s) promised abortion and/or adoption and lied or changed their minds in regards to this later on.
@@SimonCushing J. J. Thomson argues that rape victims are blameworthy for their pregnancies based on the responsibility argument because they never left their houses without a white knight or whatever, but I would suspect that most people would find this argument unconvincing. After all, when it comes to child support, many people--albeit probably not the law, quite unfortunately and tragically--would probably make a distinction between a man who was drugged and raped and got a woman pregnant that way vs. a man who had consensual sex with a woman and got her pregnant that way. When it would come to child support, I would suspect that many people would say that the man in the former scenario should be much less blameworthy than the man in the latter scenario, even though the man in the former scenario could have also taken additional precautions, such as not leaving his house without a white knight or getting sterilized beforehand or, in the future, getting a Vasalgel injection beforehand.
This is a horrible critique in my view. 7:54 You propose that Christians either all or the majority hold you divine command theory, where someone is only wrong because God says so. This is not the view most christians hold, more would hold to a view of inherent value or a type of natural law theory. 9:18 multiple things can make killing wrong. You can say you’ve robbed someone of their remaining life (which doesn’t have to imply death is inherently bad, only that life is a good), you can cause them severe pain based on how you killed them, you violate their rights, or that it’s an act driven by the vice of malice. 14:58 a sperm and egg are not human organisms, they are gametes. The zygote will develop into a human because it has all the parts to, hence why it’s a stage of human development whereas sperm/eggs aren’t. It is because the zygote is it’s own organism that will naturally develop that it has a FLO. 16:56 Well, believe it, doesn’t matter if it’s “too weird and metaphysical”, as long as the argument is sound. 18:36 a future is the experiences an organism will have should you not prematurely stop their development. 19:46 In this brain stem hypothetical, you are either brain dead (in which case your body will start to decay in a few days) or you are in a chronic vegetative state. But people have been known to come out of these states, and even still posses consciousness while being unresponsive (it’s called covert consciousness, measured via fMRI). So you still can be argued to have a future. 21:27 yes, jfk had a future, had the gunman not killed him, he would have continued his natural life. (Pt 1)
23:31 the possible world argument makes sense, it’s why we would consider it immoral when a mother drinks during pregnancy and it causes fetal alcohol syndrome, or if during a botched abortion the fetal limbs are destroyed and the child is born without an arm or leg. It may be weird to think we can wrong someone before they are conscious, but the argument seems sound. 24:21 you still performed an action with the intention to kill and were successful. Again, killing can be wrong for multiple reasons. 26:58 same response. 29:00 how is that a bad argument? He’s saying his moral system takes more goods into account than just FLO. That seems perfectly sensible and something a normal person does. 31:06 the act of killing is itself the depriving, it happens at that instant, not after. 34:08 if you need to abort some of the fetus so the other ones can be healthy, maybe just don’t implant so many. And if the mother’s health is the fear, either work towards finding a viable way to freeze the eggs or just let them know the risk of going through the extraction process multiple times and let them decide if it’s worth it. Adoption is an option if the child not being yours biologically isn’t an issue. 35:39 they still have a future because they still can develop if their development wasn’t put on pause. And you could keep them on ice until another person comes along and decides to adopt them via surrogacy (which we know can stay frozen and healthy for decades since this has happened). 37:01 yes, you can still have a future even if your development is dependent on a woman. We don’t say newborns don’t have future just because their growth is dependent on the parents protection and nourishment, nor the disabled because they may require technological assistance. (Pt 2)
38:35 we can already do this in mice by taking a skin cell, turning it into an iPSC, and then combining it with some other cells to make a viable blastocyst. But the skin cell themselves doesn’t have the developmental capacity till after the combination, so it has the same moral status as the sperm and egg. 40:03 you could still say fetuses have a FLO because their development is currently in progress and the only way to stop development is to destroy the fetus since removing it surgically isn’t an option. 43:05 the argument isn’t that you can’t refuse to help someone live, the argument is that you can’t kill them. There is no ‘opt out’ of pregnancy other than by destroying the fetus, and if it’s a person, then it’s not a moral option. 43:53 again, sperm and eggs don’t have the developmental capacities that a zygote has, so it doesn’t have the FLO until after they combine. 47:29 I may not be able to point to the exact moment the sperm and egg become a zygote, but I do know that when the two don’t meet, there’s no developmental capacity, and when they unite, there is. 48:35 no it doesn’t have a future in the same way. 49:55 I’d need to know more of the science behind the log to make an ethical judgement. It could either be a similar case to the cloning process or embryonic development, and both have different ethical status. 52:52 The fact that the guy has the parts doesn’t matter unless you want to argue that means they aren’t ‘really unconscious’. If it were the case that they had brain damage and their brain needs to rewire or redevelop itself for consciousness to come back, we still wouldn’t think it’s ok to kill them just because they temporarily disabled. In that current state, neither have conscious experience, so what applies to one will apply to the other. (Pt 3, fin)
Read the whole thing. This terrible critique is the reason Don Marquis revised his argument once. Great counter arguments to this guy's terrible critique so I don't have to
Your misrepresentation of the pro life position is astounding. We don’t value just being human. We value human and alive, a unique separate human organism. Not a cancer cell that would be human cells and an extension of one’s self not an organism. Also, many pro life arguments are from a secular stance for you to assert that we come from a religious perspective is a misconception. I cannot watch further past this as you lost credibility for me. Flo puts the burden of justification onto the pro choicers it cannot stand on its own however can be coupled with another grounded argument like parental obligation.
Such an underrated channel
This is such a great video I’m surprised he doesn’t get way more views
SPREAD THE WORD!!!
Amazing video! Used to think that the FLO argument was good. Read a paper revisiting the argument later that absolutely destroyed it. Great video like always!
Which paper?
@@ishaansingh9899"A Future Like Ours Revisited" by M T Brown
38:38 you spend the second half of the video just equating not helping a dying being from lasting longer - to stopping an inevitable future when action is not taken, which is not the same.
33:16 I think this criticism actually extends to non IVF cases, only about 50% of embryos successfully implant.
So I do have to make it clear. We don’t as Christian’s believe “better off” because we don’t murder ( taking another innocent life of a human) is because a demand from God. ( this is theological)
But even if! You will send someone to a better place you don’t have this right. It would still be wrong based off your act that took the life you had no right to take.
But this is a good break down
loved the video. very brilliant. a do have a few thoughts on those objections often made by those who are in favor of permitting abortions.
one is that, “well you never care about the child outside the womb, especially with regards to school lunches and school and healthcare for children”. while this is true, this fact is not a defeater for their intuitions or seemings with fetuses and whether or how they matter. it would seem to instead imply that, because they care so much about fetuses, they should extend their care to children, and maybe adults.
another is that, “you only seem to want to control woman’s bodies, and not to merely protect those pregnancies”. this is related to the other for-permitting-abortion objection to the prohibiting-abortion view. they might be so heavily focused on woman and their actions given they probably have more deontological beliefs about the nature of killing and of letting die. to them, it may not be impermissible to not care or to not benefit others, but to them it may be impermissible to intentionally kill.
also, was curious if you’ve covered, ‘if abortion, then infanticide’? if so, or even if not, what do you think of it?
Do you mean "if abortion is permissible then infanticide should be permissible"? This is a criticism of theories (like Mary Ann Warren's) that focus entirely on the intrinsic properties of the fetus (and later baby). Thomson (and by extension, Boonin), of course, has an easy response because she defends abortion on the grounds that the mother has the right to deny the use of her body to the fetus, which is irrelevant once the baby is born. But of course, Thomson doesn't go far enough for some pro-choicers, and this would become more of an issue if artificial wombs ever became workable.
@@SimonCushing That's the thing, though: The bodily autonomy argument isn't as convincing as the personhood argument. After all, it's entirely plausible to argue in favor of very narrow exceptions to the bodily autonomy principle when the stakes are sufficiently high. Mandatory vaccines and mandatory Vasalgel injections for males come to mind. One can argue that not only was the fetus's need to use your body reasonably foreseeable, but also the fact that you would literally be the only person in the world who can help the fetus out by letting them use your body for its nourishment was also reasonably foreseeable (unlike, say, in the kidney stabbing example or whatever). The fact that we have strict liability in regards to child support for males after sexual intercourse doesn't help matters either. A male could take all reasonably precautions short of surgical castration and if they all fail, he's still on the hook for up to 18+ years' worth of child support. This is true even if his female sexual partner(s) promised abortion and/or adoption and lied or changed their minds in regards to this later on.
@@SimonCushing J. J. Thomson argues that rape victims are blameworthy for their pregnancies based on the responsibility argument because they never left their houses without a white knight or whatever, but I would suspect that most people would find this argument unconvincing. After all, when it comes to child support, many people--albeit probably not the law, quite unfortunately and tragically--would probably make a distinction between a man who was drugged and raped and got a woman pregnant that way vs. a man who had consensual sex with a woman and got her pregnant that way. When it would come to child support, I would suspect that many people would say that the man in the former scenario should be much less blameworthy than the man in the latter scenario, even though the man in the former scenario could have also taken additional precautions, such as not leaving his house without a white knight or getting sterilized beforehand or, in the future, getting a Vasalgel injection beforehand.
This is a horrible critique in my view. 7:54 You propose that Christians either all or the majority hold you divine command theory, where someone is only wrong because God says so. This is not the view most christians hold, more would hold to a view of inherent value or a type of natural law theory. 9:18 multiple things can make killing wrong. You can say you’ve robbed someone of their remaining life (which doesn’t have to imply death is inherently bad, only that life is a good), you can cause them severe pain based on how you killed them, you violate their rights, or that it’s an act driven by the vice of malice. 14:58 a sperm and egg are not human organisms, they are gametes. The zygote will develop into a human because it has all the parts to, hence why it’s a stage of human development whereas sperm/eggs aren’t. It is because the zygote is it’s own organism that will naturally develop that it has a FLO. 16:56 Well, believe it, doesn’t matter if it’s “too weird and metaphysical”, as long as the argument is sound. 18:36 a future is the experiences an organism will have should you not prematurely stop their development. 19:46 In this brain stem hypothetical, you are either brain dead (in which case your body will start to decay in a few days) or you are in a chronic vegetative state. But people have been known to come out of these states, and even still posses consciousness while being unresponsive (it’s called covert consciousness, measured via fMRI). So you still can be argued to have a future. 21:27 yes, jfk had a future, had the gunman not killed him, he would have continued his natural life. (Pt 1)
23:31 the possible world argument makes sense, it’s why we would consider it immoral when a mother drinks during pregnancy and it causes fetal alcohol syndrome, or if during a botched abortion the fetal limbs are destroyed and the child is born without an arm or leg. It may be weird to think we can wrong someone before they are conscious, but the argument seems sound. 24:21 you still performed an action with the intention to kill and were successful. Again, killing can be wrong for multiple reasons. 26:58 same response. 29:00 how is that a bad argument? He’s saying his moral system takes more goods into account than just FLO. That seems perfectly sensible and something a normal person does. 31:06 the act of killing is itself the depriving, it happens at that instant, not after. 34:08 if you need to abort some of the fetus so the other ones can be healthy, maybe just don’t implant so many. And if the mother’s health is the fear, either work towards finding a viable way to freeze the eggs or just let them know the risk of going through the extraction process multiple times and let them decide if it’s worth it. Adoption is an option if the child not being yours biologically isn’t an issue. 35:39 they still have a future because they still can develop if their development wasn’t put on pause. And you could keep them on ice until another person comes along and decides to adopt them via surrogacy (which we know can stay frozen and healthy for decades since this has happened). 37:01 yes, you can still have a future even if your development is dependent on a woman. We don’t say newborns don’t have future just because their growth is dependent on the parents protection and nourishment, nor the disabled because they may require technological assistance. (Pt 2)
38:35 we can already do this in mice by taking a skin cell, turning it into an iPSC, and then combining it with some other cells to make a viable blastocyst. But the skin cell themselves doesn’t have the developmental capacity till after the combination, so it has the same moral status as the sperm and egg. 40:03 you could still say fetuses have a FLO because their development is currently in progress and the only way to stop development is to destroy the fetus since removing it surgically isn’t an option. 43:05 the argument isn’t that you can’t refuse to help someone live, the argument is that you can’t kill them. There is no ‘opt out’ of pregnancy other than by destroying the fetus, and if it’s a person, then it’s not a moral option. 43:53 again, sperm and eggs don’t have the developmental capacities that a zygote has, so it doesn’t have the FLO until after they combine. 47:29 I may not be able to point to the exact moment the sperm and egg become a zygote, but I do know that when the two don’t meet, there’s no developmental capacity, and when they unite, there is. 48:35 no it doesn’t have a future in the same way. 49:55 I’d need to know more of the science behind the log to make an ethical judgement. It could either be a similar case to the cloning process or embryonic development, and both have different ethical status. 52:52 The fact that the guy has the parts doesn’t matter unless you want to argue that means they aren’t ‘really unconscious’. If it were the case that they had brain damage and their brain needs to rewire or redevelop itself for consciousness to come back, we still wouldn’t think it’s ok to kill them just because they temporarily disabled. In that current state, neither have conscious experience, so what applies to one will apply to the other. (Pt 3, fin)
Read the whole thing. This terrible critique is the reason Don Marquis revised his argument once. Great counter arguments to this guy's terrible critique so I don't have to
35:40
well yeah
*promosm*
Your misrepresentation of the pro life position is astounding. We don’t value just being human. We value human and alive, a unique separate human organism. Not a cancer cell that would be human cells and an extension of one’s self not an organism. Also, many pro life arguments are from a secular stance for you to assert that we come from a religious perspective is a misconception. I cannot watch further past this as you lost credibility for me. Flo puts the burden of justification onto the pro choicers it cannot stand on its own however can be coupled with another grounded argument like parental obligation.
I don't believe I said that was the ONLY pro-life position, and besides, it's MARQUIS who says that in his article, so don't blame me!
3t
@@SimonCushing