How to Respond to Anti-Choice Advocates
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- 'Why don’t we grant women the same rights that we grant corpses?' - Here’s what you should know about the anti-choice movement, according to a former 'pro-lifer.'
» Sign up for our newsletter KnowThis to get the biggest stories of the day delivered straight to your inbox: go.nowth.is/kn...
» Subscribe to NowThis: go.nowth.is/New...
Check out Rachel Cain's website: www.rachelklingercain.com
For more U.S. news and politics, subscribe to NowThis News.
#Abortion #Evangelical #Politics #News #NowThis
Connect with NowThis
» Like us on Facebook: go.nowth.is/New...
» Tweet us on Twitter: go.nowth.is/New...
» Follow us on Instagram: go.nowth.is/New...
» Find us on Snapchat Discover: go.nowth.is/New...
NowThis is your premier news outlet providing you with all the videos you need to stay up to date on all the latest in trending news. From entertainment to politics, to viral videos and breaking news stories, we’re delivering all you need to know straight to your social feeds. We live where you live.
/ nowthisnews
@nowthisnews
I was waiting to hear the financial cost of carrying a pregnancy to term. We have the most expensive healthcare in the world and no protection for workers who become pregnant. It can cost nearly $100,000 to give birth by C-section. And that doesn't include 9 months of prenatal care and lost wages. As Republicans love to say, "who's going to pay for it?"
Wrong party. Democrats are the one who says who’s going to pay for it. Because they want everything for free. I’m pregnant now and was able to keep working. Most states have a maternity act or allow time off for parents to bond with the child.
That would be a nice stand: I'll won't abort it for $500 000. Save a life, collect and bring it here.
@@ncr4007 The USA is not even in the top ten countries for maternity leave. You get 28 weeks off in Czech Republic, 39 in UK, and 43 in Greece. And these are the *legal minimums* in those countries, not the average amount given. Some of this time is paid leave. Many countries also offer time off for the father.
Here in the USA the FMLA guarantees you 12 weeks of *unpaid* leave. That's a single trimester. You can choose to work while you're pregnant or while someone else cares for your newborn.
This has a cost, and we all end up paying it eventually. You're not proud that your country treats raising a family as an insult to progress, are you? Would it have been as easy and convenient if you had a 30-minute commute to work on public transit, or if you had a physically active job like police officer or nurse? I'm glad it worked out for you but you're not every American.
And really, the GOP is the party that lies and says Mexico will pay for it. Politicians have done an amazing job of convincing voters that social programs have no value.
Ummm then fight for universal healthcare
@@carolinpurayidom4570 Problem is we're fighting against corporations that profit from healthcare, and corporations make the laws here. Another problem is so many Americans believe healthcare is great here and refuse to believe that the "socialist healthcare" in nearly every other country might work better.
But I guess the biggest problem is Americans who see it as other Americans' problems, and don't feel any motivation to fix what's broken in their own country. They don't really think about it til it affects them.
"Why don't we grant women the same rights we grant corpses." Powerful. Also, I can't believe we're still having this discussion in 2022 and I'm so glad I live in a country which *_is_* in 2022.
Which country is that if you dont mind me asking?
Ridiculous attempt to evade responsibility for infanticide. Dont kill babies
@@Clancy192 that's the thing, nobody is promoting infanticide here. This is a straw man argument to restrict a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
@@Clancy192 Don't kill or exploit women. Let them make choices about their own bodies.
@@Clancy192 Also, take Biology 101. Late-term abortions only occur when the infant and/or mother will die. Get informed, you're embarrassingly ignorant.
My core issue with "pro-life" is that after the baby is born all concern goes away. I can't tell you how many so called pro-life people I have talk to get disgusted at the thought that a single cent of their money or taxes should go to helping children or the mother in various ways. Pro life stops at birth.
Nope you are wrong
@@MH-st6vk if it were true they wouldn't enact anything at all that helps children in any way shape or form. Legislation takes many different forms. The Republicans often view handouts as actually hurting communities and encouraging people to marry the government and welfare systems. Regardless though both pro choice and pro life support some level of welfare and child assitance programs. Whether it be food stamps, after school programs, food aid for schools, not to mention pro lifers are the biggest supporters for charity in general since they by and large are made up of Christians who donate more time and money than any other group in this country.
@@jameybobamey7343 they are not wrong. The foster care system is full of kids waiting to be adopted.
@@ExoticThunder9 guess who adopts the highest number of foster children between pro choice and pro life individuals and couples?
@@jameybobamey7343 No surprise there that pro-choice people might CHOOSE not to have children b/c they know whether or not that's for them. If they're not ready or do not want children, why would those people then adopt? I think it's equally moral to choose not to bring another unwanted child into the world, just as it can be good to adopt. But no one should be forced to adopt just b/c people are now being forced/pressured to give birth and b/c of what the "Supreme Court" did there will be 150,000 new unwanted children born each year. How about letting women decide when they can economically, emotionally, intellectually become parents, if at all. And with adequate contraception, the objective should be to not have any unwanted children hoping to be adopted.
A woman without sovereignty over her own body is neither equal nor free.
That’s what they want. In the past, that’s how it was considered so conservatives want to conserve that.
@@c123-i6n wasn't it conservatives who pushed for the right for women to vote lol
@@jwill9237 No. It wasn't. It was liberals, the vast majority of them women. Seriously, learn something before you speak.
@@mikehager4897 so which party supported slavery lol
@@jwill9237 Conservative christians supported slavery. Liberals rejected it and ended it.
the important takeaway here is to speak up for your rights. you will lose arguments, but the more you do it, the better you get at it.
What do you mean "you will lose arguments"? Don't start an argument if you don't know the talkling points she goes through in the video
@@this_too_shaII_pass it's like being a musician, you may have years of practice, but you really don't hone your skill until you play live. talking points is important but it doesn't necessarily win arguments, many times the argument doesn't follow the path you've studied for. you need to be quick on your feet and the only way to learn that is to "jump in it".
@@tomitstube Aah I understand what you mean then, and I agree.
*For every argument, there are equal and opposite arguments.* She didn't have any winning argument though. She's on TikTok, right? That's not a good platform to horn your skill or learn proper argumentation. ... and I'm committing some type of fallacy right now.
@@takeshikodama5671 That would be an Ad Hominem. This is often misundertood by online wannabe "logicians". It is the informal logical fallacy in which an attempt is made to refute an argumant based on some quality of the arguer rather then on the argumant. You are saying that since she posts on tiktok there is a problem with her postion rather then aderssing her actual position.
the strongest argument I've heard (pro-choice) was the understanding that, if the State can say "you can't" you are also giving the State the power to say, conversely, that "you MUST"
EXACTLY! A government that can force a woman to give birth is a government that can force a woman to abort.
I could see that
Precisely. These right wingers don’t know what kind of fire they’re playing with. Best to keep the government out of this completely.
You mean like "you can't kill your unwanted newborn, you MUST ensure their safety at least as long as it takes to hand them over safely to someone else" - nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with laws telling men and women not to kill their unborn children
@@mathildeyoung1823 no, I mean you give the state all rights to your body.
Sentience is a difficult argument, but, though in a different context, a nurse once asked to me: "do you have any memories of what it was like before you were born?"
Using any argument that could also work for infants is a terrible idea
@@samkutz9090 it's more of the concept of developing sentience. Like, there are stages. An insect is more sentient that an amoeba, a fish is more sentient than either of them, a reptile perhaps a little more than the fish (depending on which), and then it goes on to bigger animals.
As a former fetus, I can concurr I neither would have known nor cared if my birther aborted me. Lol
@@timtambigham9513 Same, my mother didn't want me and she shouldn't have had me. Fetus me doesn't care and neither does adult me.
@@tea830fae8 Insects and fish are not sentient they are equivalents to a drone doing what they are programmed to do, the correct example would have been primates or dolphins since they can actually think, have complex thought (lesser than ours) and have emotions and bonds with each other.
These are really good points. Unfortunately in my experience anti-choice advocates generally aren’t interested in having a conversation, they just go with their cause’s sound bites - often loudly.
It's on both sides. Very few people are willing to listen
@@denverstrong473 That's true. But in all honesty, why would a woman listen to anyone who is trying to restrict their bodily autonomy? Theres no reasonable justification for that.
I've found that on both sides, tbh, though I've since converted from being on the fence to being pro-choice
@@g.d.graham2446 I'm just waiting for any reasonable legal justification for allowing an unborn baby to use its mother's body against her will. No one else in any other situation has the right to do that. Why does it matter, legally, which side of the womb you're on? My mind could easily be changed with a rational legal argument. The laws need to change. Either compulsory organ donation is the law of the land or bodily autonomy is the law of the land- I obviously advocate for the latter. It's got to be all or nothing. But I have yet to meet the pro lifer who would advocate for compulsory organ donation. In fact, most aren't even doing it voluntarily. This legal Narnia we've placed unborn babies in is irrational and fundamentally flawed.
@@nosender2399 I never said I was for the pro-life side, I was on the fence for the longest time, and then I became pro-choice quite recently, so we're on the same team 🤷
Exactly - I’ve been feeling like this whole argument is basically just to have the right to punish people - that’s it - in any other topic you don’t like it, don’t do it… but at least you have the choice- but this is just to legally punish someone just for doing something they don’t like…
Umm no it's literally to protect human life it's not punishment
@@carolinpurayidom4570 except your punishing the women for choosing instead of educating and assisting or even taking care of all there problems they are going through in order to better assist and make sure they have the child… but I get it - it’s easier to punish them than to help and communicate and understand the Y and how to help.
@@carolinpurayidom4570
No, it's about controlling women and especially their sexuality.
@@carolinpurayidom4570 It is not to protect human life. That is a filthy lie and you are a filthy liar for saying it.
@@JFrazer4303 laws tell men they cannot kill their unborn children.. by your "logic" that's punishing them boo hoo...
Great advice! People are too polite by calling them pro-life/ anti-choice when they are really pro-forced birth a.k.a forced birthers.
I typically put "pro-life" in quotes because they are not truly pro life. In fact I'd argue most of them tend to justify the use of violence to further their belief system/agenda.
In addition these people usually oppose any and all legislation which would provide for infants and children.
Many are also rabid anti-contraception, like S.C. Justice Williams.
They actually despise and mistrust women.
In that case you're for forcing DEATH onto an innocent human being.
I call them pro-birth, not pro-life. I think pro-choice is the ONLY pro-life stance.
I got pregnant at 20 after a one nighter I got to choose ! I never thought my child, who I chose to have, would not have the same rights. Sad time for our country backsliding
Adoption is not and never will be this magical solution! I was adopted and my life situation is absolutely fantastic, I honestly couldn't have gotten a better outcome and even I struggle with unique mental health repercussions that no amount of love can overcome.
I feel like an imposter in every "family" gathering. It doesn't matter that everyone accepts me I still look different.
I know I am here because in this life because my existing was considered so destructive to the original parents I had to leave.
I had a price put on my life. In today's numbers a domestic adoption in the US is about $70,000. Depending on factors a human's life in the US maybe valued at $3,000-$5,000. We grow up knowing it's pay to play. And that doesn't even account for the very predatory tactics used by some groups to get babies to sell. Yes we are in many cases sold with the veneer of adoption to make it socially acceptable.
If you are not a baby when adopted the chances of you getting adopted are almost none. Adults don't want already viewable personally. They want something they can mold into a pleasing face. Older kids come with "complications". So they age out at 18 and tossed onto the kindnesses of the world. Not old enough to by alcohol but old enough to try and keep themselves alive.
Now I personally think adoption is a positive thing however I want the pro-life community to stop treating it a panacea. R/adoption is a great place to hear us and the pitfalls that can happen.
The only objection I have for the religious argument of when life begins is that the bible says that life begins with breath....that tells me that their religious argument of "life begins at conception" is just plain incorrect
This is in fact the definition of when a baby becomes a legal person in many states - whether the baby started breathing outside the womb or not.
Umm there is also evidence of the Bible thinking that life starts in the womb remember when John the Baptist leaped in the womb when Mother Mary came to see her.
Life begins at conception is not religious argument. It's scientific.
@@KingPingviini Lol it's definitely not. Scientists don't even argue over this because it's such a vague question. They can't even agree on a definition of life in general, let alone human life. Maybe a zygote is a life, but is that even a useful benchmark? Pregnancy is a long process where the chance of surviving starts out as *minuscule* and slowly increases over time. That's why a lot of people find viability outside the womb - AKA the ability to be an independent life form - to be more useful than the *potential* to be viable outside the womb. Because even ectopic pregnancies have a *potential* to become viable fetuses, but the likelihood is astronomically small. Basically it's a total grey area, and all we can say is that *somewhere along the way* a bundle of cells becomes a human life.
@@KingPingviini Life does not begin at conception. Would you consider sperm or zygotes to also be considered "living" since they are also the tools for conception? Chemical reactions do not equate to life.
One thing to remember is that to many evangelical Christians women and children are the property of men. Property does not have the right to give consent. That was how they were viewed back in the 50's.
SCOTUS confirms this statement lmao
@Callisto 🦈 ✡️ 🤣😂😭
The organ donation argument was a particularly strong one IMO. I'm so grateful that I've been lucky enough to have never been placed in a situation where I had to make such a traumatic decision.
I don't know if I could have lived with aborting a life/child/fetus (whatever is the correct term), but that is just me. I couldn't imagine forcing my feelings or beliefs or choices on another woman. It's the height of arrogance to do so.
The idea of *men* having a say in what women do with their bodies is simply outrageous.
Agreed, making the decision for the self about what you want or could do with your body is different from saying that everyone has to follow the same rules that you have set for yourself. There might be more pro-choice people from the religious Right if more of them would realize this distinction.
The fact that this argument is being had at all in America is just disappointing to the rest of the world it demonstrates to the rest of the world how uncivilised undeveloped America is as a nation
Not really I think other stuff is pointing to how uncivilised America is
@@carolinpurayidom4570 There are multiple things that show America has yet to catch up with the rest of the developed world, and this one of them.
In fact, I believe the EU's Parliament voted and passed a motion to condemn the overturning of Roe v Wade. They absolutely think our government is uncivilized, and they have every right to do so.
Some of that comes back to the First Amendment.
Here, anything goes. Follow the lax rules for being officially legally a religion, and government has absolutely no say of involvement, so anything goes.
Would Southern Baptists have gotten a foothold in other nations without that separation? The Catholics are pretty sick and rabid, but that's because they don't have the First Amendment, and they are the State sponsored official religion.
It's civilized to want vulnerable human beings - born and unborn - to be protected.
Supporting the unborn is the easiest option for the right. The unborn can't talk, don't require them to understand the problems involved and doesn't cost them any money. They can support them without changing their lifestyle or looking for a way to use resources to help them because once the child is born, the right wing doesn't care and it's no longer their problem. They can now attack the woman for not doing what they did or would have done and it's her fault if she has insufficient resources to properly care for the child. The reason they don't want government support for the child is because they think it should only be given as charity because it is now their whims that decide if the person gets help, they don't want it to be a right. Just like healthcare, housing and education, they feel you don't have an intrinsic right to these things, it's only if they feel like giving charity on their terms. That's why this is such a big issue for them, it costs them nothing and when you are saddled with the results of their policies they can blame you for not being one of them.
2:09 this is a bad argument. The pro-life crowd will immediately throw back “if you’re playing baseball on the street, you don’t consent or intend on breaking the neighbours window, you are still responsible. And they are right. What to remember is that consent to conception isn’t consent to pregnancy, and consent to pregnancy needs to be ongoing.
If I break my neighbors window, I’m not responsible for water damage on their carpet two weeks later after a thunderstorm. I’m only responsible for the immediate consequences of my actions. I’m responsible for paying for damages, or with pregnancy, to care for or abort the pregnancy.
She is 105% correct on the need to concede personhood tho, you will never get anywhere with that argument. What constitutes life and personhood is so complex and philosophical, you will never change their mind.
thats an interesting counterpoint u made but i havent ever seen a prolifer make it
An organ donor has to give consent.. so basically dead people have more rights than women
Evangelicals have no more idea about what is in the eyes of God than do any of the rest of us
Or if "God" even has eyes...
Scripture says god has eyes and hands and feet and he sits and eats and cheats at wrestling.
Two words that no religion can withstand: "Prove it". Citing scripture isn't proof of god, nor theological or philosophical arguments, nor are personal subjective feelings or experiences, nor anecdotes like miracles or occasionally reported facts like NDEs (subjective experiences).
You used that word they are against , "Evolved"
Once you say that their mind shuts down an goes into magic mode.
They have managed to totally erase the role of the mother. It’s stubby. They rarely say anything about the mother.
They don't care about mothers. She's a vessel for carrying children, maybe an aid to making sure the fathers will is carried out among the children, but that's it. Ironically, she's somehow the least important part of their circus.
They don't care about her, they don't care about the fetus either. It's about advancing their power and control, and being right. Those same people will shrug their shoulders at kids dying in schools
@@luna-p School shootings = ultra late abortions. 😬🤦🏽♀️
love to see people educating themselves to not see women as incubators
I don't see any pregnant women as an incubator... I don't see men with children as babysitters. I just see common sense that no one should be able to kill their child, born or unborn.
This is some good thinking, which combines strategy with empathy.
This is pure lack of thinking ahahahha
None of her argeuments are logical or make any sense
Pure liberal verbal diarrhea
No valid argument presented. My mind is not changed
I dont have to explain myself to anyone. It's not anyone's business.
Very logical. While it will not work on the insane it would move someone that is just repeating information that was fed to them. Very thoughtful. Thanks.
"Adoption is great" as an adopted woman, adoption is ALWAYS in some way traumatizing for the child and birthmother. Life isnt a Disney movie.
It can also a be an agonizingly slow process filled with insecurity for the adoptive parents.
In no way is adoption a perfect solution and if everyone is so fond of the concept of adoption, people should take a look at new ways to improve the system worldwide instead of looking at it as an easy fix to worry about later
When corpses get more respect than women who can still vote? What's going on here?
It's like all these anti-choice people want to physically strap a woman down and be like "You are going to grow a human being inside of you whether you like it or not! It's my choice not yours! Mwahaha!" All while the woman is pleading for help and wanting to be in control of what grows inside her body 😥
These are all valid points from the perspective of someone who believes in pro-choice, im very glad this video is out there and I hope we can keep changing people's opinions to better our society, thanks for this! I'll definitely use your talking points while engaging in constructive conversation/debate with pro-life believers
what's the "choice" you are for? the choice to kick a puppy like a football? that's a choice no one should legally have.. the choice to abuse a child? That's a choice no one should have. The choice to kill your unborn child to make your life easier? That's a choice no one should have. THINK about the choice you are supporting - legalized killing of defenseless human beings. That's a horrible choice to support
I think it's important for crazy zealots to understand that others have thoughts & feelings that also matter & something so serious should not be decided by a religious cult, but only from the person's involved. Most don't believe in their crazy religion & will never be forced to believe in their beliefs.
The problem is they don't actually think women are people, so any argument based on a woman's personhood will never reach them. Forced-birthers come in two flavors: the ones that don't care that forced pregnancy causes its victims anguish, and the ones for whom the cruelty is the point. The loudest people you see in these comment sections are exclusively the latter.
Not everyone religious is a zealot (true), but I would avoid calling all religion crazy
Actually, as far as I'm concerned, as long as a fetus is using the mother's blood, as long as her body is processing it's waste, as long as it is partaking of the nutrients in her body, as long as it is attached via umbilical chord and blood vessels and cannot survive outside her,, the fetus IS a part of her body and not a seperate entity. It's a part of her body system.
Her body, her choice.
@Callisto
That is what I'm saying. As long as the second heart and additional fingers and all the rest are connected through blood vessels, and cannot survive without being a part of her body.
@@auntbutton905
One should note that a foetus never brings itself into existence
It’s the natural result of reproduction given by God
Killing it is just as good as killing another human
@@auntbutton905 The idea that fetus being part of woman's body has major flaws.
Is it part of a body when it's still outside umpilicar cord intact?
If it is a boy, does that mean woman is part woman part man?
It is possible to mother die and fetus live and fetus die and mother live. So they are completely different bodies.
Baby and mother may have different blood types, if baby was part woman's body then woman dies because people can't have two types of blood, it's not mother's blood that is in the veins of fetus.
If we argue that a fetus is part of a woman's body, then there should be no question on whether it can be removed at any point. We would remove fistulas, tumors, cancers, and we would also remove organs, skin, fat, blood without any legal/moral question, but the clump of cells in the womb? That for some reason isn't allowed to be removed while it still feeds on the blood and flesh of its host. The flaw with this argument is that isn't how we define out body, that is how we would define things like parasites, and as much as some of us think that is accurate, describing fetuses as parasites has been a losing argument.
@King Pingviini nice nearly thought the arguments were indisputable
The Bible actually says that God gives you a soul when you take your first breath. So no soul no life. The mind is the seat of consciousness not the heart. GOP makes stupid laws, I don't think they've even actually read the Bible.
What part of the Bible is that?
@@vietnamd0820 What's it matter? It's a work of religious fiction, and to base law on it (or a misunderstanding of it) is a blatant violation of the first amendment.
@@Dead_Guy_Bob
Agreed…just out of curiosity if I’m ever arguing with a Christian
Or taken a reproductive biology course
@@vietnamd0820 Genesis 2:7, the creation of Adam. G_d formed Adam from the dust of the ground, and "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." It's the same passage that Jews point to to argue that the soul enters the body at birth, with the first breath, because the phrase they use for "living being" in the Christian Bible is "living soul" in the original Hebrew. In other words, humans become a "living soul" once G_d "breathes life" into them at birth - not before birth, and definitely not at conception.
If anything, there is even a 1st amendment argument to be made that making laws based on human life beginning "at conception" or "with the heartbeat" not only infringes on non-religious people's rights, but also infringes on non-Christian religions that don't believe in that bit of very-Christian theology. There's actually a Florida rabbi suing his state using exactly that logic.
Why is it not understood? My body, my choice. Nobody questions the man about his vasectomy!!! Why should the woman be questioned about their actions? Who are these men? Please come out to vote enmass to correct this anomaly, then you can start from there to vote out the wrong candidates. Please let's codify roe in November.....
yes!
Because a vasectomy doesn't end the life of another human being. Pretty simple really
@@jameybobamey7343 yes, your mind and thinking is just simple isn't it? I've noticed in the comments.
You and Dora Dennis would probably have great conversations. Dora is pretty simple and only uses two sources.
@@b.41879 neat! Ad hominem is the best. Nothing spells victory in a debate like when your opponent resorts to insults😘
@@jameybobamey7343 man gets a vasectomy BECAUSE he doesn't want to get a woman pregnant. That's a decision and a choice he has to make because he knows he can easily get a woman pregnant....and the woman? You have to carry it to term. Decision taken by a bunch of old men for the woman. You say vasectomy does not end life, it only stops the man from giving the woman an unwanted pregnancy....
Unwanted children have a right to not be born.
Great tips and insights, and thank you especially for the hope!
And yes, this issue is the last vestige of Christian fundamentalism exercising power over the women of the "flock." In other religions there are certainly more restrictive measures that are exercised over women...but this is the one Christianity has never shed, at least in the US.
Specifically Evangelical Christianity, which has made me sick of them for about a decade now (as a Catholic Democrat)
This is the best explanation I have heard. My opinion on one thing - A zygote might be a life, but it is a life like a microbe is a life. It is not sentient.
Yes it is.
@@darryljohnson9236 Nope. Care to give a *single* thought or memory from ANY Zygote??!?! FYI: Nature/“God” end more than 10%-25% of ALL Known pregnancies. YOU know NOTHING. Also, as a man, you have ZERO say in this matter.
@@darryljohnson9236 Nope, wrong! For something to be sentient it has to be able to feel and fetuses don't have the ability to feel anything until something like the 16th week they have no ability to feel pain (because the brain is not developed enough).
That said it is a moot point. No one has the right to make use of a persons body without their consent... did you even watch the video?
@@darryljohnson9236 Ah a fellow brother who remembers when he was a zygote, how did you pass the time?
@@MirrimBlackfox Closer to the 25th week, from the research I've seen; the development of the brain structures to process pain begin around then- prior to, there might be some local reactions to stimuli, but the signals don't have a developed part of the brain to go to.
Agreed, there's no point debating when life begins. You'll end up in a stalemate every time because even from a biological standpoint, it's a matter of perspective. Same goes with terminology. If someone wants to call an embryo a baby, let 'em call it a baby. You're not going to change anyone's mind based on that, just like they're not going to change yours.
What this issue boils down to is whether or not the State (or any other entity) has the right to use a person's body to carry out a task without their explicit consent.
Mothers have obligations to their children
I don’t get this. Why isn’t the conversation about what America stand for? If your beliefs say don’t abort a fetus, don’t. The pilgrims or puritans or whoever they were, on the mayflower coming over decided that marriage should be secular NOT religious. Why? They came for economic freedom first and foremost. Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson got run out of town for their beliefs. But now there’s no where to run, we will always have different religious and moral beliefs - so let’s elevate the conversation- what does it mean to be American?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
This is what America stands for. Individual determination.
Argument #1- it’s her body and it’s none of your damned business.
This is a useful perspective. Also useful would be how to tell if a person is not going to change their mind and is only arguing in bad faith. Better not to waste energy on those people.
Are you sincerely willing to change your mind on this issue?
@@TD-nc4qn this. 💯
@@TD-nc4qn are you?
@@jameybobamey7343 I would ask you the same question though yet your mind might be too simple.
@@b.41879 best to assume my mind is too simple rather than present any logical argument. That's what a skilled interlocutor would do no doubt! Save all those great points for someone who actually understands them😀
Her points are valid and her glasses❤
I think it is worth debating the point that life begins at conception because without that prolifer's don't really have a leg to stand on, and they're definitely wrong about it. Life doesn't begin at conception because humans can only be formed by the process biogenesis - the development of life from pre-existing life. If human life can only come into being from existing human life, how can they say life "begins" at conception?
They usually cite that study from Steve Jacobs that "96% of scientists believe a human life begins at fertilization."
@@roar44879 It's worth pointing out that that "study" is complete BS. The guy sent 69,469 (give or take) biologists a questionaire but only about 5,000 self-selected individuals bothered to even respond. It's like if you sent a survey to 1000 Americans asking them what their religion is, receiving only 100 responses all from Catholics, and then using the results to conclude that 100% of Americans are Catholic.
The argument isn't when life begins. It is when personhood begins. No law in any state gives a fetus personhood rights. End of story.
Some statutes actually phrase it that way. Fetal homicide laws in 29 states give personhood status to fetuses at ANY gestational age.
If someone blows your brains out while you are Pregnant; it’s considered double homicide.
Not yet
But a few states have tried
If a fetus is a person. The person carrying that fetus is not
POTENTIAL PERSONHOOD SHOULD NEVER OVERRIDE EXISTING PERSONHOOD.❤
I absolutely love Rachel's channel.. Great information and funny...
"Life begins": I heard an excellent rebuttal to this:
1) when life starts the science is clear.
2) but we're talking about when _personhood_ begins, and that's about the soul, and is not measurable with science.
A kidney is living, but we can choose to remove this living tissue.
But a foetus is not clearly a person - yet there's no question that a woman is a person.
Because of that, a woman has undeniable rights because she definitely is a person, but a foetus does not so clearly have those rights because when they become a person is a matter of religion or philosophy - and you can't impose a religion on others in our country.
Man education system and your parents really failed you lol
Not all religions believe life begins at conception. That is a belief held by some Christian groups (not all). Why should their religious beliefs be codified and the rights of other people to follow the guidelines of their religious beliefs be criminalized?
So when does life begin?
@@jameybobamey7343 No one really knows and no one really cares. Life itself is barely defined and, the definitions we have don't fit a fetus at all.
Like the woman in the video said, it's not about when life begins.
@@athulkathul7112 no one really cares
Interesting claim. And pretty much the rest of the world disagrees with you, but what is your source that noone cares. What do you mean it's barely defined? There are some very commonly defined characteristics of life, all of which a fetus exhibits. Despite what one woman on tik tok says
My baby is 5 months. I really hope this back and hip pain isnt permanent
I've been making exactly that argument for years. I've never once gotten a tangible rebuttal to it.
Which argument?
@@jameybobamey7343 watch the video
@@MirrimBlackfox I did, there are multiple arguments made
@@jameybobamey7343 The entire argument.
@@dougdimmadomeownerofthedim2918 cool. And what is the argument? Why can't anyone elaborate what the argument is? It's like pulling teeth here
In a sense you can call a fetus a parasite...
Except the only ones who do are the ones who try to dehumanize them in order to justify killing them. You never find that description anywhere in the medical or scientific community
Or a symbiote, an organism that 💯 depends upon another organism to stay alive
@@down-to-earth-mystery-school newborns fit that category as well
Yeah, why should a being that sucking your blood and nutrient to survive have more right than you... I don't get it...
@@down-to-earth-mystery-school Parasitism is a subset of symbiosis. A parasite is a kind of symbiote.
I wouldn’t say science doesn’t know when “life” begins, that’s not the most accurate word. Life is often used synonymously with the phrase “being alive” and it’s undeniable that an embryo or fetus is alive. Science doesn’t know when “personhood” begins. There’s some hypotheses for it, though.
"Science doesn't know when life begins." But this random guy in the youtube comment section does.
@@lifeiswonderful22 PREACH! LOUDER FOR THOSE IN THE BACK
Personhood is an ethical concept. We know that it begins at birth, that is certain. It extends indefinitely, which is why we respect our dead. But a fetus or embryo is not a person. There is a difference between the living and the dead, same way there is a difference between the born and unborn. They are not "here" yet. They are not "persons".
@@lifeiswonderful22 when does life begin?
@@kt550 That's a highly subjective question. The biological definition of life is something that can metabolize, grow, maintain homeostasis, react to stimuli, and reproduce. Fetuses certainly can't reproduce themselves, and they don't begin responding to stimuli until about 16 weeks. Fetuses can't perceive pain until about 20 weeks. So again, it's difficult for me to answer because it's a highly subjective question. My best guess would be the 3rd trimester, when the fetus is able to respond to stimuli and perceive pain.
0:57 by that logic, the fully formed of the conjoined twins can also kill the underdeveloped and dependent individual.
This is great, but I believe that VERY FEW people change their minds on this issue.
I agree. Her experience is exceptional. What she is doing is great and if she changes minds, right on. My experience has been that closed minds very rarely open.
Another argument people dont understand is that although a fetus is a human being and alive it is completely unviable and a physiolgical extension of her just like a tumor is. A tumor is ALSO alive but nonetheless they are unviable extensions of a mother's body of which she has the right over
Baby > Tumor
@@colonelsanders5278 You don't understand comparisons, do you? Baby ≠ Fetus and tumors and fetus', although not being compared to each other, have a similar relationship to us.....they're unviable, they're only alive because of their connection to us, they have their own DNA, etc
When someone dies can we mandatorily take organs to save the living?
I'm sure the so-called prolife don't have any objections, right? 😏
Why wait until death? We have two kidneys. Instead of donating one kidney being voluntary, let’s make it mandatory…..regardless of the consequences to the donor.
@@luigithewall2224 why would we lol?
@@timdowney6721 the most straw man argument ever. Your irrational hyperbolic made up lunacy is simply hilarious to read
@@luigithewall2224 The Pro-Death want the organs.......
Such a wonderful presenter as always! This is a really intelligent argument and approach to this difficult topic. Loved this video-even though you DO have ‘funny glasses’ 😉😉👏💜
NO
Ahahahahahahhahahahajajajjaja
A very interesting and clear perspective
She makes good sense on the argument.
But why would I want to argue with idiots?
When they say to me "life begins at conception" - I ask: what are you basing that upon? The science? because science doesn't officially recognize a predetermined gestational period when a fetus becomes a baby or is considered viable. It all depends on the condition of the pregnancy which is something that should be discussed between a patient and their doctor. Let's not kid ourselves though it is all about Religion, right? I ask: Why does your religion get to dictate my life? I am an atheist why do we have to apply your religion and not some other religion? Isn't this exactly what Christians were trying to prevent with Muslim people over a decade ago? Or we could just let people be free to live their lives according to their own religion. How does that sound? I wouldn't say that I have definitively won a debate like this but I can say with certainty that I have shut down debates with it.
40+ US States and most nations prohibit elective abortions at a time past fetal viability: when modern medical science can keep a preemie alive. Variously around 20+ weeks.
We no longer declare death when respiration stops, or heartbeat, but brain-death or when they give up on reviving even a crippled body with a damaged brain.
Presence of a healthy brainstem and the necessary abilities to keep it alive.
That's law coming together with science.
Wonder how "my body my choice" wasn't valid for the vaccine mandates.
Because when it only affects you, you get the primary say. When it affects the community, the community often has a very strong opinion about it.
To be in a society there are also obligations - from not lighting things on fire, to not punching people, to not spreading a disease.
Look up Typhoid Mary for the horrors even one infectious person can wreak.
I replied and explained this to you. Why have you not replied admitting you understand the difference. You don't seem very honest.
@@mikehager4897 um I don't....killing a baby isn't your body. Vaccines are being injected into our bodies.
Because nobody forced you to take the vaccine. You just can't make other people sick.
I'ma just go back to enforcing the mask mandate at work. Since we're letting the gov. decide what's good and bad for our bodies. Well me and the CDC said u need a mask too!😷
Pregnancy isn’t contagious
So don’t confuse the two
@@emilyfeagin2673 u still need a mask ma'am 😷and I need 6 feet for my safety ✨
@@emilyfeagin2673 Ab CDC bih🤣🤣😷
if you're right about bodily autonomy, does it then mean that a woman has the right to abort in month 8 of pregnancy if she decides at that juncture to exercise her right no longer to allow the baby inside her to use her body... weird logic....
Very helpful
Why don't we grant women the same rights as corpses! Brilliant, true, and very despair-inducing.
I have no problem arguing with someone about when life begins…according to Scientific American website, a fetus doesn’t gain consciousness or the ability to feel pain until around the 24th week of pregnancy…over 99% of abortions happen prior to that timeframe
@Callisto
No, unless there’s no hope for the unconscious person to be revived, such as a brain dead person…if there was no instruction from the person prior to being unconscious, then it’s up to the family to decide whether to keep their loved one alive or not
@@vietnamd0820
Once a foetus comes Into existence it automatically gets a right to live
@@ajayimoses2495
Why?
@@ajayimoses2495 No such thing as the right to be born.
@Callisto So are you saying that the government should be able to force people to be hooked up to an unconscious person 24/7, donating their blood and nutrients until they can barely walk, until the unconscious person rips open their genitals for hours of gruesome, bloody torture and potentially kills them, because they'd die without it?
Anyways, being unconscious isn't the same as being incapable of consciousness. Being knocked out doesn't remove your brain. The sensory systems that would allow a fetus feel pain, warmth, sound etc literally don't exist until 24+ weeks. Before then, it less sentient than a tapeworm, and nobody cares if you remove one of those from your body.
This woman seems really unintelligent
Someone was able to talk her into something obvious, and she couldn’t figure it out herself
Thank you for this. Useful and powerful
Beautiful said. I love this so much.
Really good
This was excellent . Great way of thinking and framing it.
Brilliant
You have perfectly and accurately analyzed this argument. I agree completely.
Great comparison 💯
What ? Comparing a baby to a parasite ?? Get some help.
@@erosionhead420 Feel free to share where a parasite was mentioned...
@@erosionhead420 Thank you for proving why we need abortions
Put pro birthers/no choicers in their place
No, she didnt. All of her argument are braindead
All this is great and wonderful but when the other side is not living in reality with you and solely basing their decisions on their religious morality you trying to define consent with them is not going to change their mind. Legally we do not have a proper definition for the word consent. So you trying to have a conversation with someone who's morality comes from 2,000 years ago they're not going to have that conversation with you or there at least not going to have a conversation with you where they listen. The left has spent too long trying to be bipartisanship to compromise to see the other side. Where has that gotten us rights being taken away lgbtq discrimination laws being put in place. No we need to do what the conservatives we don't compromise we don't back down we pass laws we get legislations through Court we turn up and we vote. So you can try to have all the Mind changing emotionally spiritual validating conversations you want to have but you changing the mind of a couple people is not going to change the fact that Roe versus Wade is gone. Time for conversation is over the time for Action is now. As long as it's not violent
PREACH. Time to take back our rights whether they like it or not
We have now 8 billion people in the world. Something has to be done.
Exactly
"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe
God did ask the Virgin Mary. Consent even matters to the Lord.
Well really God sent an angel to TELL Mary she had been chosen to be the mother of God, and she was like..."Okay, I guess? What do I tell my husband who would be within his legal rights to have me murdered if he thinks I cheated on him?" But the angel was already gone
@@Listening_Books12345 Nah, it happened a little differently. The angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she had been chosen. She emphatically agreed, "I am the Lord's servant. May your word to me be fulfilled.
Joseph was not her husband but her betrothed. She did not tell him about the angel's visit but when he noticed her to be pregnant he planned to leave her privately. However on his way to do so he himself was visited by an angel and so changed his mind.
@@betternews3835 sounds pretty sketchy, would you believe your fiancee about immaculate conception? Joseph, I promise it was an angel, not Josiah down the street😆
Just ask them this:
There is a fertilized human egg in a petri dish laying on a train track. There is a train coming towards it and it will crush it, but you can pull a lever to make the train switch tracks and save the fertilized human egg. However, the othertrack has a new born baby lying on it. If you pull the lever you will save the human zygote but will crush the human child. Would you pull the lever?
Their answer will always either be "No" or they will just avoid the question.
They usually do just deflect or call you a baby-murderer again, but I actually once got one of these goons to answer a similar question: 5000 fertilized eggs or 1 newborn to be saved from an incinerator? He picked the petri dish. These are the people who claim to care about babies.
He was also very insistent that birth is no big deal and that women potentially becoming paralyzed, chronically ill, diabetic, losing teeth, becoming suicidal etc from forced pregnancy didn't matter and that only the fetus mattered. You will never reach these people with empathy, they're too far gone.
@@Amorcea these people don't care about life, they just care about the warm and fuzzies they get off of thinking they saved something.
@@stuffynosepatrol I think more accurately they get off knowing they're torturing and killing pregnant people.
My answer: Unrealistic scenario and if it would happen, I would not pulling lever because I don't work at train station.
@@KingPingviini thats a cop out answer
Very well said I can agree with this message
This was great. I bookmarked this video to rewatch it over and over until it's ingrained in my brain for future use.
I feel like this is in american horror story show they all seem like they are in it
YEP! This woman is exactly right.
You have a choice not to start up that life within you
But you knew about the possibility
You WILLINGLY offered a part of your life to sustain that of the foetus’s
That decision is one you CANNOT go back on because
That foetus NEVER asked to be created
That makes no sense. Back away from the bong. You've probably had enough for one day.
Are you insane? This is just incoherent word salad.
Can’t expect folks whose minds has been twisted into extreme self entitlement and self preservation to understand the gravity of a human life
@@ajayimoses2495 The minds of hateful and stupid anti-choice scum are so twisted they can't identify a human being. They think a non-viable fetus is one but a woman isn't. This depth of stupidity and hatefulness is amazing. They are morons and refuse to learn from their betters.
Then, they are so arrogant and entitled they think they should get to push their idiocy onto their wiser, more moral fellow citizens.
Always remember, anti-choice subhumans are inferior in mind and character. They are mindless scum who hate women and the freedom this country stands for.
So, we can't expect anti-choice filth to understand anything. They are too stupid to learn and too arrogant and hateful to try. They would be pathetic if their goals weren't so evil.
@@ajayimoses2495 but you don't care either. To shift the ability to speak for themselves from a sentient woman to a non sentient developing being is just as bad. You can have your beliefs but it's not your body. You didn't make anything or anyone in this instance. How can you not care about the life that would need to be sustained to carry the other? Because you are judging her. Why do you have the right to do so?
Wow! Some excellent points!
Thank you for sharing this. I've learned a lot today.
Yo how were these agreements not made in the case. We need a new case.
Just trying to understand the consent part - is the fetus included in the category of those who must determine consent before using a woman's organs? How can that be accomplished?
Lol adoption is not free for someone who wants to adopt a child.
Important
EXCELLENT!!! 👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾
Good job, Ma’am. Good analysis!
Would someone play this video for those Republicans who are screaming at women healthcare providers about infanticide.
If I had to say what I was I'd say I am pro-life. For me it doesn't mean to be anti-choice. I profoundly despise what lots of so-called pro-life people say but I could never call myself pro-choice either because my view is against so many of what they say.
I like to think that I am pro-life and those people that usually get called pro-life are something else, more extreme and less likeable.
I agree with some of her points - not all - and must admit that I have never thought this way about body autonomy. Didn't change my mind but I'll think about it.
These arguments didnt do it for me. Still leaning more pro life. And I used to be uber pro choice.
Then you're heavily biased by your emotions. Bodily autonomy applies to everyone in all situations across the board, otherwise youre being discriminatory.
What happened to break your mind and humanity and turn you toward profound malice and ignorance?
These aren't guaranteed wins but they can sometimes change a mind or 2 if you make them to enough people
Well said