*Abortion is Immoral? * Affermative - Stephanie Gray Negative - Peter Singer 00:10 Introduction 06:27 Intro Stephanie Gray - Abortion is immoral 18:42 Intro Peter Singer - Being a human doesn't necessarily mean having a right to life *First Rebuttals * 31:16 Rebuttal Stephanie - Every human life matters 36:27 Rebuttal Peter - Life hasn't fully begun for fetuses *Cross Examinations * 41:08 Stephanie cross examination - What age a child became a person? 43:41 Stephanie cross examination - Is it immoral to do abortion for racist reasons? 46:33 Peter cross examination - Life-risking pregnancy: what to do then? *Second Rebuttals* 52:11 Rebuttal Stephanie - Humans have intrinsic value 56:37 Rebuttal Peter - It's not a matter of species, but cognitive abilities *Q&A * 01:02:34 Q for Stephanie - If abortion would be illegal what punishment would you have for those who do or attempt it? 01:04:50 Answer of Peter 01:06:01 Q for Peter - How do you reconcile your case against cruelty to animals with your support of abortion? 01:08:06 Answer of Stephanie 01:09:23 Q for Stephanie - Does your pro-life position implies also that we should be vegan? 01:11:05 Answer of Peter 01:11:50 Q for Peter - Direct killing in Euthanasia vs Passive Euthanasia: is the first as morally accettable? 01:13:52 Answer of Stephanie 01:15:10 Q for Stephanie - Do you think religion should be part of the conversation on the policy of abortion? 01:16:30 Answer of Peter 01:17:55 Q for Peter - Do you think it's up to society to decide when personhood becomes? 01:19:43 Answer of Stephanie *Conclusive statements * 01:21:10 Stephanie 01:25:25 Peter Stephanie's website loveunleasheslife.com
The cross-examination was way too short. I prefer instances where both participants are able to more freely pressure test each other's ideas for longer. That's often the most interesting and unpredictable part of the debate and issues can be resolved in real-time between the debaters in these segments.
How incredibly nonsensical is it for a person who’s grandparents have been brutally killed in concentration camps to draw a line of human rights at the acknowledgment of consciousness of the being who’s deprived of its life. His own parents must have experienced what it means to have survived to a whole society that considered them less than animals. Isn’t that amazing? I mean, the nazis won their battle if their victims (and he is definitely a victim of the nazis) hold a similar world view as their executioners. I think this is deeply troubling.
@@day3455 I genuinely think it's possible that Peter Singer wouldn't hold the views he does if they had any risk of affecting him. It's always been troubling to me that none of his controversial positions have any impact on his life. Perhaps when he gets much older, but my reading of his work suggests that he has placed carve outs in places he might end up himself.
@@day3455 I was thinking the same thing! He is furthering their agenda. I have often wondered why some Jewish people are so supportive of abortion when they have experienced the evil of people not deeming them worthy of life.
Conners: Deontology! Singer: Consequentialism! Conclusion: No progress made bc they are talking about application of different theories instead of evaluating the worth of those underlying theories.
@@michaelroy6630 yeah I agree! And obviously we can test moral theories by looking at their implications. I just feel like these implications are so well known that it calls for the further discussion of the theories themselves.
He brings up the fact that she invokes the doctrine of double effect and points out flaws in it. BTW, she's not invoking Kantianism as much as Thomist ideas.
@@jameshall3088 wouldn't testing moral theories by their long term consequences, be much smarter. Implications are more like wheelchairs that biases need
@@nack4luck the main reason I dont find that line of evaluation worthwhile is because anyone who already finds the underlying theory plausible is unlikely to be shaken when you point out implications of their theory, which is what you see here. Singer's theory implies X and ignores important value Y, isn't that crazy?! Singer: No. It follows from the theory of morality I think is correct.
@@JohnThomas That's basically what would happen. I don't mean to be disparaging towards theists, but Singer is a renowned scholar with published works that have done substantive work in solving important questions that demand answers. Trent Horn is just an articulate debate bro watched by Christians as a source of entertainment and for validation of their beliefs. The only way someone like Trent Horn would "win" an argument against him is if his own audience isn't charitable to the opposing side's arguments, which they _usually_ aren't and resort to some form of confirmation bias for their beliefs. On a personal note, Singer and Gary L. Francione are the biggest reasons I myself made the decision to become vegan. If you're intellectually honest and receptive to what they're saying, the arguments are pretty tenable.
Peter Singer's argument is probably one of the more consistent ones I've heard for the pro-choice position, but it literally requires you to be ok with infanticide. I think that really tells you that even if his position is logically consistent, there's something deeply wrong with it. It also lends credence to the comparison pro-lifers make between abortion and infanticide.
Agree with what you said. However, you would have to concede that the pro life side has to come to a conclusion that has “something deeply wrong with it”. Stephanie conceded that she would not commit homicide on her baby which is stuck in the vaginal canal even though this inaction would cause the death of both the child and the mother, when in the case of killing the child, at the very least, the mother would be saved. Now theres something deeply wrong with that too
Id also like to add that at least the pro life conclusion is heroic in that you give up your own life to not have blood on your hands, unlike the pro choice side, which is more of a cowards way out scenario
intellectual, moral consistency is necessary but insufficient. A person can believe that 'life has no value, I get to do whatever I want' and have consistency but that is not an achievement. And like you said, there's something deeply wrong with it.
@@armoblood7291 A natural counterargument to your assertion of the pro-life choice being heroic is that you are thereby giving birth to a motherless child. How much pain and loss does that entail for the child? Is it truly heroic? Or is it just the mother simply failing to consider the downstream effects on her child if she dies in childbirth? Perhaps it is a matter of perspective.
I came into this being on Stephanie’s side (because I’m pro life) but was very intrigued by the good points from Both sides. Also it was awesome when he called her out on her stance (which was no stance) on animals rights 😂
@@TheVeganVicar I would disagree on that. I would hope that through our inherent minds and emotions and through thoughtful discussion we can come to conclusions on what is good and bad. If we think in this way and say that good and bad are relative then the Holocaust wasn’t a tragedy.
This was a really good debate. Both sides were able to make their points and had to provide reasons for their thought process instead of just using sound bites or one-liners. Thank you for sharing!
I salute you. I remember that I noticed many years ago that most vegans had no issue with abortion, and most pro-lifers were meat-eaters. It was so obvious that I thought it was somehow connected. It wasn't until I met a very peculiar woman (pro-life vegan) that I found out that this combination was even possible, lol.
She sure has an active imagination! But why would a scenario as unlikely and specific as the ones she describles have general application in an ethics debate?
Really wished Stepahnie could have heard and responded to his counter argument @ 1:00:00 that a developmentally handicapped human, even if 50 years old, cannot attain a moral status of personhood. This is an inherent problem with the gradualism argument for personhood. Also, it is interesting that Singer references the philosophical work of UHRs and protection of slaves and the randomness or arbitrary of being a human being vs being a fully rational creature per his framework. Historically when de Vitori first made these arguments which became the eventual UHRs argued by Maritain, they did so using Thomistic and natural law theory. At the time of de Vitori, the argument against this was that Native and Black races were intellectually inferior and that, even though widely accepted as true, was still not a reason to deny their natural dignity. There would be no place to start the graudualism argument, had the work of equal dignity already been philosophically argued successfully by natural law. So now we jettison that work to provide a new framework which disallows underdeveloped or cognitively impaired human beings personhood status? It seems to be a work around to provide an objective standard for personhood that preborn cannot attain. Why I say that is because nothing cognitive developmentally special about birth, it is just an absolutely meaningless point of reference that personhood is assigned and so it reeks of circularity and question begging and it is never found in philosophical arguments until abortion became a legal challenge. I would press hard on anyone who adopts it to explain the immorality of infanticide. Singer has already made this concession and argues for selective infanticide in his book Practical Ethics.
Bro, in her opening statement she asserted that fertilized eggs have the nature to become rational etc by virtue of being members of the human race. That position is just absurd. There's not a single fertilized egg to have ever existed that has been able to express rationality. Like all abortion prohibitionists, she doesn't fundamentally understand the issue.
@@anybody2501 Stephanie "eggs have the nature to become rational" You "here's not a single fertilized egg to have ever existed that has been able to express rationality" ....do you see how dumb and/or dishonest you are?
As a vegan and as a life-supporter, I will never understand the arguments of P.Singer. I am so glad to know the work of Stephanie Gray Connors. Thank you so much.
Would you be so kind to change the title not to include the resolution? How can I share it with my network and ask what do they think if they’re given the answer right away before even watching? Pro-lifers wil not click it as they already believe it’strue, and pro-choicers will not click it as they would think it’s a pro-life propaganda. And this is actually a very good debate and it would be great to encourage people to listen to it, dig deeper into the subject and make their own mind.
Nice debate! I would say both sides were pretty consistent in their world-view, so I think this debate was a draw. I would subscribe to Stephanie's view though. I wouldn't call Peter's view ageist, but I would call it ableist. At the end of the day, Peter believes that a disabled animal has less right to life than an able one which to me is immoral. One point that I think Peter didn't answer very well is whether or not killing someone who temporarily cannot suffer is morally acceptable. The distinction Peter makes between wanting to live seems odd in his answer about someone in surgery shouldn't be killed even though they wouldn't feel pain because they still have a desire to live. I would assume every living organism wants to live unless there's evidence to the contrary (e.g. committing suicide) so it seems to me that we should assume that a fetus wants to live too. If you don't make that assumption, then I think Stephanie's point about asking a 3-year old if she wants to live is a good one. Should we actually take an answer of "no" as permission for killing the 3-year old? At the same token, isn't Peter assuming that the person while under surgery still wants to live? Isn't it fair to say that once in good mind, both the person in surgery and the fetus would want to live? I would say yes, which is why I support Stephanie's view.
Yeah, a refutation I would've liked to hear would be questions regarding the value of suicidal people. For instance, if a suicidal person is under anesthesia, therefore unaware and cannot feel pain, is it immoral to kill them (assuming the person doing the killing is aware of their suicidality)? I would like to hear his answer seeing as this checks all his boxes: 1.) The person does not have a desire to live 2.) The person cannot feel pain 3.) The person will not be cognitively aware of their death I feel like he would say it's moral for the killer who is aware of the victims suicidality to commit murder, the way he argues it's ok to kill disabled kids. Unfortunately, (as in the case of abortion where the zygote will develop to the stage of embryo, to fetus, to infant, to child and so forth bringing about preferences and sentience) this ignores that many suicidal people develop past their suicidality and are able to become mentally healthy.
My answer: Simply, in a world in which people who can't feel pain are killed, there would be much more suffering since parents, doctors or even just empathy towards other people would cause suffering to the ones witnessing that. Think about all the potential implications: a mother could be in constant terror of her child having an accident and going into a coma just to get killed soon after. A very unpleasant world to live in.
@@BasedZoomer being suicidal is a mental disease. There’s not much point in arguing with this because we know (through research on mental health) that most people who are suicidal DO want to live. Even just listening to people who have attempted to commit suicide we hear (from almost all of them) that they DID want to live. It’s a very complicated mental illness so I don’t think it would be useful in a debate.
I for one do not believe one has to have a consistent worldview. I despise extremism in all forms. I am pro choice. I am however not a fan of Peter Singer's worldview either. The pro life view has elements of extreme cruelty (letting two lives die instead of one to satisfy a moral principle is cruelty. Amputating an organ which could be saved just so that an embryo who will die anyway is not "directly killed" is cruelty. But Peter Singer's worldview has elements of cruelty also. Furthermore saying that either you accept Catholic natural rights philosophy or you sooner or later have tyranny has no basis in fact. I believe in human rights based on what was agreed an learned and based on solemn contracts. These contracts can prevent abuses and issues of the past. But I despise natural rights philosophy which is inspired by Catholicism and not secular. Looking only at intention and wanting to be "morally pure" while ignoring outcomes is utter cruelty. Only focusing on outcomes and following an "the ends justify the means" philosophy at all times is also wrong in my opinion. It can lead to cruelty also. I despise black and white thought. Purist philosophies are not fit for life. Life is grey. Life has ambivalence and inconsistencies. People who want to shoehorn life into a consistent closed worldview is in my opinion cruel and impossible
I think a "resolution" in the title of a debate doesn't mean that's the "winning opinion", it just means that's the statement that's being debated, with Stephanie supporting and Peter denying the statement. I believe the statement itself was decided on by the debate organizers.
@@michaelroy6630 Thanks for clarifying, I see some references to the choice of language in the debate world. I guess for a video that's meant for people outside the debate community, perhaps it would've been more useful to title it "Debate: Abortion is Immoral", which other debate platforms seem comfortable doing.
@@michaelroy6630 Yes it is similar to debate motions being states as "This house believes such and such" one person argues for the motion. The other against the motion. In this debate Stephanie argued for the proposition. Peter argued against the proposition. I am pro choice. I am neither a subscriber to Peter Singer's fully utiliatrian ethic. But I also reject Stephanie's natural law based ethics. On Abortion I agree with Peter Singer. On other issues I might agree with Stephanie. As for the underlying philosphies those two people believe in. I do not subscribe to either of their believe systems. Both sides had good arguments. Both sides had bad arguments also
Peter Singer never responded to Gray's questions as to why a pregnant woman would not then have her life ended on a death sentence for some crime. The fact that he affirms that it is because he is a person did not answer either when Gray indicated that he would not be a person for a long time and took that opportunity away. Usually Peter went away because he defended human rights when we are not, according to him, superior to them. However, the debate did not focus on it in any way because we were talking about humans and their abortion. This is a problem that I personally see a lot and it is that no matter what is debated, a vegan will always try to introduce his ideology to be more comfortable in his field of action.
You could perfectly argue that postponing a pregnant woman's execution is the right decision even if you do not believe that a fetus has the same rights and value as a born person. We can all agree that a fetus is not nothing. It has a moral value. Even people who do not believe that a fetus is equal to a born human would in most cases argue that a fetus has value it is not like some garbage or a piece of skin. They might be people who believe a human fetus has no value at all but those people would be rare. So if one believes a human fetus has value. Then it is perfectly logical to argue that keeping the pregnant woman in prison for a few months longer and allowing her to give birth is the right course of action. It does not hurt anyone if the execution is postponed. No ones rights are directly infringed. She would still get her punishment. So no one is harmed. And something is saved if the child is allowed to be born. Or if there is any harm it is small and only in the form of extra money spent or something. By contrast the harm (I am purposefully not saying pain or suffering because suffering or pain is not the only thing which matters for example I find it totally immoral to kill a person just because they feel no pain) caused to a woman who is forced to carry a pregnancy to term and to give birth is huge. It is a huge harm. Physically and psychologically. Also potentially financially and socially. However I usually do not use financial or social arguments for abortion because although they do have merit there are potentially other options besides abortion to fully or at least almost fully alleviate these issues (financial support, public child care or if the mother does not want or is unable to care for her child at all adoption). The physical and mental harm a pregnancy can cause can not be repaired in many cases. And for me the life of a fetus is not worth more than preventing the harm to the pregnant person. That is my opinion. Hate me for it but it is my opinion.
Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without doubt a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it not being fully-developed, insentient and/or conscious. Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is STILL not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary stages of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the stage of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe - it is FULLY human. The aforementioned preliminary stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that - merely stages of the human life-cycle, and although the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification in itself for destroying its life. Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious, sentient person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring! See Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) to learn the distinction between legitimate abortion and illegal abortion, and to understand metaethics/morality in general. Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if it was morally-permissible, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe! It would be far preferable for me to encourage my daughter, wife or mother to give birth to the child and then relinquish it to an adoptive family. P.S. It is rather important to refer to the Glossary definitions of some of the terms used in the above paragraphs, particularly the words “law”, “moral”, “sentience”, and “person”.
@Wesley Hartland The baby in the womb is a growing human and has the genetic code of a human that is. It fully formed. I’m a vegan and I am pro-Life for all lives, I do t understand a lot of vegans who are not. Blows my mind the same way a pro-lifer isn’t vegan.
@Wesley Hartland a term for a mammalian creature of the homo sapien species of the order of primates. In their mature and healthy state they are characterized by bipedalism and a complex rational mind. Scientifically speaking do you believe tadpoles are Anura? Do you believe caterpillars and moths are the same creatures at different stages of development or do you think they are different species? It's interesting to see how systematic our minds work and how linguistics and systematic thinking can get us into reductionist views Edit:spelling
I am surprised that the argument of the right of physical integrity of women is never brought up in those discussion. This is the argument that I hear most frequently from defenders of abortion rights.
Problems is the identity we inscribe on things. When is an individual an individual? When is a bicycle a bicycle? More fundamentally when is a triangle a triangle? Ahh there you go.
Debating Peter Singer is brave but a futile endeavor. It is impossible to win an argument against someone who is perfectly consistent in his moral philosophy and unafraid of any conclusion that may be drawn. Pro-Life hangs its entire argument on the fact that a baby has the right to life, this guy doesn’t care. Good Luck.
I appreciate Peter's consistency in some cases (like killing born children up to 6-9 months old), but was disappointed in his inconsistencies such as being able to kill someone who's not aware or who can't feel pain, but if you apply that logic to adults, it falls apart. If he could have been pressed more on those topics, perhaps he could have come up with something else. I thought Stephanie was more logically consistent.
He's always been a bit sleight-of-hand in his consistency. I think his famous "happy pig > disabled infant" argument has allowed him to distract people with shock and avoid weaknesses in his arguments for a long time. He chastised Mrs. Gray-Connors for her value of the intent of an action when discussing ectopic pregnancies, saying that people are responsible for the ultimate outcome of an action. But what had he just said minutes earlier? The morality of a driver hitting a baby in an infant carrier depends upon what the driver was aware of.
I don't think it falls apart. The legal responsibility for those who are unaware and can't feel pain is in the hands of his or her care-takers. So, for example, Schumacher, who is/was in coma evidently couldn't make a decision and it was his family that decided to let him live. They could also decide to let him die via euthanasia.
@@rcronk you don't always know whether a person comes out of coma. Quite often it happens that doctors say that a person in coma won't wake up, but the family keeps paying money to maintain the person in coma and then that person, years later, wakes up. But imagine they had no money to maintain him alive. Does running out of money counts as an (indirect) murder? According to your reasoning, yes, because it would lead to the death of that person. If that is so, then following this very logic, we, as a society, are obliged to pay for every person in coma, because there is always a possibility that the person can potentially at some point wake up, be it 2 or 40 years later. This scenario is of course absurd. So the point is that sometimes the 'killing' is justified. And according to Singer it is justified when the being getting killed is not sentient nor conscious.
@@MinimaAmoralia You're missing the point. In pregnancy, they know a human is alive and will be born in a few months. So let's pick a situation with an adult that's even more similar. I go into surgery and I'm unconscious. You know I'll be awake in a few hours if you leave me alone. I'm unconscious but will wake up, so can you kill me while I'm unconscious? That's the same logic applied to an adult (or even a newborn) that's being applied to a pre-born and it falls apart. Because consciousness is not what makes us human and gives us rights, so their logic fell apart and they need to pick some other reasoning. I've never heard any logic from anyone that makes sense other than a human life starting at birth (biologically accurate) and rights being given to that human life at the start of that human’s life. Anything else is just ageism. You can have rights because of your age or development. Slave owners used similar logic when they picked some other human attribute (skin color) and denied rights to those who fit the description.
Stephanie Gray used the example of the video of a mountain lion defending her Cubs in Utah, showing that it’s obvious that we should protect our children. However, this is an appeal to nature fallacy. It’s the claim that morals come from nature. However, many feline animals will also kill and eat their Cubs, including lions. This doesn’t help her make her case.
No, unlike other fallacies, the naturalist is a highly criticized fallacy. In fact it is called the "fallacy of the naturalistic fallacy". There are many writings on it and many opponents of this fallacy. The problem lies precisely in what this debate took place, which are two different moral points of view. Therefore, an agreement would never be reached between Singer and Gray.
Mr. Singer won this debate, no question about it. Stephanie defended her views admirably, but she employed several logical fallacies that really lowered her argument. It didn't help that she missed Peter's refutation and he wasn't even allowed to repeat it, but I guess there's not sense in repeating for deaf ears. I appreciate how civil the debate was, and the subtle burns and excellent points and refutations made by Peter made this debate and absolute pleasure to watch :)
Good to see the polite exchange, but the position Stephanie defends is a cruel one despite her sincere conviction. Peter Singer is a powerful voice for reason and compassion in this debate.
@Morgan Allen There was no such "bit". Anyone, including you and me, can be justly killed in the right circumstances. If an act reduces overall suffering, then it is justified. Usually killing is wrong, but it isn't always wrong. Euthanasia provides an example.
@Morgan Allen Your use of the word "people" was the "obfuscation". Singer's position is consistent. From the time a fetus can feel pain it has moral status and that status grows gradually after birth. In his view, the killing a newborn infant still requires a moral justification.
By my lights, I think the harm vs suffering distinction is a flaw in singers view. A human can be harmed by depriving them of something they were entitled to but deprived, even if they never consciously suffer from it. Killing a fetus early in pregnancy clearly does harm even though it doesn’t suffer. The harm is in the deprivation of all its future experiences. Opportunity cost is a real cost to use economic jargon. An analogy that works is someone stealing my inheritance without me ever knowing the inheritance exists. Clearly a harm has been done, the theft of the inheritance. Me not knowing about it means I never suffer from that harm but am harmed nonetheless. Also Singers view seems inconsistent to say it’s immoral to kill people who have had but temporarily don’t possess sentience, and will have it again in the future. While it being morally permissible to kill those who have yet to ever have it, but will in the future. In either case the only sentience that will occur is in the future, which both have equally. I don’t see why past sentience has such relevance to his view. Singer glibly says it matters bc people wouldn’t ever sleep well, but in terms of suffering, killing a fetus without sentience and killing a person who has lost sentience temporarily is the same. In both cases the harm is loss of future sentience but there’s no suffering to speak of. By my lights.
Very well put. There are also people who suffer from the disability where they cannot feel pain yet we wouldn’t consider it any less immoral to harm or kill them. It’s a poor moral framework to base human value on things like pain, feeling and awareness because these are such variable things that can be violated easily and also apply to many other species. We have to look at things that are unique to human beings like their genetics and their potential.
@@LTfisch Yes, your (and everybodies) moral views have an impact on all life and society. Evil is made in the mind, before it manifests in the world, f.ex as an evil action like provoced abortion.
I wasn’t shocked at all that the professor would be in support of killing infants in some situations. because if you are going to back up abortion using logic and reason and with being consistent with your beliefs, then this is where that route will lead you to: to the support of killing young children. It makes you wonder, maybe we’re only centuries away from civilizations like the ones in the “the giver” where some newborns are killed off if they don’t meet certain criteria and it is viewed as normal by their society. It’s eerily similar to how abortions occur in our society today and the majority of the population doesn’t bat an eye
Yeah ive always thought that is the logical conclusion that pro choicers would have to arrive to. The only conclusion that makes sense for their side is that full personhood is granted when a human being becomes “conscious”. And i dont think that happens until 1-2 years old or maybe more.
@@armoblood7291 that's not a justifiable conclusion, the only logical argument that i believe in is quality > quantity should be done whenever applicable, a failed abortion child is usually depressed and useless to society. i only believe in the utilitarian view of abortion.
I envision a world where fetuses can be transferred safely to an artificial womb, thereby aborting the pregnancy for the woman and preserving the fetuses life.
Neither being alive nor being human is an argument for anything. A turnip is living. The word human simply indicates a type of species. A real abortion debate would be limited to first trimester and consist of only the two relevant features: most importantly, body autonomy and secondarily, sentience. A reasonable person will conclude that a first trimester abortion is not a moral decision or action because it is nonsensical to assign moral value to a non-sentient organism. It is, however, immoral to take body autonomy from someone based simply on beliefs about God or a species specific infatuation.
Yeah, in her opening she makes the blanket statement "all human life is valuable" without addressing what it is that makes our lives more valuable than other living organisms, let alone other animals.
1:09:52 Isn't it ironic how we appeal to the actions of animals when they "justify" our beliefs, but when the actions of the animals are considered barbaric and inhumane, we say "they are animals" we should not be doing the same as animals?
Absolutely. I'm surprised Singer didn't bring this up since carnivorous animals being part of nature is a common arguement people make against veganism.
Stephanie really failed here on all fronts. Her argument relies on showing that Peter was arbitrary or inconsistent, but she only really achieved this by ignoring his distinctions and challenges. She starts by assuming that all homo sapiens have these rights without justification, even though that is the thing being challenged, and never elaborates her reason for taking that view, while Peter gives powerful challenges. She seems more focused on emotional gutpunches or hyperbolic/deceptive comparisons (e.g. holocaust, bullying, abortions motivated by sexism, etc.), changing the topic and skipping over the part where she needs to argue the hard part. And for her position to make sense, you need to adopt some very clearly hard positions, as Peter pointed out, like how an abortion could not be performed even when the alternative is the mother AND the fetus dying. Her best argument is perhaps the point on parenthood, but despite her insistence that its central, seems rather forced. The force of her argument is to show abortion not merely as immoral, but as immoral on the level of murder and should be legally treated as such. Who cares whether the person is a parent then? If we ignore the entire "murder" argument and just focus on the fact the parent is not fulfilling their duties, then abortion would be no worse than giving up your kid for adoption. It is the argument that you are murdering which gives the whole thing force.
"She starts by assuming that all homo sapiens have these rights without justification." She thinks there is no need for justification as it is self-evident.
@@vegancatholic That's an issue, because it's not, and one of the main points of philosophical dispute. For example, we don't extend these rights ejaculated sperm, nor do we extend it to the brain dead. Begging the question is not a convincing argument.
@@vegancatholic Sperm can die, like all cells do, so it is alive. And uniqueness of DNA definitely isn't what is important, since we consider twins as two different people. So what we are left with is personhood, which you can only argue as POTENTIAL personhood for a fetus at the early stages, since it clearly lacks the relevant features. In other words, her position she is taking as self-evident is anything but.
I’ve gone through the comments and it’s full of people absentmindedly espousing “Stephanie/Singer obviously won.” I’m going to say that, because of the format of this debate, with not so much cross examination nor clear points nor obvious standpoints made by either side (this mostly due to the debates format), that it was a draw. Of course I have my own opinion too, but I think it’s unfair to say either side “won” this debate.
Absolutely not. Stephanie got stuck at believing in protecting the moral rights of all members of the mammalian class while eating cheese made by raping cows and taking away their calves. Vegan sometimes-choice is only correct answer. What’s your objection?
If possible can you please organize a debate between stepsister and professor Chadwick who Trent horn debated with Also between Stephanie and the channel God is Gray Debate between 2 Grays and 2 ladies. I’ve often seen these discussions between 2 guys or a man and woman. What I’ve suggested might be interesting
@@jaz_shl do you think if the human fetus could speak, the fetus would approve of being killed by means of lethal force for the sake of mere convenience?
@@IWasOnceAFetus The human fetus is not even conscious, let alone speak. It has no way of knowing what is happening to it. It might, I repeat, it might feel pain from 24 weeks onwards but that is highly disputed.
@@jaz_shl so? Consciousness isn't what determines human value or human rights. Even born humans lose their consciousness all the time and still retain their human value. And it's not like you can't harm an unconscious human.
35:15 Nature is much harsher than SGC thinks, and a very bad example to support her views. Actually it can provide an argument AGAINST her views. 1) There are virtually no unwanted pregnancies in nature. So no analogy there. 2) Weak or sickly offspring are often consciously abandoned in nature (not to mention phenomena of outright infanticide). Mothers do not want to allocate time and resources for them, out of fear that it will jeopardize their own lives, or the lives of their other offspring. Essentially they are making...a choice.
Very good debate! I am thinking about changing some of my views. At this point I am convinced that if I remain pro-life I should become vegan, which is something I have been considering for a while.
@@leishmania4116 There's no inconsistency with holding those two positions. I'm pro life but eat meat. I have a feeling you're about to respond with a common misunderstanding of the pro-life position.
@@leishmania4116 The pro-life position argues it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. You bringing up meat-eating doesn't contradict that argument. You may disagree with the arguments, but there's no contradiction with the two.
This woman is a lunatic. She actually said that if you could only save the mother by directly killing the fetus she would let both die because letting die isn't killing lol. Holy shit. "Yea, I know that I am indirectly killing them, but I didn't intend to, so la la la la I will pretend consequences don't exist!"
Having a hard time deciding who won the debate, but I lean towards SInger are the victor. His claims are similar to those who made in his well-argued book _Practical Ethics_ as well as the section within it on taking the life of a fetus. What the debate should really come down to is a consistent, moral dividing line of when the fetus has preferences, thus a right to life. It's no surprise that Stephanie is shocked about Singer's views on the infanticide of disabled infants, but I was too before I read his book.
@@quel2846 Sure it can. Preferences can very well be the only moral dividing line. He talks about everything you're arguing in his book. I really suggest reading it, especially so early in my life.
@@quel2846 He argues in favor of abortion in accordance with the total view application of utilitarianism. There's another view he talks about too that objects it. This is one of his most controversial views. I really recommend giving it a read. The chapter is called Taking Life: Humans.
@@quel2846 I don't beleive I've heard some of your ideas brougt up in a debate with Singer before, so I do think it would be interesting to hear what he has to say. At the very least, if you are not familiar with Singer's principle of equal consideration, I do think you should check that out. To this day, I cannot find a criticism of the principle that I'm willing to accept and I base a lot of my moral decisions off of it.
Abortion arguments can be made in terms of commonsense but an apriori principle does require a spiritual dimension especially when arguing against euthanasia
Morality can be different across cultures, religions, individuals….therefore it’s up to interpretation. I love how people think they have a monopoly on the concept alone and would force others to conform.
But basic morality isn't up for interpretation or for any reason dependent on culture, religion or individuals. We can not have people individually deciding if murder is evil or not. If you kill a person, it is wrong and you should be criminally charged. If we left morality to be interpreted on an individual level, then the state or no one can prosecute another for murder, rape, or theft. If your culture or religion agrees with murder or rape it doesn't mean the rest of the world should just nod along. At some point in time certain races and individuals considered themselves better and superior to others hence enslaved and killed those deemed less human. 'If those who we enslave are inferior than, therefore not human as us, then our actions are justified' that was their understanding. It isn't ''right'' that is why the world was up against it. We didn't say to the slave owners, ''if that is your moral stand, you can keep your slaves''. We said, ''NO!! YOU ARE WRONG OUR VIEWS ARE RIGHT AND YOU SHOULD RELEASE YOUR SLAVES. ALSO, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HARM ANY HUMAN WITH YOUR MINDSET'' (and that was the right thing to do collectively as a world). We have always forced others to conform that is why we are a society, community. If not, we will all be living on our little planets were another's action has 0% implications on the wider community (but we obviously aren't).
Morality is not relative. What you propose is moral relativism which gives everyone license to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want. It means not having to be accountable for anything because everything is permissible. People use moral relativism so they cannot have any accountability and do whatever they want according to their feelings. It’s very self serving. There are fundamental right and wrong across cultures, and people.
@@bs8076 I don’t care how you define it. It’s the truth. Morality is a human construct and humans create, understand and interpret through their cultural, religious, environmental lenses. Are you saying there is one absolute truth? Well so do others who will not share yours. It seems like you can’t accept the fact that everyone is different. I also sense ethnocentrism in your comment. The only solution that is plausible in a real, complex world is allowing a more flexible sense of morality. It will not make you happy and you will not get your cookie cutter version of “order” but it’s the closes you can expect from humanity. Humans are different, complex and you either accept that or go full Nazi in an attempt to conform everyone to your version.
To be entirely honest, I don't think Stephenie is a right fit for the leading defenders of abortion. She isn't a philosopher and it's obvious, she isn't going to fare well with articulated philosophical arguments. It isn't necessarily because the pro-abortion side has more truth on its side, but because when you are a qualified philosopher, you can make unjustified things seem (and I stress "seem") justified. You needed someone like Trent Horn or even better, actual Pro-life philosophers like Patrick Lee, Don Marquis, Stephen Napier etc. Anyone of them would've wrecked this despicable utilitarian
Yeah I also noticed that. Especially with the question about intrinsic value of human life over animals. I think a qualified theist philosopher could have been able to respond to that with proper philosophy.
Singer has already debated Don Marquis and the consensus is that he made very good arguments on his part for his claims. Trent Horn is just an articulate debate bro who, unlike Singer, has no academic work to his name that's done any substantive work in answering the hard philosophical questions that demand answers.
A lot of this boils down to their philosophical perspective and worldview, it would've been more productive to dicuss why they hold those fundamental values.
I’m gonna be honest, sometimes Stephanie’s extremism pushes me to better understand where pro choicers are coming from. Similarly to when Peter mentioned that you can’t kill someone during a surgery because despite them not feeling pain they have already lived and they have a will to live even if they don’t in that moment. Then Stepanie asked “why does that matter” and Peter gave a really crappy response that I was not expecting 😂 but I could tell that he cared more about being consistent in that moment rather than being rational and moral. Stephanie did the same thing when Peter was probing her about ectopic pregnancies and situation where you have to kill the baby in order to save the mother otherwise there is a great chance of death to both parties. And you could tel Stephanie was paying way more attention to trying to be consistent rather than logical and moral and in the process of doing that she made herself look silly.like really? You would willingly die and let your baby die instead of saving yourself by intentionally killing the baby? I mean it sounds horrible but there’s not a big difference because if you follow through with not killing the baby then the baby is going to die anyway and now so are you. You’re really going to let yourself die and leave all of your other children behind? It’s definitely a heartbreaking and traumatizing moment that you will have to live with for the rest of your life but you have to understand that there are no good options, because the baby will die either way. So at the end of the day you are choosing to leave behind and scar you other children simply because you want to be consistent with your views or you don’t want to feel bad. Honestly, it was really hard to watch her make really weird and illogical decisions because I’ve always viewed her as the opposite of those things
Stephanie said that and while understandable and rational or not, there are cases where mothers gave their life up so there baby could live. See Gianna Beretta Mollo, so that is a story of sacrifice.
If one has to jump through all these hoops to rationalize the dehumanization of the unborn child in order to justify murdering them, then it safe to say that you're wrong and that it would be better to say that you're a moral relativist that isn't consistent in their worldview. If murder of a human being is wrong then so is the murder of the pre-born child because they are still a human being nonetheless.
No in an ectopic pregnancy by the time the procedure is done (which is not an abortion nor is it the same treatment as an abortion) the baby has typically passed. The pregnancy cant continue and is not viable.
She isn’t extreme. She presents rational, consistent point of view, and she follows it to the natural conclusion. She is respectful and intelligent, whether you like her or not is irrelevant.
I fought, internally warred, with self worth, depression and weight. In my childhood, my dad was very critical. Everything was about appearance to him. He constantly oogled women and made comments about their physical attributes to me, even when I was a little girl. So, I grew up thinking women were just objects for men's pleasure. I had very little sense of worth. My heart was 💔. I started battling depression in my teens and wanted to die many times. I developed a warped idea of food and eating, which of course led to an eating disorder. I let men use and abuse me. I had two abortions, one at 19, one at 20. I was a dark, broken, angry, bitter, mess, wrapped in a young woman's body and I plastered a smile on my face for public use so no-one knew the destruction inside. At 30, after going through a divorce from a narcissistic addict who cheated all the time, I was then a single mother of an 18 m/o. At that moment I reached my breaking point and realized I needed help. A friend, who truly cared, asked me why I didn't believe in God and Jesus Christ. I didn't have a good answer...it was simply that I felt I could only trust myself and I doubted there was a God when I looked at all the pain in the 🌎. Not long after our conversation, I heard the Gospel, which is the Good News that Jesus Christ came to earth 2000 years ago, fully God and fully man, to be the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, so that we could then be counted as God's children here on earth and then for eternity in Heaven. WHOA!! That blew me away....Jesus loves me (and you) so much that he allowed himself to be mocked, ridiculed, BEATEN, and HUNG BY SPIKES AND ROPE ON A ✝, then he was brought back to life by God the Father after three days, spoke to his many disciples and then ascended to Heaven in his glorified body!! AND, He did that as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. All we need to do is believe he is alive, repent of our sins, and pursue him in prayer and in his WORD, the HOLY Bible. Abortion is a sin because its spilling the blood of the innocent lives God created. God wants to forgive us tho and that's why He sent Jesus. Since the moment I said yes to Jesus, he has given me SO much. He healed my ❤ from all the pain and regrets of my life. No more depression or questions about my value. I'm a new creation through Him, and because I chose Him, I'm worthy of God's goodness. He gave me a new life... a new job, a new husband who loves me for me, not what I look like or what I can do for him, a new home, the $ ability to send my child to private school. He blessed me with a 4th child (2 in Heaven, 2 on earth), the college diploma I had worked for but had not received, work promotions/bonuses, and now I'm blessed to be at home and care for my elderly mother and young child. The Lord gives me peace, love, kindness, joy, patience, comfort, strength, and goodness! The Lord is our great councilor if we'll let him. I've never regretted choosing Jesus. He's waiting for you TODAY! He wants to heal you, love you, and be with you for eternity! If you don't know him, I challenge you to just ask Him... Jesus, are you real, are you alive, did you create me, is the Bible your word, etc.??? If you're sincere in your questions, he'll answer you. I pray you don't doubt when He answers you! May God bless you.
@Michael Strombeck Sorry, but nothing you said even _remotely_ made any sense (excepting the scientific findings, for which we have evidence that is irrefutable). If you can continue to believe in the Christian God _despite_ the fact of evolution, and the discoveries of modern geologists, archeologists (e.g. no proof of 40 years wandering in the desert), cosmologists, astronomers, etc., then I don't know what else I can say that will convince you. You obviously don't believe the Bible is infallible, and it's a testament to have far we've come that saying as much 500 years ago in medieval Europe would get you burned at the stake for heresy. _"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."_ ~ James Madison
@Michael Strombeck The "big bang" can hardly be claimed as evidence for Christianity. As Christopher Hitchens once said, "The universe either began or it didn't, and the fact that Christianity had a 50% chance and got it right does not impress me." They also got the age wrong by about 13.8 billion years, as well as the entire sequence of events during this supposed "creation." Oh, and let's not forget that hundreds upon hundreds of _other_ religions had _their_ own creation myths as well. Hinduism (which is actually considered the world's oldest religion, even older than Judaism), Zoroastrianism, Chinese folk religions, the Aztecs, the Egyptians, Scientology--the list goes on. We can pick and choose or get pedantic about which myth is the _most_ accurate to the scientific evidence, but that would be beyond silly. All we can know for sure is what science tells us, and it has all but _confirmed_ that Adam and Eve weren't real people, Noah's flood never happened, the Tower of Babel is _at best_ a legend, Jonah didn't survive for three days inside a whale, etc. etc. The Bible, when looked at objectively, is hardly more than a vaguely historical document with a collection of fairy tales sprinkled in. And if those stories were all made up, then maybe, _just maybe,_ God was made up too. By the way, Jesus actually _did_ command his disciples to burn unbelievers alive. I know it may come as a shock to you, but that is often the case when preachers and "devout" Christians don't even read their own Bible. I'm assuming you have one, so I'll let you read the passage for yourself: John 15:6 This verse is actually responsible for most, if not all, the torturings by fire committed by the Catholic Church in the medieval era--with the possible exception of witches. The latter is the consequence of Exodus 22:18.
@Michael Strombeck We could also speculate that you and I are just brains in a vat. We can go down this philosophical rabbit hole if you want to, but what matters is that we don't have _good reason to believe_ that any of that is true. Because of a lack of evidence, it doesn't deserve any serious consideration outside of a trivial (though still quite amusing) philosophical debate. On the other hand, we have all the evidence in the world that the reality we are currently experiencing is all that exists, and _this_ is where we can place our bets. Could we be wrong? Possibly, but it's _extremely_ unlikely given that we have absolutely _zero_ evidence to support that conjecture. And this, all rational agents should agree, throws it out of the realm of serious consideration.
Stephanie Gray Connors has, throughout the debate, appealed to emotion, which inspite of being effective is not the way to sway people's emotions. Peter Singer, on the other hand, spoke quite rationally and gave weight to individual circumstances as to when an abortion can be moral or immoral. It is sad, and at the same evolutionarily true, that human beings are more prone to be emotional rather than rational.
I don't know what you're talking about. Where in the video did Stephanie appeal to emotion? And the way that you implied that is as if she made arguments by ONLY appealing to emotions, which is obviously false, and definitely not a rational characterisation of the debate on your part. And I agree that Singer is more rational than most average pro-aborts. Most pro-aborts don't even have the integrity to admit that the human zygote is a living human member belonging to the human species. However, the cross-examination alone made it glaringly obvious that Singer fails to be logically consistent. His rationality leads to the logical conclusion that infanticide is a perfectly justifiable option, even though he still tries to deny it by appealing to arbitrary reasons. He tried to get around that by first appealing to a "guess" of when a born child becomes a person. Note that he's basing his argument on a guess. When pressed further, he appealed to parental feelings toward the "non-person child." To the question, "what if the parents don't care about the child?" the only conclusion he came to was that the non-person child somehow still deserved to live "because laws". And yet, his whole argument was meant to prove that non-person humans don't really qualify for human rights! How does that even make sense? So it turns out that he's not really appealing to rationality and logic at all. He's just appealing to consensus, or mere preferences, and at the end, he still ends up with a logical inconsistency.
When Stephanie Gray Connor calls Peter Singer an ageist, and that his position can't stand against discrimination based on sex or color, I think this is one of the biggest straw-manning I've ever heard before. I think Peter Singer has made it clear (more than once) that his position is based on the capacity of suffering and awareness. It makes Stephanie's repeated attempts to call him an ageist seem to be an intentional straw-manning.
I think the point she's making is that his position is, in effect, ageist. Since the capacities he mentions are capacities humans have _once they're old enough,_ rather than capacities that humans lack as a whole. Amoebas can't reason. Ever. B/c of _what_ they are. Human embryos can't. For now. B/c of _how old_ they are.
@@jimbojackson4045 Singer refuted that point. Some older people have much more limited cognitive capacities than very young children and many animals. Some adults have such limited capacities all their lives while other's develop advanced Alzheimers and become less cognitively aware than a typical nine-month old or Chimpanzee later in life. Singer is not talking about age, he's talking about cognitive ability, including such things as being aware of ourselves as existing over time, having hopes and plans for the future and being able to contribute to the well-being of others.
@@JohnThomas I don't see how that is a refutation. ??? The only thing that sounds like it could imply is that old people might lose their right to life too or something. That doesn't refute the effective ageism claim. If anything, it sounds like it's giving more examples for it.
@@jimbojackson4045 Here is Singer's refutation. It's decisive: _" ... in the normal course of development it [cognitive capacity] is a matter of age, but somebody could have been born with very profound cognitive defects and they might have survived. They might have been kept going although they could never respond. There are such people. They could never develop any kind of rational awareness or sense of who they are, and they might be 50 years old, but I don't think that that would give them a moral status that is superior to that of non-human animal no matter how old they are. So it’s a mistake to say that the view that I’m talking about is discrimination on the basis of age. It’s rather a judgement that there are certain criteria, cognitive criteria, that give humans moral status that, in some respects, is more significant than that of non-human animals."_
@@JohnThomas I like that other example of defects in certain people, but I think that would just shift into the territory of _effective ablism._ Of course, this isn't accusing him of bigotry, but it's not a thing most people are comfortable with.
“An embryo doesn’t have plans”. Yes but they will eventually have them if you let them grow, so abortion is immoral. Animals never have plans that’s why it’s absolutely moral to eat them
That's right! The right thing to do is to protect the vulnerable, not to take advantage of their lack of development when they can do nothing for themselves.
@@TeChNoWC7 you have zero proof that the baby cant feel themselves being dismembered. If I was under anethesia and was dismembered I wouldnt feel it but its still immoral.
@@Arginne that’s not the claim, you are straw manning. 1. You pulled zero proof out of your arse, assuming there was zero or even inconclusive evidence, sure I’d have an issue with it and 2. It might be immoral but there is no suffering, and that has a bearing on how moral or immoral it is.
49:31 We could use the self-defense argument. Baby is actively killing mother, mother decides she can't run away, so she has to kill the baby to safe her own life. Killing in self-defense is not murder.
Being a member of a species doesn't give you a right to life, since we are all going to die. A better way to frame it is that we have a right to not be intentionally killed unless we have done something to forfeit that right (e.g. murder - taking another human life).
She is very extreme in her views and is also against permanent contraception like vasectomies that would actually reduce the abortions she is opposed to: She wrote: “Or consider the wife who, like the Church, is to be a receptive vessel receiving her spouse's life-giving love and allowing it to bear fruit. If a woman blocks a man's sperm or suppresses her eggs from releasing, she acts in the opposite way of the church: Christ's bride is not to be closed to her bridegroom's seed; instead, the church is to welcome the seed of Christ's love so it produces fruit.” Literally, she thinks women are baby making vessels and are not allowed to decide how many children she wants through contraception. So she sees nothing wrong with forcing a woman to have baby after baby even if it ruins her health. Even in a monogamous marriage, she thinks the woman has to have babies as long as she consents to sex with her husband. Regardless of her situation, wealth level or maturity. Or consider whether having 10 kids is acceptable for her level of income or causes her kids to live in poverty. Natural family planning is not a form of effective contraception. She rejects modern medicine because of God. *rolls eyes* Oh, and she has no compassion for rape victims or unwilling mothers suffering from anxiety attacks and and contemplating suicide or actively trying to commit suicide or self harming because they are forced by the state to give birth, and that every day the unwanted pregnancy reminds them of their trauma. If she would have it her way, a woman who was raped and traumatized, would be further punished by going to jail for illegal abortion. No compassion, just a black and white worldview, smug sense of self righteousness about a situation she has never had to deal with. Until the day the government can guarantee ample support so that the woman forced to give birth a quality of life as good as if she had been able to get the abortion by guaranteeing free college so she doesn't have to take 4 jobs to support herself and the baby, and free medical treatment for all physical and mental health consequences of having the baby e.g. free surgery for prolapse, weak bladder and maternal injury, free plastic surgery for bodily changes she didn't want, free medication for postnatal depression etc, she has no right to make permanent decisions in anyone's life by trying to ban modern medicine or is morally justified in actively taking away the ability for women to choose what kind of life they want, or if they want to experience childbirth. Oh, and even if all states banned abortion, wealthy people are still going to fly to a different country to get abortions, while the poor and vulnerable members of society is screwed.
Good debate. However, Stephanie's are based quite a bit on classifications and the choice of words used to describe. Like "fetus is human, humans have human rights per UN, so fetusus have human rights" or describing abortion as "murder". Peter's (ok he's a professor) doesn't depend on the choice of words and classifications. He's simply looking for consistency of moral stance and digging deeper into the criteria - beyond descriptions and classifications.
There is a difference when someone who has no prospect to live and a foetus who has that prospect. Even if that person who has no prospect seemingly, euthanasia is wrong. But it is different when the person make a will to give it up out of love for his neighbours.
To Singers first cross examination and Conner's response; she states that it would be better for her to die than kill her child. What if she is leaving a partner and children? By not saving her life, she is inevitably harming her family right?
I always find it hard to hear about abortion and why women need it. I understand there is rape and a pregnancy can occur angainst the woman's wishes. But why can't couples conduct themselves in such a way that displays their human dignity and control over their own bodies and abstain from sex which is %100 effective in avoiding pregnancy rather than killing the child that results from their inablility to say no and instead, act like animals feeding their own appetite and not acting responsibly with the consequences.....A society that kills it's own young, is a society that will annihilate itself......
I think Singer won this debate. If Stephanie is unable to show a morally relevant difference between fetuses and non-human animals that would justify pro-life arguments but allow for animal consumption, then her position loses its strength. Stephanie objects to Singers account of the grounds that it discriminates group members based on age - but she has no defence for discriminating group members based on species. Singers pro-choice view, and his view on animal consumption both seek to reduce pain and suffering; but on Stephanie's view, she inappropriately privileges (human) fetuses over non-animals without providing a moral reason to do so. I do acknowledge that this was a debate about abortion, but assessing her views on animal welfare seems appropriate here. Stephanie did a great job at defending her position, but it seems untenable because of her inability to consider animal welfare. Animals endure far greater pain than fetuses - this is self evidently true because i). the animal agriculture industry kills animals in the billions annually and abortions collectively occur in the millions annually and ii). Singer's account only tolerates abortions before the third trimester, e.g. before pain conception.
Absolutely not, I believe singer got exposed of his own logic backfiring with the example of the baby who’s six months, the dad does not love them and that baby is in the side of the road. Because remember! Singer position was that’s not a person, but then he tries to go around the question and divert what she asked. Remember 1. That’s not a person, 2. That child is not loved sense then driver is the dad. But why should they not be killed ?
@@chrisarmon1002 I'm having trouble understanding this. I don't believe that's how he answered the question. Don't you remember what he said about the van driver?
You think Singer won becouse you subscribe for his riddiculus "spiecism" view. Singer is sexual perverer with no hunch about morality. Stephanie on the other hand has a weakpoint with her insestance on absolute equality between human.
Of course it depends on how disabled the piglet is. If the piglet is severely disabled to the point of not being to have an enjoyable life and if you kill the piglet completely painlessly, I think it's completely fine. I think I share Peter's worldview.
For Singer, it's not the act of killing or eating an animal that's wrong, it's the associated suffering. So if you could devise a system to raise and slaughter animals without causing unnecessary suffering, then eating meat would be acceptable.
@@SuburbanMan I've only just come across Singer so don't know his views on animal suffering. Is he saying suffering is caused at/by the moment of slaughter or the way they are reared?
@Michael Strombeck That sounds disgusting but it brings up some interest points. Cannibalism is nothing new in human affairs, you may have heard of the Airplane that came down in The Andes & survivors had to eat the bodies of the dead. Same thing occurred during the Ukrainian famines in the 20's & 30's. So, if the 6 mth old baby was dead - therefore obviously not able to feel pain - and the child was eaten to feed other children or even adults who are starving to death, would that be considered wrong, immoral or unethical?
She lost in the first minute. Her assumption that all humans are equal is incorrect and been debated for ages. Her assumption that fertilization is the scientific consensus is also incorrect. In fact, generally, implantation, not fertilization is considered to be the start of pregnancy and some laws in fact refer to fertilization as the start and some refer to implantation, and some refer to conception, which is related to implementation. She also speaks about age and (conveniently) glosses over the distinction between embryo and fetus which age is a marker of development, and indirectly equates them as being equal because they are both life.She then mentions Singers responses to her assertions on whether or not all humans have a right to life, but he was not saying this, he was responding to her assertion that humans are of equal value. She didn't have any well-reasoned response to his mother dying question, in fact she just said she would rather die as she had no response to discussing competing rights to life and admits that both should die and thus contradicts herself by denying another's right to live because the counterpoint is that the other is killing her. She avoids the animal-killing question but then talks about speciesism without acknowledging that species kill their own members all the time and many abandon and/or kill other young progeny and even kill their own.
I think you misunderstand her. I'm not attempting to argue her point; it just seems like maybe her style of speaking doesn't work for you (which means that'd probably true for more people than just you), so maybe I can leave this here and anybody else who feels the same can read through it and maybe understand her position better. *"Her assumption that all humans are equal is incorrect and been debated for ages."* > I believe she said that we have come to this understanding and it's what we've agreed upon. It was certainly hotly contested in the past, but the state of all Western societies, as well as many other societies, is that all human beings have equal intrinsic value. To say there are some people somewhere who dispute it would unnecessarily hold back the debate and transform it from a question about abortion into a question about the relative moral value of humans. (It's also a common assumption we make in utilitarian questions, like the classic trolley problem. The problem isn't one 80-year-old nun with a chronic pain condition vs one 25-year-old repeat criminal offender who plays the saxophone, it's one person vs four people, or _sometimes_ your child vs four other people.) *"Her assumption that fertilization is the scientific consensus is also incorrect.* In fact, generally, implantation, not fertilization is considered to be the start of pregnancy and some laws in fact refer to fertilization as the start and some refer to implantation, and some refer to conception, which is related to implementation." > She's referring to life, generally. Not all creatures who reproduce using sperm and ova have an "implantation." (Anecdotally, I've had at least two major-publisher Biology textbooks that stated an independent human life has begun at the time of fertilization. They just don't call it personhood.) *"She* also speaks about age and (conveniently) glosses over the distinction between embryo and fetus which age is a marker of development, and indirectly equates them as being equal because they are both life."* > She is _directly_ equating them as equal because they are human life. All the sub-group terms we use are markers of age, which mark our development (i.e. embryo, fetus, toddler, teenager, adult). *She didn't have any well-reasoned response to his mother dying question,* in fact she just said she would rather die as *she had no response to discussing competing rights to life* and admits that both should die and thus contradicts herself by denying another's right to live because the counterpoint is that the other is killing her. > She does have a response that flows from her reasoning. The ethic she is arguing is that human parent should not kill their innocent offspring, _for any reason._ If you respect Singer's intellectual honesty in his position that a 6-9 month old may be killed in certain circumstances and his willingness to bite that bullet, you can appreciate that Mrs. Gray-Connors is also willing to follow her logic to it's ultimate conclusion in this response. For a great many people and legal systems, there are no "competing rights to life" between two innocent humans. (There's an interesting _old_ English case on this point, actually. The keyword for the case is usually "cabin boy," because it is about murder charges being levied against men who were shipwrecked and who cannibalized the cabin boy to survive. The cabin boy was facing certain death, but he had not died, and he did not volunteer. The men decided that, since he would die anyway, they would kill him so they could survive. The Crown determined that the men did not have the right to kill someone who did not want to be killed in order to save their own lives, even if the person they killed was already close to death and had no hope of recovery.) *She avoids the animal-killing question but then talks about speciesism without acknowledging that species kill their own members all the time and many abandon and/or kill other young progeny and even kill their own.* > It is common practice in a debate, even if the tangential issue may be interesting, to do what she did: address the issue generally (as she did when she said that it's possible that you should consider the right to life of other animals. It doesn't impact her point), then guide back to the topic of discussion. This is another issue that easily could've derailed the topic they came to debate. The cougar reference was both a means to transition back to the topic and to say that she isn't just asserting that some species have an instinct to protect, but that you can see the same instinct humans have in other species. Just because there are animal species who do eat their children doesn't mean her comparison between humans and and cougars isn't valid.
Humans being equal is quite generally recognized, why do you say otherwise? And her point was not that fertilization is when pregnancy begins, but rather when life begins. Also, conception is a the umbrella term that includes 3 parts: ovulation, fertilization, and implantation. So regardless of the fertilization/implantation distinction, life stills begins at conception.
@@Seethi_C the beginning of life is not the equivalent beginning of personhood, and there are biolgoical distinctions in that process that are well beyond my knowledge to defend or negate. So, regarding your above 3 parts, none of these speak to a reasonable interpretation of any sense of individuality or personhood. The equality of human rights historically was established but not practiced. But a thought-experiment question I have for you then is if during a pregnancy a complication during implantation develops and it is going to kill the mother, do you save the fertilized egg, or the mother? You can only save one.
@@turntablesrockmyworld9315 So then we would have to reject the idea of "human rights", if we say being human is not enough to have those rights. But what do you think are the requirement for personhood then? I would say it's up to the mother to decide which life she wants to save, under the condition that they aren't directly killing the other person. You can't kill someone else to save your own life.
@@Seethi_C This is where reasonableness breaks down. You are making a case that if a Dr. had to make decision between saving a fertilised egg or the mother 3 weeks into a pregnancy then it is equally ethical to choose to kill the mother instead of the fertilised egg. Personhood requires individuality (which doesn't exist early on), cognition which exists later on, and at ;east ability to suffer/pain as minimum requirements. You are also conflating rights of potentiality with the rights of an existing person. This is a religious argument that is used even one step further back to argue that even using birth control is a sin.
It's interesting to listen to abortion from the point of morality instead of legality 🤔 The question I have now is: What is the criteria to receiving the right to life? I agree with Peter that merely being a human is not enough. I have a lot to think about now.
It is enough, and it has been enough throughout the entire existence of human civilization. Every single legal system, ancient and modern, has been built around humans. I'm open to digging into the ethical considerations of applying some moral principles to non-human animals, but I would never advocate for taking away the rights of any human of any kind. There already have been experiments on this, and all of them resulted in catastrophic events (e.g., Nazi Germany & slavery). When we as a society look back at those we all can agree that they were morally atrocious and were a harmful point for human society. Abortion is another example of that, and it has caused more innocent human deaths that any other event in history.
@@alonsoarellano8324 Look, saying an individual deserves rights is just because they are human is just as arbitrary as saying that they deserve rights just because they are white or have xy chromosomes. I don't see how genes are relevant when talking about rights.
Yes it is something important to ponder. Both of them had very good points. I lean more towards Stepanie’s logic (although I does have flaws like Peter’s) because I see Peter’s view as ableist, and it is disturbing that his views ultimately lead to the acceptance that euthanizing newborns is ok,
Unless they didn't like the person and the false accusation actually brings them happiness...... :-0 I still think it would be wrong though, because I value truth.
Dr Singer has moved the goal posts when he talks about animal rights though. He doesn't stick to whether it is right or wrong to kill animals. Instead he (justifiably) laments the cruelty of factory farming. Factory farming is deeply wrong but that doesn't mean eating meat is wrong. I used to be vegetarian but got very sick as a result. Yet Dr Singer never talks about the sufferings of those of us who suffer without meat. I am no longer vegetarian, but I pay through the nose for ethically raised animals. Indeed, most animals are pasture raised in my country anyway. So me eating meat does not automatically mean eating factory reared meat like Peter states. Also, not to be graphic, but animals kill each other in much more brutal ways.
Was anyone changed by this debate? presumably most if not all viewers are still on the side they were on when this started & this is generally the case when competent representatives debate.
Stephanie makes a lot of emotional appeals and precedents in law with some bits of evidence that suit her position instead of using her own rational thinking processes to work from the ground up. I find her rebuttal about human vs person to be especially silly in this regard because it's pointedly ignoring Peter's parameters to make it sound like a horrid thing when it's not like that at all. She deliberately twists his position to be about age when it was clearly about sentience, awareness and such. That's disingenuous at best. She's not approaching this as a philosophical debate and exchange. She's approaching it like she's trying to win a political argument, and that's pathetic. She consistently tries to twist his position away from quality of life of sentient beings to something else. It's just not good debate practice, it's just her trying to win. Even her appeal to nature was cherry picked regarding the cougar protecting its young. As if animals do not also kill their young for various reasons. Just a really, really weak performance by her overall. What does she think of a male lion that takes over a group of lionesses, and subsequently kills all the offspring of the previous male leader? The argument of what's to stop someone from killing you during sleep or anesthesia is a weak argument. The person has already established their personhood by maybe 9 months old (using Peter's estimate), and scientifically we understand that sleep is a normal part of the human day night cycle. You can still awaken from sleep by external stimuli and will wake automatically after a resting period. That's not even close to a fetus that hasn't gained full consciousness yet. Anesthesia is functionally the same thing as passing out from pain. It's a self-preservation mechanism to protect the brain and body from overwhelming pain signals and is in no way associated with losing one's personal investment in life and living. Stephanie, and those like her, seem to deliberately ignore these kinds of scientific facts when they do not support their position. It strikes me as disingenuous. They aren't debating to cooperatively think through the problem as thoroughly as possible. They just want to win an argument. Stephanie did not have a good defense against life of the mother vs life of the child in medical complications at all. In her opening statements she very clearly said a parent should protect and not harm her child. However, when cross-examined, suddenly it's okay to harm the child, but her mental gymnastics still allowed her to refrain from calling it killing or abortion even though the result of her actions in these scenarios was the exact same. She literally went from one breath to the next saying the fallopian tube removal would be okay because it wasn't directly homicide, but next said that the pre-medical issue of crushing the child's head in the canal would not be okay even though both scenarios resulted in, according to her definition, the death of a baby in order to save the mother. So, in the fallopian tube example it was okay to kill the baby because it was a side effect of saving the mother, but in the stuck canal it wasn't okay because she considered a primary effect. Well, that's just a matter of phrasing because you could simply say that the primary effect is forcibly clearing the canal blockage, and so the secondary effect is crushing the skull of the stuck baby. So, she's just doing mental gymnastics. She very clearly only wanted to avoid explicitly stating she was okay with abortion or baby killing in certain scenarios. In her rebuttal afterward, she again changes the wording to suit her narrative. That's just bad faith arguing, imo. As for her argument that it's just a matter of age, then I would ask why aren't children allowed to drink alcohol, drive, or vote? Because we understand that physiologically they haven't developed the necessary pre-requisites to be considered eligible for driving, voting, or other various such things. It's because we understand that prior to developing the pre-requisite mental or physical criteria, then the person simply cannot reasonably engage in said activity properly. They aren't being denied due to age, but due to developmental reasons. In some cases, people without fully developed or functional mental capacities are never allowed to drive, operate a firearm, or other such things. Why? Because we recognize and accept that some things require a certain level of stature or mental capacity. The fetus personhood issue is virtually the same. The key is to set aside any inclination toward a disgust response because to engage in that is to commit the fallacy of an ought-is. Stephanie's constant use of human's rights doctrines is pretty annoying. We're not here for a gigantic list of appeals to authority or majority opinion. We're here to critically think through a moral issue. She is constantly using appeal fallacies in this debate. I don't think she understands thought experiments or proper philosophical thought and analysis. I would like to ask Stephanie a hypothetical. If she goes to a restaurant, orders an omelet, and the waiter brings out a bowl filled with all of the ingredients yet none of it prepared or cooked, then did she get an omelet? Would be willing to pay for that? When is it an omelet vs just a bunch of ingredients? How long does it need to be cooked before it's considered an omelet? When you have the ingredients in the skillet, then do you have an omelet or are you simply cooking an omelet? Is it an unreasonable distinction to say that raw ingredients in a pan are not an omelet? Or should you still consider it as such simply because it hasn't finished cooking? If so, then she should be willing to pay for the bowl of raw ingredients given by the waiter, right?
I think that Peter Singer’s position that of assigning relative value to humans based on their capacities and abilities is very troubling and a slippery slope. What about people with disabilities? Are they less human than others? As we age we lose abilities, does it mean that as we age we become less human and this less right to life? Mr. Singer’s perspective can easily lead to abuse and discrimination of various groups if people are valued only on their capacities and capabilities and cognition. By Mr. Singer’s relative morality and view, he would consider himself more human and valuable than many others just by virtue of his intelligence and his profession and contribution to society. However, he is aging and probably decreasing in certain capacities, and growing more frail. This according to his view, he is decreasing in humanity and right to life. So who determines his value? Who makes the decision of how much Mr. Singer is worth based on his gradual diminishing capacities due to age? He or society? Mr. Singer’s point of view is a troublesome and slippery slope that can lead to many inconsistencies about making moral decisions. In facing difficult decisions about life, Mr. Singer position is “It depends”, thereby making himself the judge of everything based on his feelings, or whether it is convenient for our social style at that moment. He is a moral relativist.
Awesome debate!! I'm with Peter Singer, abortion is moral and women from all over the world should be able to decide if they want to have that baby or not. Sadly in my country, Brazil, abortion is still illegal, mostly because of the dreadful influence of religion in the public opinion sphere.
@@leonardu6094 Brazil has the same legislation on abortion as Afghanistan, Uganda, Sudan and other extremely underveloped countries. Look it up. Do you really think all these countries have this legislation because they are against barbarism?? No sane person would say that. What Brazil has in commum with these countries is the fact that relegion here dictates the legislation in subjetcs it should not interfere at all.
Stephanie Connors perfectly argues why everybody should oppose abortion and none of it had to do with religion. It is an objectively good thing that Brazil criminalizes the slaughter of innocent and defenseless human beings.
It's the one moment where Singer responds to Gray regarding the animal suffering. The format of the debate prevented Stephanie from responding to his comments but I would have liked to see her respond. Every pro-abortion advocate in the comment section thinks that that's an inconsistent position. I don't think it is at all though. It's simply a matter of worldviews. Stephanie showed how Singer was inconsistent during the cross-examination pretty well.
@@IWasOnceAFetus Exactly. The mental and intellectual gymnastics of Singer is mind boggling. A pro-life proponent can hold any position in this matter (human life > animal life, or all lives are equally valuable) and that is totally irrelevant to this debate. The debate is quite simply - does the fetus have the right to life. How does our position on the lives of other species matter? Stephanie even brings up the example of whales and whale fetuses, ffs. Let's say I hold the position that human life > other species life. The point being debated is, can human adults kill human fetuses? That is, there is a choice for a human adult not to kill a human fetus against the choice to kill the human fetus. It can be a contradiction only if the debate is about a choice between a human adult killing a human fetus vs an animal fetus. Which is obviously not the debate here. So, why in the world is the so-called speceisim or our position on animal lives even relevant here, let along being a contradiction?!
@@balakrishnanlakshmanan9852 because you missed the fact that Peter, same as perhaps all pro-abortionists, is a total moral nihilist. What he wisely left out is his believe that human life has no real intrinsic value, he is just using the "animal life weren't sacred either" both as a buttress and proxy.
I think Catholics could be more consistent by caring for all life. Bracketing humans is speciesm, and it appeals to divine revelation that humans are special. If we include all creatures that can suffer in our circle of consideration, then we may allow killing only in self-defense. I have argued for this on my channel and my website.
The logical conclusion to his argument leads to an untenable position. By his logic we have no right to anything over animals or the very land we inhabit. That being the case we no right to use those things in any capacity. Ultimately that ends with the death of the human race. Which would contradict the view we have equal value to other species and living things on this planet because we would be denied the right to survival.
continuing to watch, and while stephanie is engaging in some possibly bad faith argumentation, singer is also kind of avoiding hypotheticals in a very frustrating way (though i would argue that stephanie's hypotheticals are poor to begin with)
I find the affirmative argument more logically sound; however, the dissenter does bring up a good point, why are humans more worthy of protection than other life forms? I would affirm the affirmer's statement that you can't discriminate based on current ability. Shall plants be protected because they are alive and because it is not their fault they cannot act as other creatures do? Are there non-religious arguments that show that humans are infinitely more valuable than other creatures and that their comfort is more important that the lives of other life forms? A basic theistic God may be used in the argument but you still must prove that we are special beings. Would proving humans have eternal souls convince the dissentive argument?
I think from a non-theistic point of view, you have to approach it from the social-contract point of view. We treat all human equally, because that is the only way to maintain a social contract in which all rational beings are incentivized not to make things worse for everyone (you don't kill because what right would you have not to be killed, etc.). We include even non-rational people in the contract, because a line-drawing decision runs the risk of shattering the social contract, if it is possible to wrongly be labeled as "irrational" (or, you know, "sub-human"). Animals, however, cannot enter this contract with humans. (Except maybe crows, but that freaks me out.) No manner in which I treat a cow can ever affect whether or not I am eaten by a lion, even if every human on earth is doing it. There are behaviors we can say are wrong by virtue of how they affect the human social contract, like animal abuse. It is not a leap to say that animal abuse is not permitted because the desensitization of a human against the apparent pain and human-like facial expressions of an animal who cannot defend themselves is dangerous to the human social contract. We _also_ know that our positive treatment of animals will not affect the way the animals treat one another, so we won't even see any utility from that perspective.
I noticed a very illogical point trying to be made by Singer when he was talking about removing life support from a disabled infant. Abortion is the intentional ending of the human in the womb, in most cases a heathy human, clearly not close the being the same thing as recognizing that life will not be able to sustain, and life sustaining measures should stop. Comparing the two things is ridiculous.
In effect there is little difference between these scenarios. The disabled child will continue to live if they are provided life support, they will only die if you actively stop this.
The fundamental error Stephanie makes in her argument against Peter Singer's goal of minimizing unnecessary suffering (upon which we should all agree is a good thing) is that she isn't taking into account _future_ suffering. She says killing is wrong no matter what, while Singer is making the point that killing is _sometimes_ justifiable if it avoids unnecessary and predictable suffering in the future. And it's all the more so when the agent being killed (like a fetus before 20 weeks) is unaware of being killed because it doesn't feel pain. I'm so grateful that we have the world's leading bioethicist to argue this side of the argument for us, because it often seems that we're taking the inferior moral stance when we really aren't.
Wow, Peter Singer is a true intellectual. Now lets analyze your comment. There are many born children suffering and living a terrible life, since its okay to kill an infant because they are not aware of suffering lets extend this further. How about we kill all the children in Africa in their sleep or give them a medicine that will put them in a state where they can't feel suffering. Such a great cause, we could eliminate all suffering in the world, I love atheist moral philosophers
And there is a serious flaw in your and Peter Singers thinking, how do you measure suffering and well-being and make a decision if the life is worth living? Living life +1000 points, getting hit in the face -300 points? lmao, it is a ridiculous philosophy bro, wake up
I think that Mr. Singer cannot criticize Ms. Connors on being consistent at the sacrifice of humanity as he argued for infanticide for the first 3-6 months of a baby’s post birth life
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
*Abortion is Immoral?
*
Affermative - Stephanie Gray
Negative - Peter Singer
00:10 Introduction
06:27 Intro Stephanie Gray - Abortion is immoral
18:42 Intro Peter Singer - Being a human doesn't necessarily mean having a right to life
*First Rebuttals
*
31:16 Rebuttal Stephanie - Every human life matters
36:27 Rebuttal Peter - Life hasn't fully begun for fetuses
*Cross Examinations
*
41:08 Stephanie cross examination - What age a child became a person?
43:41 Stephanie cross examination - Is it immoral to do abortion for racist reasons?
46:33 Peter cross examination - Life-risking pregnancy: what to do then?
*Second Rebuttals*
52:11 Rebuttal Stephanie - Humans have intrinsic value
56:37 Rebuttal Peter - It's not a matter of species, but cognitive abilities
*Q&A
*
01:02:34 Q for Stephanie - If abortion would be illegal what punishment would you have for those who do or attempt it?
01:04:50 Answer of Peter
01:06:01 Q for Peter - How do you reconcile your case against cruelty to animals with your support of abortion?
01:08:06 Answer of Stephanie
01:09:23 Q for Stephanie - Does your pro-life position implies also that we should be vegan?
01:11:05 Answer of Peter
01:11:50 Q for Peter - Direct killing in Euthanasia vs Passive Euthanasia: is the first as morally accettable?
01:13:52 Answer of Stephanie
01:15:10 Q for Stephanie - Do you think religion should be part of the conversation on the policy of abortion?
01:16:30 Answer of Peter
01:17:55 Q for Peter - Do you think it's up to society to decide when personhood becomes?
01:19:43 Answer of Stephanie
*Conclusive statements
*
01:21:10 Stephanie
01:25:25 Peter
Stephanie's website loveunleasheslife.com
You rock bro, thanks!
Wow! Thank you for this. Harvard Right to Life should include this in their comments.
The cross-examination was way too short. I prefer instances where both participants are able to more freely pressure test each other's ideas for longer. That's often the most interesting and unpredictable part of the debate and issues can be resolved in real-time between the debaters in these segments.
How incredibly nonsensical is it for a person who’s grandparents have been brutally killed in concentration camps to draw a line of human rights at the acknowledgment of consciousness of the being who’s deprived of its life.
His own parents must have experienced what it means to have survived to a whole society that considered them less than animals.
Isn’t that amazing?
I mean, the nazis won their battle if their victims (and he is definitely a victim of the nazis) hold a similar world view as their executioners.
I think this is deeply troubling.
@@day3455 I genuinely think it's possible that Peter Singer wouldn't hold the views he does if they had any risk of affecting him. It's always been troubling to me that none of his controversial positions have any impact on his life. Perhaps when he gets much older, but my reading of his work suggests that he has placed carve outs in places he might end up himself.
@@day3455 I was thinking the same thing! He is furthering their agenda. I have often wondered why some Jewish people are so supportive of abortion when they have experienced the evil of people not deeming them worthy of life.
Thank you for posting this! This was a great debate & I was afraid I would never see it again!
Conners: Deontology!
Singer: Consequentialism!
Conclusion: No progress made bc they are talking about application of different theories instead of evaluating the worth of those underlying theories.
I kinda agree. I don't think they were trying to talk past each other, but it would have been great to see them debate their underlying philosophies.
@@michaelroy6630 yeah I agree! And obviously we can test moral theories by looking at their implications. I just feel like these implications are so well known that it calls for the further discussion of the theories themselves.
He brings up the fact that she invokes the doctrine of double effect and points out flaws in it. BTW, she's not invoking Kantianism as much as Thomist ideas.
@@jameshall3088 wouldn't testing moral theories by their long term consequences, be much smarter. Implications are more like wheelchairs that biases need
@@nack4luck the main reason I dont find that line of evaluation worthwhile is because anyone who already finds the underlying theory plausible is unlikely to be shaken when you point out implications of their theory, which is what you see here.
Singer's theory implies X and ignores important value Y, isn't that crazy?!
Singer: No. It follows from the theory of morality I think is correct.
I want to Trent Horn vs Peter Singer
Yes, it would be good to see Singer's clinical dismantling of Horn's medieval thinking.
@@JohnThomas That's basically what would happen. I don't mean to be disparaging towards theists, but Singer is a renowned scholar with published works that have done substantive work in solving important questions that demand answers. Trent Horn is just an articulate debate bro watched by Christians as a source of entertainment and for validation of their beliefs. The only way someone like Trent Horn would "win" an argument against him is if his own audience isn't charitable to the opposing side's arguments, which they _usually_ aren't and resort to some form of confirmation bias for their beliefs. On a personal note, Singer and Gary L. Francione are the biggest reasons I myself made the decision to become vegan. If you're intellectually honest and receptive to what they're saying, the arguments are pretty tenable.
@@user-pe3fk1fb1o you done clapping yourself on the back?
@@mategrbavac2990 I don't know how one would go about "clapping" their self on the back, so not sure what you're on about.
@@user-pe3fk1fb1o ...If you're intellectually honest and receptive to what they're saying....irony is off the charts
Peter Singer's argument is probably one of the more consistent ones I've heard for the pro-choice position, but it literally requires you to be ok with infanticide. I think that really tells you that even if his position is logically consistent, there's something deeply wrong with it. It also lends credence to the comparison pro-lifers make between abortion and infanticide.
Agree with what you said. However, you would have to concede that the pro life side has to come to a conclusion that has “something deeply wrong with it”. Stephanie conceded that she would not commit homicide on her baby which is stuck in the vaginal canal even though this inaction would cause the death of both the child and the mother, when in the case of killing the child, at the very least, the mother would be saved. Now theres something deeply wrong with that too
Id also like to add that at least the pro life conclusion is heroic in that you give up your own life to not have blood on your hands, unlike the pro choice side, which is more of a cowards way out scenario
intellectual, moral consistency is necessary but insufficient. A person can believe that 'life has no value, I get to do whatever I want' and have consistency but that is not an achievement. And like you said, there's something deeply wrong with it.
@@armoblood7291 A natural counterargument to your assertion of the pro-life choice being heroic is that you are thereby giving birth to a motherless child. How much pain and loss does that entail for the child? Is it truly heroic? Or is it just the mother simply failing to consider the downstream effects on her child if she dies in childbirth? Perhaps it is a matter of perspective.
I came into this being on Stephanie’s side (because I’m pro life) but was very intrigued by the good points from
Both sides. Also it was awesome when he called her out on her stance (which was no stance) on animals rights 😂
Good and bad are RELATIVE. ;)
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? :D
@@TheVeganVicar I would disagree on that. I would hope that through our inherent minds and emotions and through thoughtful discussion we can come to conclusions on what is good and bad. If we think in this way and say that good and bad are relative then the Holocaust wasn’t a tragedy.
@@ToothBrush531, you mean that they are ABSOLUTES? 🤨
What about plant rights or micro organism rights?
@@mayapaya314, Are you VEGAN? 🌱
Please post more videos here! Even small ones!
This was a really good debate. Both sides were able to make their points and had to provide reasons for their thought process instead of just using sound bites or one-liners. Thank you for sharing!
Good and bad are RELATIVE. ;)
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? :D
Wow, excellent debate- vegan pro-lifer definitely loving this one 🙂
I salute you. I remember that I noticed many years ago that most vegans had no issue with abortion, and most pro-lifers were meat-eaters. It was so obvious that I thought it was somehow connected. It wasn't until I met a very peculiar woman (pro-life vegan) that I found out that this combination was even possible, lol.
Same here. I have been working on promoting veganism through a Catholic lens.
I really enjoyed the debate. Stephanie was on fire during her time to ask questions.
She sure has an active imagination! But why would a scenario as unlikely and specific as the ones she describles have general application in an ethics debate?
@@smulkin1 They're analogies. They demonstrate principles.
She seems deliberately obtuse, which is fairly bad faith.
@@yeahiknow3 She's trying to draw out moral principles from what he's saying. So she asked him questions. I don't see how that's acting in bad faith
If she was on fire when she was asking questions, I think Peter Singer did an amazing job of dousing it.
Really wished Stepahnie could have heard and responded to his counter argument @ 1:00:00 that a developmentally handicapped human, even if 50 years old, cannot attain a moral status of personhood. This is an inherent problem with the gradualism argument for personhood. Also, it is interesting that Singer references the philosophical work of UHRs and protection of slaves and the randomness or arbitrary of being a human being vs being a fully rational creature per his framework. Historically when de Vitori first made these arguments which became the eventual UHRs argued by Maritain, they did so using Thomistic and natural law theory. At the time of de Vitori, the argument against this was that Native and Black races were intellectually inferior and that, even though widely accepted as true, was still not a reason to deny their natural dignity. There would be no place to start the graudualism argument, had the work of equal dignity already been philosophically argued successfully by natural law. So now we jettison that work to provide a new framework which disallows underdeveloped or cognitively impaired human beings personhood status? It seems to be a work around to provide an objective standard for personhood that preborn cannot attain. Why I say that is because nothing cognitive developmentally special about birth, it is just an absolutely meaningless point of reference that personhood is assigned and so it reeks of circularity and question begging and it is never found in philosophical arguments until abortion became a legal challenge. I would press hard on anyone who adopts it to explain the immorality of infanticide. Singer has already made this concession and argues for selective infanticide in his book Practical Ethics.
at one minute or one hour?
@@aesuna2565 Edited; TY
I'm completely shocked at how well Stephanie did in her first cross examination. She seems really intelligent on this topic
She didn't she spoke too brashly rather than focusing on getting her point across and tries to use straw man's and appeal to emotion examples
She got wrecked
She’s not on Singer’s level
Bro, in her opening statement she asserted that fertilized eggs have the nature to become rational etc by virtue of being members of the human race.
That position is just absurd. There's not a single fertilized egg to have ever existed that has been able to express rationality.
Like all abortion prohibitionists, she doesn't fundamentally understand the issue.
@@anybody2501 Stephanie "eggs have the nature to become rational"
You "here's not a single fertilized egg to have ever existed that has been able to express rationality" ....do you see how dumb and/or dishonest you are?
As a vegan and as a life-supporter, I will never understand the arguments of P.Singer. I am so glad to know the work of Stephanie Gray Connors. Thank you so much.
Weird to add "as a vegan." Are you familiar with Peter Singer?
Would you be so kind to change the title not to include the resolution? How can I share it with my network and ask what do they think if they’re given the answer right away before even watching? Pro-lifers wil not click it as they already believe it’strue, and pro-choicers will not click it as they would think it’s a pro-life propaganda. And this is actually a very good debate and it would be great to encourage people to listen to it, dig deeper into the subject and make their own mind.
The title is just a formal way of identifying the topic of the debate. One argues affirmatively while the other argues negatively.
Thanks for organizing and uploading this great debate!
This woman is so clear, so logical and so right! Keep talking Stephanie! You’re a breath of so needed fresh air…and TRUTH!
You’re religious, you don’t care about “truth” lol
Well done Stephanie for fighting for the rights of children God bless you 🙏🏾
you believe abortion is wrong because you were told so, you two are different.
For their rights up until they are born
Nice debate! I would say both sides were pretty consistent in their world-view, so I think this debate was a draw. I would subscribe to Stephanie's view though. I wouldn't call Peter's view ageist, but I would call it ableist. At the end of the day, Peter believes that a disabled animal has less right to life than an able one which to me is immoral. One point that I think Peter didn't answer very well is whether or not killing someone who temporarily cannot suffer is morally acceptable. The distinction Peter makes between wanting to live seems odd in his answer about someone in surgery shouldn't be killed even though they wouldn't feel pain because they still have a desire to live. I would assume every living organism wants to live unless there's evidence to the contrary (e.g. committing suicide) so it seems to me that we should assume that a fetus wants to live too. If you don't make that assumption, then I think Stephanie's point about asking a 3-year old if she wants to live is a good one. Should we actually take an answer of "no" as permission for killing the 3-year old? At the same token, isn't Peter assuming that the person while under surgery still wants to live? Isn't it fair to say that once in good mind, both the person in surgery and the fetus would want to live? I would say yes, which is why I support Stephanie's view.
Yeah, a refutation I would've liked to hear would be questions regarding the value of suicidal people. For instance, if a suicidal person is under anesthesia, therefore unaware and cannot feel pain, is it immoral to kill them (assuming the person doing the killing is aware of their suicidality)?
I would like to hear his answer seeing as this checks all his boxes:
1.) The person does not have a desire to live
2.) The person cannot feel pain
3.) The person will not be cognitively aware of their death
I feel like he would say it's moral for the killer who is aware of the victims suicidality to commit murder, the way he argues it's ok to kill disabled kids. Unfortunately, (as in the case of abortion where the zygote will develop to the stage of embryo, to fetus, to infant, to child and so forth bringing about preferences and sentience) this ignores that many suicidal people develop past their suicidality and are able to become mentally healthy.
My answer:
Simply, in a world in which people who can't feel pain are killed, there would be much more suffering since parents, doctors or even just empathy towards other people would cause suffering to the ones witnessing that. Think about all the potential implications: a mother could be in constant terror of her child having an accident and going into a coma just to get killed soon after. A very unpleasant world to live in.
@@BasedZoomer being suicidal is a mental disease. There’s not much point in arguing with this because we know (through research on mental health) that most people who are suicidal DO want to live. Even just listening to people who have attempted to commit suicide we hear (from almost all of them) that they DID want to live. It’s a very complicated mental illness so I don’t think it would be useful in a debate.
I for one do not believe one has to have a consistent worldview. I despise extremism in all forms. I am pro choice. I am however not a fan of Peter Singer's worldview either. The pro life view has elements of extreme cruelty (letting two lives die instead of one to satisfy a moral principle is cruelty. Amputating an organ which could be saved just so that an embryo who will die anyway is not "directly killed" is cruelty. But Peter Singer's worldview has elements of cruelty also. Furthermore saying that either you accept Catholic natural rights philosophy or you sooner or later have tyranny has no basis in fact. I believe in human rights based on what was agreed an learned and based on solemn contracts. These contracts can prevent abuses and issues of the past. But I despise natural rights philosophy which is inspired by Catholicism and not secular. Looking only at intention and wanting to be "morally pure" while ignoring outcomes is utter cruelty. Only focusing on outcomes and following an "the ends justify the means" philosophy at all times is also wrong in my opinion. It can lead to cruelty also. I despise black and white thought. Purist philosophies are not fit for life. Life is grey. Life has ambivalence and inconsistencies. People who want to shoehorn life into a consistent closed worldview is in my opinion cruel and impossible
@@janinaschmaedeke6264 Can you clarify what you mean that one doesn't have to have a consistent worldview?
Hi! Why does the title of this (excellent) debate include a resolution? Who decided on the resolution? It doesn't seem to be in the video.
I think a "resolution" in the title of a debate doesn't mean that's the "winning opinion", it just means that's the statement that's being debated, with Stephanie supporting and Peter denying the statement. I believe the statement itself was decided on by the debate organizers.
@@michaelroy6630 Thanks for clarifying, I see some references to the choice of language in the debate world. I guess for a video that's meant for people outside the debate community, perhaps it would've been more useful to title it "Debate: Abortion is Immoral", which other debate platforms seem comfortable doing.
@@michaelroy6630 Yes it is similar to debate motions being states as "This house believes such and such" one person argues for the motion. The other against the motion. In this debate Stephanie argued for the proposition. Peter argued against the proposition. I am pro choice. I am neither a subscriber to Peter Singer's fully utiliatrian ethic. But I also reject Stephanie's natural law based ethics. On Abortion I agree with Peter Singer. On other issues I might agree with Stephanie. As for the underlying philosphies those two people believe in. I do not subscribe to either of their believe systems. Both sides had good arguments. Both sides had bad arguments also
Peter Singer never responded to Gray's questions as to why a pregnant woman would not then have her life ended on a death sentence for some crime. The fact that he affirms that it is because he is a person did not answer either when Gray indicated that he would not be a person for a long time and took that opportunity away. Usually Peter went away because he defended human rights when we are not, according to him, superior to them. However, the debate did not focus on it in any way because we were talking about humans and their abortion. This is a problem that I personally see a lot and it is that no matter what is debated, a vegan will always try to introduce his ideology to be more comfortable in his field of action.
You could perfectly argue that postponing a pregnant woman's execution is the right decision even if you do not believe that a fetus has the same rights and value as a born person. We can all agree that a fetus is not nothing. It has a moral value. Even people who do not believe that a fetus is equal to a born human would in most cases argue that a fetus has value it is not like some garbage or a piece of skin. They might be people who believe a human fetus has no value at all but those people would be rare. So if one believes a human fetus has value. Then it is perfectly logical to argue that keeping the pregnant woman in prison for a few months longer and allowing her to give birth is the right course of action. It does not hurt anyone if the execution is postponed. No ones rights are directly infringed. She would still get her punishment. So no one is harmed. And something is saved if the child is allowed to be born. Or if there is any harm it is small and only in the form of extra money spent or something. By contrast the harm (I am purposefully not saying pain or suffering because suffering or pain is not the only thing which matters for example I find it totally immoral to kill a person just because they feel no pain) caused to a woman who is forced to carry a pregnancy to term and to give birth is huge. It is a huge harm. Physically and psychologically. Also potentially financially and socially. However I usually do not use financial or social arguments for abortion because although they do have merit there are potentially other options besides abortion to fully or at least almost fully alleviate these issues (financial support, public child care or if the mother does not want or is unable to care for her child at all adoption). The physical and mental harm a pregnancy can cause can not be repaired in many cases. And for me the life of a fetus is not worth more than preventing the harm to the pregnant person. That is my opinion. Hate me for it but it is my opinion.
Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without doubt a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it not being fully-developed, insentient and/or conscious.
Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is STILL not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary stages of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the stage of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe - it is FULLY human. The aforementioned preliminary stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that - merely stages of the human life-cycle, and although the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification in itself for destroying its life.
Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious, sentient person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring!
See Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) to learn the distinction between legitimate abortion and illegal abortion, and to understand metaethics/morality in general.
Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if it was morally-permissible, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe! It would be far preferable for me to encourage my daughter, wife or mother to give birth to the child and then relinquish it to an adoptive family.
P.S. It is rather important to refer to the Glossary definitions of some of the terms used in the above paragraphs, particularly the words “law”, “moral”, “sentience”, and “person”.
@Wesley Hartland, you mean it becomes a goat or a giraffe at some point in its development? :/
@Wesley Hartland The baby in the womb is a growing human and has the genetic code of a human that is. It fully formed. I’m a vegan and I am pro-Life for all lives, I do t understand a lot of vegans who are not. Blows my mind the same way a pro-lifer isn’t vegan.
@Wesley Hartland a term for a mammalian creature of the homo sapien species of the order of primates. In their mature and healthy state they are characterized by bipedalism and a complex rational mind.
Scientifically speaking do you believe tadpoles are Anura? Do you believe caterpillars and moths are the same creatures at different stages of development or do you think they are different species? It's interesting to see how systematic our minds work and how linguistics and systematic thinking can get us into reductionist views
Edit:spelling
I am surprised that the argument of the right of physical integrity of women is never brought up in those discussion. This is the argument that I hear most frequently from defenders of abortion rights.
Because it is too stupid argument, agains it stands the integrity of the unborn child
Well done Stephene you did brilliant you are great at making your defence praise God
God isn't real.
@Michael Strombeck True. God is most likely non existent, but you can never be certain.
@@ConvictedFelon2024 you made positive claim. prove it.
@@RK-nq3fj only repent and you will be forgiven.
@@waynechen852 Repent for what?
Problems is the identity we inscribe on things. When is an individual an individual? When is a bicycle a bicycle? More fundamentally when is a triangle a triangle? Ahh there you go.
Debating Peter Singer is brave but a futile endeavor. It is impossible to win an argument against someone who is perfectly consistent in his moral philosophy and unafraid of any conclusion that may be drawn. Pro-Life hangs its entire argument on the fact that a baby has the right to life, this guy doesn’t care. Good Luck.
Why am I reading unsophisticated rhetorical drivel online over abortion when intelligent conversations like this are possible?
I appreciate Peter's consistency in some cases (like killing born children up to 6-9 months old), but was disappointed in his inconsistencies such as being able to kill someone who's not aware or who can't feel pain, but if you apply that logic to adults, it falls apart. If he could have been pressed more on those topics, perhaps he could have come up with something else. I thought Stephanie was more logically consistent.
He's always been a bit sleight-of-hand in his consistency. I think his famous "happy pig > disabled infant" argument has allowed him to distract people with shock and avoid weaknesses in his arguments for a long time.
He chastised Mrs. Gray-Connors for her value of the intent of an action when discussing ectopic pregnancies, saying that people are responsible for the ultimate outcome of an action. But what had he just said minutes earlier? The morality of a driver hitting a baby in an infant carrier depends upon what the driver was aware of.
I don't think it falls apart. The legal responsibility for those who are unaware and can't feel pain is in the hands of his or her care-takers. So, for example, Schumacher, who is/was in coma evidently couldn't make a decision and it was his family that decided to let him live. They could also decide to let him die via euthanasia.
@@MinimaAmoralia But they knew he would be out of the coma in, say, nine months, nobody could kill him or let him die. That would be murder.
@@rcronk you don't always know whether a person comes out of coma. Quite often it happens that doctors say that a person in coma won't wake up, but the family keeps paying money to maintain the person in coma and then that person, years later, wakes up. But imagine they had no money to maintain him alive. Does running out of money counts as an (indirect) murder? According to your reasoning, yes, because it would lead to the death of that person. If that is so, then following this very logic, we, as a society, are obliged to pay for every person in coma, because there is always a possibility that the person can potentially at some point wake up, be it 2 or 40 years later. This scenario is of course absurd. So the point is that sometimes the 'killing' is justified. And according to Singer it is justified when the being getting killed is not sentient nor conscious.
@@MinimaAmoralia You're missing the point. In pregnancy, they know a human is alive and will be born in a few months. So let's pick a situation with an adult that's even more similar. I go into surgery and I'm unconscious. You know I'll be awake in a few hours if you leave me alone. I'm unconscious but will wake up, so can you kill me while I'm unconscious? That's the same logic applied to an adult (or even a newborn) that's being applied to a pre-born and it falls apart. Because consciousness is not what makes us human and gives us rights, so their logic fell apart and they need to pick some other reasoning. I've never heard any logic from anyone that makes sense other than a human life starting at birth (biologically accurate) and rights being given to that human life at the start of that human’s life. Anything else is just ageism. You can have rights because of your age or development. Slave owners used similar logic when they picked some other human attribute (skin color) and denied rights to those who fit the description.
Stephanie Gray used the example of the video of a mountain lion defending her Cubs in Utah, showing that it’s obvious that we should protect our children. However, this is an appeal to nature fallacy. It’s the claim that morals come from nature. However, many feline animals will also kill and eat their Cubs, including lions. This doesn’t help her make her case.
No, unlike other fallacies, the naturalist is a highly criticized fallacy. In fact it is called the "fallacy of the naturalistic fallacy". There are many writings on it and many opponents of this fallacy. The problem lies precisely in what this debate took place, which are two different moral points of view. Therefore, an agreement would never be reached between Singer and Gray.
What if you can derive morals from nature? You can’t just beg the question by yelling “fallacy”
@@mattharazin5578 that's called deriving _oughts_ from _is_ , which is a fallacy.
@@IWasOnceAFetus No it’s not
@@IWasOnceAFetus if ought does not come from is ought wouldn’t exist since is includes all that exists
If killing a human being is not immoral then nothing is immoral
Killing a human being who can’t suffer or lose anything is not immoral is peter’s position.
@@joshh5353what about people with comma?
@@joshh5353doesn’t he literally affirm killing infants
Mr. Singer won this debate, no question about it. Stephanie defended her views admirably, but she employed several logical fallacies that really lowered her argument. It didn't help that she missed Peter's refutation and he wasn't even allowed to repeat it, but I guess there's not sense in repeating for deaf ears. I appreciate how civil the debate was, and the subtle burns and excellent points and refutations made by Peter made this debate and absolute pleasure to watch :)
Good to see the polite exchange, but the position Stephanie defends is a cruel one despite her sincere conviction. Peter Singer is a powerful voice for reason and compassion in this debate.
@@JohnThomas periodt, I 100% agree
@Morgan Allen There was no such "bit". Anyone, including you and me, can be justly killed in the right circumstances. If an act reduces overall suffering, then it is justified. Usually killing is wrong, but it isn't always wrong. Euthanasia provides an example.
@Morgan Allen Your use of the word "people" was the "obfuscation". Singer's position is consistent. From the time a fetus can feel pain it has moral status and that status grows gradually after birth. In his view, the killing a newborn infant still requires a moral justification.
No you are wrong there. Stephanie Gray clearly won the debate. And Peter Singer did repeat the point he had made earlier, later in the debate.
By my lights, I think the harm vs suffering distinction is a flaw in singers view. A human can be harmed by depriving them of something they were entitled to but deprived, even if they never consciously suffer from it. Killing a fetus early in pregnancy clearly does harm even though it doesn’t suffer. The harm is in the deprivation of all its future experiences. Opportunity cost is a real cost to use economic jargon. An analogy that works is someone stealing my inheritance without me ever knowing the inheritance exists. Clearly a harm has been done, the theft of the inheritance. Me not knowing about it means I never suffer from that harm but am harmed nonetheless.
Also Singers view seems inconsistent to say it’s immoral to kill people who have had but temporarily don’t possess sentience, and will have it again in the future. While it being morally permissible to kill those who have yet to ever have it, but will in the future. In either case the only sentience that will occur is in the future, which both have equally. I don’t see why past sentience has such relevance to his view. Singer glibly says it matters bc people wouldn’t ever sleep well, but in terms of suffering, killing a fetus without sentience and killing a person who has lost sentience temporarily is the same. In both cases the harm is loss of future sentience but there’s no suffering to speak of. By my lights.
Very well put. There are also people who suffer from the disability where they cannot feel pain yet we wouldn’t consider it any less immoral to harm or kill them.
It’s a poor moral framework to base human value on things like pain, feeling and awareness because these are such variable things that can be violated easily and also apply to many other species.
We have to look at things that are unique to human beings like their genetics and their potential.
My position is way closer to Singer’s than Stephanie’s, but she did an EXCELLENT job grilling him
Well, your and Singers views on abortion do a HORRIFIC job grilling the babies of the world.
@@hafiful ?
@@LTfisch Yes, your (and everybodies) moral views have an impact on all life and society.
Evil is made in the mind, before it manifests in the world, f.ex as an evil action like provoced abortion.
@@hafiful I’m not convinced abortion is per se an evil action.
@@LTfisch But abortion is persection of somebody. It is evil.
Are you glad you are alive? Are you sometimes thankful you got life?
I wasn’t shocked at all that the professor would be in support of killing infants in some situations. because if you are going to back up abortion using logic and reason and with being consistent with your beliefs, then this is where that route will lead you to: to the support of killing young children. It makes you wonder, maybe we’re only centuries away from civilizations like the ones in the “the giver” where some newborns are killed off if they don’t meet certain criteria and it is viewed as normal by their society. It’s eerily similar to how abortions occur in our society today and the majority of the population doesn’t bat an eye
Yeah ive always thought that is the logical conclusion that pro choicers would have to arrive to. The only conclusion that makes sense for their side is that full personhood is granted when a human being becomes “conscious”. And i dont think that happens until 1-2 years old or maybe more.
@@armoblood7291 that's not a justifiable conclusion, the only logical argument that i believe in is quality > quantity should be done whenever applicable, a failed abortion child is usually depressed and useless to society. i only believe in the utilitarian view of abortion.
I envision a world where fetuses can be transferred safely to an artificial womb, thereby aborting the pregnancy for the woman and preserving the fetuses life.
Exactly. He is a moral relativist.
Neither being alive nor being human is an argument for anything. A turnip is living. The word human simply indicates a type of species. A real abortion debate would be limited to first trimester and consist of only the two relevant features: most importantly, body autonomy and secondarily, sentience.
A reasonable person will conclude that a first trimester abortion is not a moral decision or action because it is nonsensical to assign moral value to a non-sentient organism. It is, however, immoral to take body autonomy from someone based simply on beliefs about God or a species specific infatuation.
Yeah, in her opening she makes the blanket statement "all human life is valuable" without addressing what it is that makes our lives more valuable than other living organisms, let alone other animals.
1:09:52 Isn't it ironic how we appeal to the actions of animals when they "justify" our beliefs, but when the actions of the animals are considered barbaric and inhumane, we say "they are animals" we should not be doing the same as animals?
Absolutely. I'm surprised Singer didn't bring this up since carnivorous animals being part of nature is a common arguement people make against veganism.
Stephanie really failed here on all fronts. Her argument relies on showing that Peter was arbitrary or inconsistent, but she only really achieved this by ignoring his distinctions and challenges. She starts by assuming that all homo sapiens have these rights without justification, even though that is the thing being challenged, and never elaborates her reason for taking that view, while Peter gives powerful challenges. She seems more focused on emotional gutpunches or hyperbolic/deceptive comparisons (e.g. holocaust, bullying, abortions motivated by sexism, etc.), changing the topic and skipping over the part where she needs to argue the hard part. And for her position to make sense, you need to adopt some very clearly hard positions, as Peter pointed out, like how an abortion could not be performed even when the alternative is the mother AND the fetus dying.
Her best argument is perhaps the point on parenthood, but despite her insistence that its central, seems rather forced. The force of her argument is to show abortion not merely as immoral, but as immoral on the level of murder and should be legally treated as such. Who cares whether the person is a parent then? If we ignore the entire "murder" argument and just focus on the fact the parent is not fulfilling their duties, then abortion would be no worse than giving up your kid for adoption. It is the argument that you are murdering which gives the whole thing force.
"She starts by assuming that all homo sapiens have these rights without justification." She thinks there is no need for justification as it is self-evident.
@@vegancatholic That's an issue, because it's not, and one of the main points of philosophical dispute. For example, we don't extend these rights ejaculated sperm, nor do we extend it to the brain dead. Begging the question is not a convincing argument.
@@JudgeSabo She talked about the sperm thing by saying it is not a unique (no human DNA) alive (capable of growth) human.
@@vegancatholic Sperm can die, like all cells do, so it is alive. And uniqueness of DNA definitely isn't what is important, since we consider twins as two different people. So what we are left with is personhood, which you can only argue as POTENTIAL personhood for a fetus at the early stages, since it clearly lacks the relevant features. In other words, her position she is taking as self-evident is anything but.
@@JudgeSabo a sperm cell has half the DNA of a human cell, if I remember correctly.
I’ve gone through the comments and it’s full of people absentmindedly espousing “Stephanie/Singer obviously won.” I’m going to say that, because of the format of this debate, with not so much cross examination nor clear points nor obvious standpoints made by either side (this mostly due to the debates format), that it was a draw. Of course I have my own opinion too, but I think it’s unfair to say either side “won” this debate.
Absolutely not. Stephanie got stuck at believing in protecting the moral rights of all members of the mammalian class while eating cheese made by raping cows and taking away their calves. Vegan sometimes-choice is only correct answer. What’s your objection?
It seemed that suffering defines morality for Peter which I think is not tenable.
If possible can you please organize a debate between stepsister and professor Chadwick who Trent horn debated with
Also between Stephanie and the channel God is Gray
Debate between 2 Grays and 2 ladies. I’ve often seen these discussions between 2 guys or a man and woman. What I’ve suggested might be interesting
Stephanie amazing woman . God bless you for being a voice to the voiceless
God doesn't exist.
Do you think the fetus is mute? That is, it wants to speak but it can't?
@@jaz_shl do you think if the human fetus could speak, the fetus would approve of being killed by means of lethal force for the sake of mere convenience?
@@IWasOnceAFetus The human fetus is not even conscious, let alone speak. It has no way of knowing what is happening to it. It might, I repeat, it might feel pain from 24 weeks onwards but that is highly disputed.
@@jaz_shl so? Consciousness isn't what determines human value or human rights. Even born humans lose their consciousness all the time and still retain their human value. And it's not like you can't harm an unconscious human.
35:15 Nature is much harsher than SGC thinks, and a very bad example to support her views. Actually it can provide an argument AGAINST her views.
1) There are virtually no unwanted pregnancies in nature. So no analogy there.
2) Weak or sickly offspring are often consciously abandoned in nature (not to mention phenomena of outright infanticide). Mothers do not want to allocate time and resources for them, out of fear that it will jeopardize their own lives, or the lives of their other offspring.
Essentially they are making...a choice.
Very good debate! I am thinking about changing some of my views. At this point I am convinced that if I remain pro-life I should become vegan, which is something I have been considering for a while.
Why must you become vegan if you remain pro-lie?
@@leonardu6094 Because we like internal consistency maybe (?)
@@leishmania4116 There's no inconsistency with holding those two positions. I'm pro life but eat meat.
I have a feeling you're about to respond with a common misunderstanding of the pro-life position.
@@leonardu6094 Which misunderstanding? That you care only about human life?
@@leishmania4116 The pro-life position argues it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. You bringing up meat-eating doesn't contradict that argument. You may disagree with the arguments, but there's no contradiction with the two.
This woman is a lunatic. She actually said that if you could only save the mother by directly killing the fetus she would let both die because letting die isn't killing lol.
Holy shit.
"Yea, I know that I am indirectly killing them, but I didn't intend to, so la la la la I will pretend consequences don't exist!"
43:28
Peter says "Why kill a child when you can give it up for adoption?"
EXACTLY!! That's why we shouldn't ABORT
Having a hard time deciding who won the debate, but I lean towards SInger are the victor. His claims are similar to those who made in his well-argued book _Practical Ethics_ as well as the section within it on taking the life of a fetus. What the debate should really come down to is a consistent, moral dividing line of when the fetus has preferences, thus a right to life. It's no surprise that Stephanie is shocked about Singer's views on the infanticide of disabled infants, but I was too before I read his book.
@@quel2846 Sure it can. Preferences can very well be the only moral dividing line. He talks about everything you're arguing in his book. I really suggest reading it, especially so early in my life.
@@quel2846 He talks about that in his book too.
@@quel2846 Down's Syndrome (among other disabilities), not so much eugenics, but the connection is definitely there.
@@quel2846 He argues in favor of abortion in accordance with the total view application of utilitarianism. There's another view he talks about too that objects it. This is one of his most controversial views. I really recommend giving it a read. The chapter is called Taking Life: Humans.
@@quel2846 I don't beleive I've heard some of your ideas brougt up in a debate with Singer before, so I do think it would be interesting to hear what he has to say. At the very least, if you are not familiar with Singer's principle of equal consideration, I do think you should check that out. To this day, I cannot find a criticism of the principle that I'm willing to accept and I base a lot of my moral decisions off of it.
Grey is a titan
Abortion arguments can be made in terms of commonsense but an apriori principle does require a spiritual dimension especially when arguing against euthanasia
Even euthanasia has good arguments absent a spiritual framework. There are certainly more with one, but some important ones remain.
Morality can be different across cultures, religions, individuals….therefore it’s up to interpretation. I love how people think they have a monopoly on the concept alone and would force others to conform.
But basic morality isn't up for interpretation or for any reason dependent on culture, religion or individuals. We can not have people individually deciding if murder is evil or not. If you kill a person, it is wrong and you should be criminally charged.
If we left morality to be interpreted on an individual level, then the state or no one can prosecute another for murder, rape, or theft. If your culture or religion agrees with murder or rape it doesn't mean the rest of the world should just nod along.
At some point in time certain races and individuals considered themselves better and superior to others hence enslaved and killed those deemed less human. 'If those who we enslave are inferior than, therefore not human as us, then our actions are justified' that was their understanding. It isn't ''right'' that is why the world was up against it. We didn't say to the slave owners, ''if that is your moral stand, you can keep your slaves''. We said, ''NO!! YOU ARE WRONG OUR VIEWS ARE RIGHT AND YOU SHOULD RELEASE YOUR SLAVES. ALSO, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HARM ANY HUMAN WITH YOUR MINDSET'' (and that was the right thing to do collectively as a world). We have always forced others to conform that is why we are a society, community. If not, we will all be living on our little planets were another's action has 0% implications on the wider community (but we obviously aren't).
that's false. There is just one correct morality, everyone should strife for understanding it the best.
@@tafazzi-on-discord ok, sure
Morality is not relative. What you propose is moral relativism which gives everyone license to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want. It means not having to be accountable for anything because everything is permissible. People use moral relativism so they cannot have any accountability and do whatever they want according to their feelings. It’s very self serving. There are fundamental right and wrong across cultures, and people.
@@bs8076 I don’t care how you define it. It’s the truth. Morality is a human construct and humans create, understand and interpret through their cultural, religious, environmental lenses. Are you saying there is one absolute truth? Well so do others who will not share yours. It seems like you can’t accept the fact that everyone is different. I also sense ethnocentrism in your comment. The only solution that is plausible in a real, complex world is allowing a more flexible sense of morality. It will not make you happy and you will not get your cookie cutter version of “order” but it’s the closes you can expect from humanity. Humans are different, complex and you either accept that or go full Nazi in an attempt to conform everyone to your version.
make more videos please! especially with what's going on.
Stephanie was okay, but her response to the question about vegetarianism wasn't an answer. She spoke without saying anything.
Yeah, because carnist pro lifers are massive hypocrites and they know it
To be entirely honest, I don't think Stephenie is a right fit for the leading defenders of abortion. She isn't a philosopher and it's obvious, she isn't going to fare well with articulated philosophical arguments. It isn't necessarily because the pro-abortion side has more truth on its side, but because when you are a qualified philosopher, you can make unjustified things seem (and I stress "seem") justified. You needed someone like Trent Horn or even better, actual Pro-life philosophers like Patrick Lee, Don Marquis, Stephen Napier etc. Anyone of them would've wrecked this despicable utilitarian
Yeah I also noticed that. Especially with the question about intrinsic value of human life over animals. I think a qualified theist philosopher could have been able to respond to that with proper philosophy.
Singer has already debated Don Marquis and the consensus is that he made very good arguments on his part for his claims. Trent Horn is just an articulate debate bro who, unlike Singer, has no academic work to his name that's done any substantive work in answering the hard philosophical questions that demand answers.
A lot of this boils down to their philosophical perspective and worldview, it would've been more productive to dicuss why they hold those fundamental values.
I’m gonna be honest, sometimes Stephanie’s extremism pushes me to better understand where pro choicers are coming from. Similarly to when Peter mentioned that you can’t kill someone during a surgery because despite them not feeling pain they have already lived and they have a will to live even if they don’t in that moment. Then Stepanie asked “why does that matter” and Peter gave a really crappy response that I was not expecting 😂 but I could tell that he cared more about being consistent in that moment rather than being rational and moral.
Stephanie did the same thing when Peter was probing her about ectopic pregnancies and situation where you have to kill the baby in order to save the mother otherwise there is a great chance of death to both parties. And you could tel Stephanie was paying way more attention to trying to be consistent rather than logical and moral and in the process of doing that she made herself look silly.like really? You would willingly die and let your baby die instead of saving yourself by intentionally killing the baby? I mean it sounds horrible but there’s not a big difference because if you follow through with not killing the baby then the baby is going to die anyway and now so are you. You’re really going to let yourself die and leave all of your other children behind? It’s definitely a heartbreaking and traumatizing moment that you will have to live with for the rest of your life but you have to understand that there are no good options, because the baby will die either way. So at the end of the day you are choosing to leave behind and scar you other children simply because you want to be consistent with your views or you don’t want to feel bad.
Honestly, it was really hard to watch her make really weird and illogical decisions because I’ve always viewed her as the opposite of those things
Stephanie said that and while understandable and rational or not, there are cases where mothers gave their life up so there baby could live. See Gianna Beretta Mollo, so that is a story of sacrifice.
If one has to jump through all these hoops to rationalize the dehumanization of the unborn child in order to justify murdering them, then it safe to say that you're wrong and that it would be better to say that you're a moral relativist that isn't consistent in their worldview.
If murder of a human being is wrong then so is the murder of the pre-born child because they are still a human being nonetheless.
No in an ectopic pregnancy by the time the procedure is done (which is not an abortion nor is it the same treatment as an abortion) the baby has typically passed. The pregnancy cant continue and is not viable.
She isn’t extreme. She presents rational, consistent point of view, and she follows it to the natural conclusion. She is respectful and intelligent, whether you like her or not is irrelevant.
@@bs8076 killing yourself for a preborn child is rational? ok
I fought, internally warred, with self worth, depression and weight. In my childhood, my dad was very critical. Everything was about appearance to him. He constantly oogled women and made comments about their physical attributes to me, even when I was a little girl. So, I grew up thinking women were just objects for men's pleasure. I had very little sense of worth. My heart was 💔. I started battling depression in my teens and wanted to die many times. I developed a warped idea of food and eating, which of course led to an eating disorder. I let men use and abuse me. I had two abortions, one at 19, one at 20. I was a dark, broken, angry, bitter, mess, wrapped in a young woman's body and I plastered a smile on my face for public use so no-one knew the destruction inside. At 30, after going through a divorce from a narcissistic addict who cheated all the time, I was then a single mother of an 18 m/o. At that moment I reached my breaking point and realized I needed help. A friend, who truly cared, asked me why I didn't believe in God and Jesus Christ. I didn't have a good answer...it was simply that I felt I could only trust myself and I doubted there was a God when I looked at all the pain in the 🌎. Not long after our conversation, I heard the Gospel, which is the Good News that Jesus Christ came to earth 2000 years ago, fully God and fully man, to be the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, so that we could then be counted as God's children here on earth and then for eternity in Heaven. WHOA!! That blew me away....Jesus loves me (and you) so much that he allowed himself to be mocked, ridiculed, BEATEN, and HUNG BY SPIKES AND ROPE ON A ✝, then he was brought back to life by God the Father after three days, spoke to his many disciples and then ascended to Heaven in his glorified body!! AND, He did that as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. All we need to do is believe he is alive, repent of our sins, and pursue him in prayer and in his WORD, the HOLY Bible. Abortion is a sin because its spilling the blood of the innocent lives God created. God wants to forgive us tho and that's why He sent Jesus. Since the moment I said yes to Jesus, he has given me SO much. He healed my ❤ from all the pain and regrets of my life. No more depression or questions about my value. I'm a new creation through Him, and because I chose Him, I'm worthy of God's goodness. He gave me a new life... a new job, a new husband who loves me for me, not what I look like or what I can do for him, a new home, the $ ability to send my child to private school. He blessed me with a 4th child (2 in Heaven, 2 on earth), the college diploma I had worked for but had not received, work promotions/bonuses, and now I'm blessed to be at home and care for my elderly mother and young child. The Lord gives me peace, love, kindness, joy, patience, comfort, strength, and goodness! The Lord is our great councilor if we'll let him. I've never regretted choosing Jesus. He's waiting for you TODAY! He wants to heal you, love you, and be with you for eternity! If you don't know him, I challenge you to just ask Him... Jesus, are you real, are you alive, did you create me, is the Bible your word, etc.??? If you're sincere in your questions, he'll answer you. I pray you don't doubt when He answers you! May God bless you.
God doesn't exist. Jesus is a myth. You're deluded.
@Michael Strombeck Sorry, but nothing you said even _remotely_ made any sense (excepting the scientific findings, for which we have evidence that is irrefutable). If you can continue to believe in the Christian God _despite_ the fact of evolution, and the discoveries of modern geologists, archeologists (e.g. no proof of 40 years wandering in the desert), cosmologists, astronomers, etc., then I don't know what else I can say that will convince you. You obviously don't believe the Bible is infallible, and it's a testament to have far we've come that saying as much 500 years ago in medieval Europe would get you burned at the stake for heresy.
_"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."_
~ James Madison
@Michael Strombeck The "big bang" can hardly be claimed as evidence for Christianity. As Christopher Hitchens once said, "The universe either began or it didn't, and the fact that Christianity had a 50% chance and got it right does not impress me." They also got the age wrong by about 13.8 billion years, as well as the entire sequence of events during this supposed "creation." Oh, and let's not forget that hundreds upon hundreds of _other_ religions had _their_ own creation myths as well. Hinduism (which is actually considered the world's oldest religion, even older than Judaism), Zoroastrianism, Chinese folk religions, the Aztecs, the Egyptians, Scientology--the list goes on. We can pick and choose or get pedantic about which myth is the _most_ accurate to the scientific evidence, but that would be beyond silly. All we can know for sure is what science tells us, and it has all but _confirmed_ that Adam and Eve weren't real people, Noah's flood never happened, the Tower of Babel is _at best_ a legend, Jonah didn't survive for three days inside a whale, etc. etc. The Bible, when looked at objectively, is hardly more than a vaguely historical document with a collection of fairy tales sprinkled in. And if those stories were all made up, then maybe, _just maybe,_ God was made up too.
By the way, Jesus actually _did_ command his disciples to burn unbelievers alive. I know it may come as a shock to you, but that is often the case when preachers and "devout" Christians don't even read their own Bible. I'm assuming you have one, so I'll let you read the passage for yourself: John 15:6
This verse is actually responsible for most, if not all, the torturings by fire committed by the Catholic Church in the medieval era--with the possible exception of witches. The latter is the consequence of Exodus 22:18.
@Michael Strombeck We could also speculate that you and I are just brains in a vat. We can go down this philosophical rabbit hole if you want to, but what matters is that we don't have _good reason to believe_ that any of that is true. Because of a lack of evidence, it doesn't deserve any serious consideration outside of a trivial (though still quite amusing) philosophical debate. On the other hand, we have all the evidence in the world that the reality we are currently experiencing is all that exists, and _this_ is where we can place our bets. Could we be wrong? Possibly, but it's _extremely_ unlikely given that we have absolutely _zero_ evidence to support that conjecture. And this, all rational agents should agree, throws it out of the realm of serious consideration.
Thank you for your testimony. The truth is your changed life by Jesus. Prase be to God.
Stephanie is outstanding. Morality is tied to the underlying intention of the people acting out their intentions. I agree that abortion is immoral.
Stephanie Gray Connors has, throughout the debate, appealed to emotion, which inspite of being effective is not the way to sway people's emotions.
Peter Singer, on the other hand, spoke quite rationally and gave weight to individual circumstances as to when an abortion can be moral or immoral.
It is sad, and at the same evolutionarily true, that human beings are more prone to be emotional rather than rational.
I don't know what you're talking about. Where in the video did Stephanie appeal to emotion? And the way that you implied that is as if she made arguments by ONLY appealing to emotions, which is obviously false, and definitely not a rational characterisation of the debate on your part.
And I agree that Singer is more rational than most average pro-aborts. Most pro-aborts don't even have the integrity to admit that the human zygote is a living human member belonging to the human species. However, the cross-examination alone made it glaringly obvious that Singer fails to be logically consistent. His rationality leads to the logical conclusion that infanticide is a perfectly justifiable option, even though he still tries to deny it by appealing to arbitrary reasons. He tried to get around that by first appealing to a "guess" of when a born child becomes a person. Note that he's basing his argument on a guess. When pressed further, he appealed to parental feelings toward the "non-person child." To the question, "what if the parents don't care about the child?" the only conclusion he came to was that the non-person child somehow still deserved to live "because laws". And yet, his whole argument was meant to prove that non-person humans don't really qualify for human rights! How does that even make sense? So it turns out that he's not really appealing to rationality and logic at all. He's just appealing to consensus, or mere preferences, and at the end, he still ends up with a logical inconsistency.
When Stephanie Gray Connor calls Peter Singer an ageist, and that his position can't stand against discrimination based on sex or color, I think this is one of the biggest straw-manning I've ever heard before.
I think Peter Singer has made it clear (more than once) that his position is based on the capacity of suffering and awareness. It makes Stephanie's repeated attempts to call him an ageist seem to be an intentional straw-manning.
I think the point she's making is that his position is, in effect, ageist. Since the capacities he mentions are capacities humans have _once they're old enough,_ rather than capacities that humans lack as a whole.
Amoebas can't reason. Ever. B/c of _what_ they are. Human embryos can't. For now. B/c of _how old_ they are.
@@jimbojackson4045 Singer refuted that point. Some older people have much more limited cognitive capacities than very young children and many animals. Some adults have such limited capacities all their lives while other's develop advanced Alzheimers and become less cognitively aware than a typical nine-month old or Chimpanzee later in life. Singer is not talking about age, he's talking about cognitive ability, including such things as being aware of ourselves as existing over time, having hopes and plans for the future and being able to contribute to the well-being of others.
@@JohnThomas I don't see how that is a refutation. ??? The only thing that sounds like it could imply is that old people might lose their right to life too or something. That doesn't refute the effective ageism claim. If anything, it sounds like it's giving more examples for it.
@@jimbojackson4045 Here is Singer's refutation. It's decisive: _" ... in the normal course of development it [cognitive capacity] is a matter of age, but somebody could have been born with very profound cognitive defects and they might have survived. They might have been kept going although they could never respond. There are such people. They could never develop any kind of rational awareness or sense of who they are, and they might be 50 years old, but I don't think that that would give them a moral status that is superior to that of non-human animal no matter how old they are. So it’s a mistake to say that the view that I’m talking about is discrimination on the basis of age. It’s rather a judgement that there are certain criteria, cognitive criteria, that give humans moral status that, in some respects, is more significant than that of non-human animals."_
@@JohnThomas I like that other example of defects in certain people, but I think that would just shift into the territory of _effective ablism._ Of course, this isn't accusing him of bigotry, but it's not a thing most people are comfortable with.
“Not until some time after birth”. Good God. Singer is advocating infanticide, not just killing unborn human beings.
“An embryo doesn’t have plans”. Yes but they will eventually have them if you let them grow, so abortion is immoral. Animals never have plans that’s why it’s absolutely moral to eat them
By your logic, it would be moral to eat severely disabled humans who don't have plans and never will.
That's right! The right thing to do is to protect the vulnerable, not to take advantage of their lack of development when they can do nothing for themselves.
I think the dismembering of the body is suffering no matter if the person feels it or not.
Suffering is inherently felt, so that’s a ridiculous statement
@@TeChNoWC7 you have zero proof that the baby cant feel themselves being dismembered. If I was under anethesia and was dismembered I wouldnt feel it but its still immoral.
@@Arginne that’s not the claim, you are straw manning.
1. You pulled zero proof out of your arse, assuming there was zero or even inconclusive evidence, sure I’d have an issue with it and
2. It might be immoral but there is no suffering, and that has a bearing on how moral or immoral it is.
49:31 We could use the self-defense argument. Baby is actively killing mother, mother decides she can't run away, so she has to kill the baby to safe her own life. Killing in self-defense is not murder.
Being a member of a species doesn't give you a right to life, since we are all going to die. A better way to frame it is that we have a right to not be intentionally killed unless we have done something to forfeit that right (e.g. murder - taking another human life).
She is very extreme in her views and is also against permanent contraception like vasectomies that would actually reduce the abortions she is opposed to: She wrote: “Or consider the wife who, like the Church, is to be a receptive vessel receiving her spouse's life-giving love and allowing it to bear fruit. If a woman blocks a man's sperm or suppresses her eggs from releasing, she acts in the opposite way of the church: Christ's bride is not to be closed to her bridegroom's seed; instead, the church is to welcome the seed of Christ's love so it produces fruit.” Literally, she thinks women are baby making vessels and are not allowed to decide how many children she wants through contraception. So she sees nothing wrong with forcing a woman to have baby after baby even if it ruins her health. Even in a monogamous marriage, she thinks the woman has to have babies as long as she consents to sex with her husband. Regardless of her situation, wealth level or maturity. Or consider whether having 10 kids is acceptable for her level of income or causes her kids to live in poverty. Natural family planning is not a form of effective contraception.
She rejects modern medicine because of God. *rolls eyes* Oh, and she has no compassion for rape victims or unwilling mothers suffering from anxiety attacks and and contemplating suicide or actively trying to commit suicide or self harming because they are forced by the state to give birth, and that every day the unwanted pregnancy reminds them of their trauma. If she would have it her way, a woman who was raped and traumatized, would be further punished by going to jail for illegal abortion. No compassion, just a black and white worldview, smug sense of self righteousness about a situation she has never had to deal with. Until the day the government can guarantee ample support so that the woman forced to give birth a quality of life as good as if she had been able to get the abortion by guaranteeing free college so she doesn't have to take 4 jobs to support herself and the baby, and free medical treatment for all physical and mental health consequences of having the baby e.g. free surgery for prolapse, weak bladder and maternal injury, free plastic surgery for bodily changes she didn't want, free medication for postnatal depression etc, she has no right to make permanent decisions in anyone's life by trying to ban modern medicine or is morally justified in actively taking away the ability for women to choose what kind of life they want, or if they want to experience childbirth. Oh, and even if all states banned abortion, wealthy people are still going to fly to a different country to get abortions, while the poor and vulnerable members of society is screwed.
Good debate. However, Stephanie's are based quite a bit on classifications and the choice of words used to describe. Like "fetus is human, humans have human rights per UN, so fetusus have human rights" or describing abortion as "murder". Peter's (ok he's a professor) doesn't depend on the choice of words and classifications. He's simply looking for consistency of moral stance and digging deeper into the criteria - beyond descriptions and classifications.
Better debate topic. Is it moral for the government to regulate your body?
It is moral for the government to make it illegal to kill your child in or out of the womb
Wow, I don't usually support Singer, but he absolutely won this debate by a long shot!
Can we all acknowledge how dangerous this man’s thought process is though? That’s scary AF.
Well he is one of the few pro-abortion bioethicists & philosophers who defends infanticide of born infants as a consequence of abortion.
@@IWasOnceAFetus uh it’s so scary. I need mental health days.
Atleast he's consistent
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 I can’t see how that’s a positive. He’s advocating killing newborns bro. Cmon.
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 stupidest comment I’ve ever read.
Great arguments on both sides. Awesome debate! Thanks for sharing.
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. ;)
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? :D
Peter has bad arguments that lead to bad decisions. He is a nice guy that doesn’t mean he has good arguments.
There is a difference when someone who has no prospect to live and a foetus who has that prospect. Even if that person who has no prospect seemingly, euthanasia is wrong. But it is different when the person make a will to give it up out of love for his neighbours.
To Singers first cross examination and Conner's response; she states that it would be better for her to die than kill her child. What if she is leaving a partner and children? By not saving her life, she is inevitably harming her family right?
I always find it hard to hear about abortion and why women need it. I understand there is rape and a pregnancy can occur angainst the woman's wishes. But why can't couples conduct themselves in such a way that displays their human dignity and control over their own bodies and abstain from sex which is %100 effective in avoiding pregnancy rather than killing the child that results from their inablility to say no and instead, act like animals feeding their own appetite and not acting responsibly with the consequences.....A society that kills it's own young, is a society that will annihilate itself......
My Gosh this was an epic beat down of Peter Singer and his ridiculous arguments.
I think Singer won this debate. If Stephanie is unable to show a morally relevant difference between fetuses and non-human animals that would justify pro-life arguments but allow for animal consumption, then her position loses its strength. Stephanie objects to Singers account of the grounds that it discriminates group members based on age - but she has no defence for discriminating group members based on species. Singers pro-choice view, and his view on animal consumption both seek to reduce pain and suffering; but on Stephanie's view, she inappropriately privileges (human) fetuses over non-animals without providing a moral reason to do so. I do acknowledge that this was a debate about abortion, but assessing her views on animal welfare seems appropriate here. Stephanie did a great job at defending her position, but it seems untenable because of her inability to consider animal welfare. Animals endure far greater pain than fetuses - this is self evidently true because i). the animal agriculture industry kills animals in the billions annually and abortions collectively occur in the millions annually and ii). Singer's account only tolerates abortions before the third trimester, e.g. before pain conception.
Absolutely not, I believe singer got exposed of his own logic backfiring with the example of the baby who’s six months, the dad does not love them and that baby is in the side of the road. Because remember! Singer position was that’s not a person, but then he tries to go around the question and divert what she asked. Remember 1. That’s not a person, 2. That child is not loved sense then driver is the dad. But why should they not be killed ?
@@chrisarmon1002 I'm having trouble understanding this. I don't believe that's how he answered the question. Don't you remember what he said about the van driver?
You think a mentally deranged man who advocates for infanticide and killing the disabled and thinks rape is morally ok won the debate 🤡
You think Singer won becouse you subscribe for his riddiculus "spiecism" view. Singer is sexual perverer with no hunch about morality. Stephanie on the other hand has a weakpoint with her insestance on absolute equality between human.
In Peter Singer’s worldview, is it wrong to kill and eat a disabled piglet, assuming the sow died during or immediately following birth?
Of course it depends on how disabled the piglet is. If the piglet is severely disabled to the point of not being to have an enjoyable life and if you kill the piglet completely painlessly, I think it's completely fine. I think I share Peter's worldview.
For Singer, it's not the act of killing or eating an animal that's wrong, it's the associated suffering. So if you could devise a system to raise and slaughter animals without causing unnecessary suffering, then eating meat would be acceptable.
@@SuburbanMan I've only just come across Singer so don't know his views on animal suffering. Is he saying suffering is caused at/by the moment of slaughter or the way they are reared?
@Michael Strombeck That sounds disgusting but it brings up some interest points. Cannibalism is nothing new in human affairs, you may have heard of the Airplane that came down in The Andes & survivors had to eat the bodies of the dead. Same thing occurred during the Ukrainian famines in the 20's & 30's.
So, if the 6 mth old baby was dead - therefore obviously not able to feel pain - and the child was eaten to feed other children or even adults who are starving to death, would that be considered wrong, immoral or unethical?
Identical twins are two individuals
She lost in the first minute. Her assumption that all humans are equal is incorrect and been debated for ages. Her assumption that fertilization is the scientific consensus is also incorrect. In fact, generally, implantation, not fertilization is considered to be the start of pregnancy and some laws in fact refer to fertilization as the start and some refer to implantation, and some refer to conception, which is related to implementation. She also speaks about age and (conveniently) glosses over the distinction between embryo and fetus which age is a marker of development, and indirectly equates them as being equal because they are both life.She then mentions Singers responses to her assertions on whether or not all humans have a right to life, but he was not saying this, he was responding to her assertion that humans are of equal value. She didn't have any well-reasoned response to his mother dying question, in fact she just said she would rather die as she had no response to discussing competing rights to life and admits that both should die and thus contradicts herself by denying another's right to live because the counterpoint is that the other is killing her. She avoids the animal-killing question but then talks about speciesism without acknowledging that species kill their own members all the time and many abandon and/or kill other young progeny and even kill their own.
I think you misunderstand her. I'm not attempting to argue her point; it just seems like maybe her style of speaking doesn't work for you (which means that'd probably true for more people than just you), so maybe I can leave this here and anybody else who feels the same can read through it and maybe understand her position better.
*"Her assumption that all humans are equal is incorrect and been debated for ages."*
> I believe she said that we have come to this understanding and it's what we've agreed upon. It was certainly hotly contested in the past, but the state of all Western societies, as well as many other societies, is that all human beings have equal intrinsic value. To say there are some people somewhere who dispute it would unnecessarily hold back the debate and transform it from a question about abortion into a question about the relative moral value of humans. (It's also a common assumption we make in utilitarian questions, like the classic trolley problem. The problem isn't one 80-year-old nun with a chronic pain condition vs one 25-year-old repeat criminal offender who plays the saxophone, it's one person vs four people, or _sometimes_ your child vs four other people.)
*"Her assumption that fertilization is the scientific consensus is also incorrect.* In fact, generally, implantation, not fertilization is considered to be the start of pregnancy and some laws in fact refer to fertilization as the start and some refer to implantation, and some refer to conception, which is related to implementation."
> She's referring to life, generally. Not all creatures who reproduce using sperm and ova have an "implantation." (Anecdotally, I've had at least two major-publisher Biology textbooks that stated an independent human life has begun at the time of fertilization. They just don't call it personhood.)
*"She* also speaks about age and (conveniently) glosses over the distinction between embryo and fetus which age is a marker of development, and indirectly equates them as being equal because they are both life."*
> She is _directly_ equating them as equal because they are human life. All the sub-group terms we use are markers of age, which mark our development (i.e. embryo, fetus, toddler, teenager, adult).
*She didn't have any well-reasoned response to his mother dying question,* in fact she just said she would rather die as *she had no response to discussing competing rights to life* and admits that both should die and thus contradicts herself by denying another's right to live because the counterpoint is that the other is killing her.
> She does have a response that flows from her reasoning. The ethic she is arguing is that human parent should not kill their innocent offspring, _for any reason._ If you respect Singer's intellectual honesty in his position that a 6-9 month old may be killed in certain circumstances and his willingness to bite that bullet, you can appreciate that Mrs. Gray-Connors is also willing to follow her logic to it's ultimate conclusion in this response. For a great many people and legal systems, there are no "competing rights to life" between two innocent humans. (There's an interesting _old_ English case on this point, actually. The keyword for the case is usually "cabin boy," because it is about murder charges being levied against men who were shipwrecked and who cannibalized the cabin boy to survive. The cabin boy was facing certain death, but he had not died, and he did not volunteer. The men decided that, since he would die anyway, they would kill him so they could survive. The Crown determined that the men did not have the right to kill someone who did not want to be killed in order to save their own lives, even if the person they killed was already close to death and had no hope of recovery.)
*She avoids the animal-killing question but then talks about speciesism without acknowledging that species kill their own members all the time and many abandon and/or kill other young progeny and even kill their own.*
> It is common practice in a debate, even if the tangential issue may be interesting, to do what she did: address the issue generally (as she did when she said that it's possible that you should consider the right to life of other animals. It doesn't impact her point), then guide back to the topic of discussion. This is another issue that easily could've derailed the topic they came to debate. The cougar reference was both a means to transition back to the topic and to say that she isn't just asserting that some species have an instinct to protect, but that you can see the same instinct humans have in other species. Just because there are animal species who do eat their children doesn't mean her comparison between humans and and cougars isn't valid.
Humans being equal is quite generally recognized, why do you say otherwise?
And her point was not that fertilization is when pregnancy begins, but rather when life begins. Also, conception is a the umbrella term that includes 3 parts: ovulation, fertilization, and implantation. So regardless of the fertilization/implantation distinction, life stills begins at conception.
@@Seethi_C the beginning of life is not the equivalent beginning of personhood, and there are biolgoical distinctions in that process that are well beyond my knowledge to defend or negate. So, regarding your above 3 parts, none of these speak to a reasonable interpretation of any sense of individuality or personhood. The equality of human rights historically was established but not practiced. But a thought-experiment question I have for you then is if during a pregnancy a complication during implantation develops and it is going to kill the mother, do you save the fertilized egg, or the mother? You can only save one.
@@turntablesrockmyworld9315 So then we would have to reject the idea of "human rights", if we say being human is not enough to have those rights. But what do you think are the requirement for personhood then?
I would say it's up to the mother to decide which life she wants to save, under the condition that they aren't directly killing the other person. You can't kill someone else to save your own life.
@@Seethi_C This is where reasonableness breaks down. You are making a case that if a Dr. had to make decision between saving a fertilised egg or the mother 3 weeks into a pregnancy then it is equally ethical to choose to kill the mother instead of the fertilised egg. Personhood requires individuality (which doesn't exist early on), cognition which exists later on, and at ;east ability to suffer/pain as minimum requirements. You are also conflating rights of potentiality with the rights of an existing person. This is a religious argument that is used even one step further back to argue that even using birth control is a sin.
It's interesting to listen to abortion from the point of morality instead of legality 🤔
The question I have now is: What is the criteria to receiving the right to life? I agree with Peter that merely being a human is not enough. I have a lot to think about now.
It is enough, and it has been enough throughout the entire existence of human civilization. Every single legal system, ancient and modern, has been built around humans. I'm open to digging into the ethical considerations of applying some moral principles to non-human animals, but I would never advocate for taking away the rights of any human of any kind. There already have been experiments on this, and all of them resulted in catastrophic events (e.g., Nazi Germany & slavery). When we as a society look back at those we all can agree that they were morally atrocious and were a harmful point for human society. Abortion is another example of that, and it has caused more innocent human deaths that any other event in history.
@@alonsoarellano8324
Look, saying an individual deserves rights is just because they are human is just as arbitrary as saying that they deserve rights just because they are white or have xy chromosomes. I don't see how genes are relevant when talking about rights.
@@sphumelelesijadu I literally told you why lol.
Yes it is something important to ponder. Both of them had very good points. I lean more towards Stepanie’s logic (although I does have flaws like Peter’s) because I see Peter’s view as ableist, and it is disturbing that his views ultimately lead to the acceptance that euthanizing newborns is ok,
@@ToothBrush531 What flaws did you notice about Stephanie's arguments?
1:08:40 those who know the person at the funeral would be hurt by this.
Unless they didn't like the person and the false accusation actually brings them happiness...... :-0
I still think it would be wrong though, because I value truth.
Dr Singer has moved the goal posts when he talks about animal rights though. He doesn't stick to whether it is right or wrong to kill animals. Instead he (justifiably) laments the cruelty of factory farming. Factory farming is deeply wrong but that doesn't mean eating meat is wrong. I used to be vegetarian but got very sick as a result. Yet Dr Singer never talks about the sufferings of those of us who suffer without meat.
I am no longer vegetarian, but I pay through the nose for ethically raised animals. Indeed, most animals are pasture raised in my country anyway. So me eating meat does not automatically mean eating factory reared meat like Peter states. Also, not to be graphic, but animals kill each other in much more brutal ways.
Stephanie clearly won the debate
Was anyone changed by this debate? presumably most if not all viewers are still on the side they were on when this started & this is generally the case when competent representatives debate.
Stephanie makes a lot of emotional appeals and precedents in law with some bits of evidence that suit her position instead of using her own rational thinking processes to work from the ground up. I find her rebuttal about human vs person to be especially silly in this regard because it's pointedly ignoring Peter's parameters to make it sound like a horrid thing when it's not like that at all. She deliberately twists his position to be about age when it was clearly about sentience, awareness and such. That's disingenuous at best. She's not approaching this as a philosophical debate and exchange. She's approaching it like she's trying to win a political argument, and that's pathetic. She consistently tries to twist his position away from quality of life of sentient beings to something else. It's just not good debate practice, it's just her trying to win. Even her appeal to nature was cherry picked regarding the cougar protecting its young. As if animals do not also kill their young for various reasons. Just a really, really weak performance by her overall. What does she think of a male lion that takes over a group of lionesses, and subsequently kills all the offspring of the previous male leader?
The argument of what's to stop someone from killing you during sleep or anesthesia is a weak argument. The person has already established their personhood by maybe 9 months old (using Peter's estimate), and scientifically we understand that sleep is a normal part of the human day night cycle. You can still awaken from sleep by external stimuli and will wake automatically after a resting period. That's not even close to a fetus that hasn't gained full consciousness yet. Anesthesia is functionally the same thing as passing out from pain. It's a self-preservation mechanism to protect the brain and body from overwhelming pain signals and is in no way associated with losing one's personal investment in life and living. Stephanie, and those like her, seem to deliberately ignore these kinds of scientific facts when they do not support their position. It strikes me as disingenuous. They aren't debating to cooperatively think through the problem as thoroughly as possible. They just want to win an argument.
Stephanie did not have a good defense against life of the mother vs life of the child in medical complications at all. In her opening statements she very clearly said a parent should protect and not harm her child. However, when cross-examined, suddenly it's okay to harm the child, but her mental gymnastics still allowed her to refrain from calling it killing or abortion even though the result of her actions in these scenarios was the exact same. She literally went from one breath to the next saying the fallopian tube removal would be okay because it wasn't directly homicide, but next said that the pre-medical issue of crushing the child's head in the canal would not be okay even though both scenarios resulted in, according to her definition, the death of a baby in order to save the mother. So, in the fallopian tube example it was okay to kill the baby because it was a side effect of saving the mother, but in the stuck canal it wasn't okay because she considered a primary effect. Well, that's just a matter of phrasing because you could simply say that the primary effect is forcibly clearing the canal blockage, and so the secondary effect is crushing the skull of the stuck baby. So, she's just doing mental gymnastics. She very clearly only wanted to avoid explicitly stating she was okay with abortion or baby killing in certain scenarios.
In her rebuttal afterward, she again changes the wording to suit her narrative. That's just bad faith arguing, imo. As for her argument that it's just a matter of age, then I would ask why aren't children allowed to drink alcohol, drive, or vote? Because we understand that physiologically they haven't developed the necessary pre-requisites to be considered eligible for driving, voting, or other various such things. It's because we understand that prior to developing the pre-requisite mental or physical criteria, then the person simply cannot reasonably engage in said activity properly. They aren't being denied due to age, but due to developmental reasons. In some cases, people without fully developed or functional mental capacities are never allowed to drive, operate a firearm, or other such things. Why? Because we recognize and accept that some things require a certain level of stature or mental capacity. The fetus personhood issue is virtually the same. The key is to set aside any inclination toward a disgust response because to engage in that is to commit the fallacy of an ought-is.
Stephanie's constant use of human's rights doctrines is pretty annoying. We're not here for a gigantic list of appeals to authority or majority opinion. We're here to critically think through a moral issue. She is constantly using appeal fallacies in this debate. I don't think she understands thought experiments or proper philosophical thought and analysis.
I would like to ask Stephanie a hypothetical. If she goes to a restaurant, orders an omelet, and the waiter brings out a bowl filled with all of the ingredients yet none of it prepared or cooked, then did she get an omelet? Would be willing to pay for that? When is it an omelet vs just a bunch of ingredients? How long does it need to be cooked before it's considered an omelet? When you have the ingredients in the skillet, then do you have an omelet or are you simply cooking an omelet? Is it an unreasonable distinction to say that raw ingredients in a pan are not an omelet? Or should you still consider it as such simply because it hasn't finished cooking? If so, then she should be willing to pay for the bowl of raw ingredients given by the waiter, right?
The anti-abortion debater is so overzealous and shrill and awful to listen to
Singer is advocating infanticide. Is that fun to listen to?
Ironic, but Stephanie crushed it.
I think that Peter Singer’s position that of assigning relative value to humans based on their capacities and abilities is very troubling and a slippery slope. What about people with disabilities? Are they less human than others? As we age we lose abilities, does it mean that as we age we become less human and this less right to life? Mr. Singer’s perspective can easily lead to abuse and discrimination of various groups if people are valued only on their capacities and capabilities and cognition. By Mr. Singer’s relative morality and view, he would consider himself more human and valuable than many others just by virtue of his intelligence and his profession and contribution to society. However, he is aging and probably decreasing in certain capacities, and growing more frail. This according to his view, he is decreasing in humanity and right to life. So who determines his value? Who makes the decision of how much Mr. Singer is worth based on his gradual diminishing capacities due to age? He or society?
Mr. Singer’s point of view is a troublesome and slippery slope that can lead to many inconsistencies about making moral decisions. In facing difficult decisions about life, Mr. Singer position is “It depends”, thereby making himself the judge of everything based on his feelings, or whether it is convenient for our social style at that moment. He is a moral relativist.
What is so shocking about singers position is his prolife view on nonhuman animals. How can he be hold two such opposing views?
Awesome debate!! I'm with Peter Singer, abortion is moral and women from all over the world should be able to decide if they want to have that baby or not. Sadly in my country, Brazil, abortion is still illegal, mostly because of the dreadful influence of religion in the public opinion sphere.
Thank God! At least Brazil is against barbarism. Let's hope it stays that way.
@@leonardu6094 Brazil has the same legislation on abortion as Afghanistan, Uganda, Sudan and other extremely underveloped countries. Look it up. Do you really think all these countries have this legislation because they are against barbarism?? No sane person would say that. What Brazil has in commum with these countries is the fact that relegion here dictates the legislation in subjetcs it should not interfere at all.
Stephanie Connors perfectly argues why everybody should oppose abortion and none of it had to do with religion. It is an objectively good thing that Brazil criminalizes the slaughter of innocent and defenseless human beings.
It's beyond me how anyone who has watched this debate does *not* conclude Singer lost this fair and square
It's the one moment where Singer responds to Gray regarding the animal suffering. The format of the debate prevented Stephanie from responding to his comments but I would have liked to see her respond. Every pro-abortion advocate in the comment section thinks that that's an inconsistent position. I don't think it is at all though. It's simply a matter of worldviews.
Stephanie showed how Singer was inconsistent during the cross-examination pretty well.
@@IWasOnceAFetus Exactly. The mental and intellectual gymnastics of Singer is mind boggling. A pro-life proponent can hold any position in this matter (human life > animal life, or all lives are equally valuable) and that is totally irrelevant to this debate. The debate is quite simply - does the fetus have the right to life. How does our position on the lives of other species matter? Stephanie even brings up the example of whales and whale fetuses, ffs.
Let's say I hold the position that human life > other species life. The point being debated is, can human adults kill human fetuses? That is, there is a choice for a human adult not to kill a human fetus against the choice to kill the human fetus. It can be a contradiction only if the debate is about a choice between a human adult killing a human fetus vs an animal fetus. Which is obviously not the debate here. So, why in the world is the so-called speceisim or our position on animal lives even relevant here, let along being a contradiction?!
@@balakrishnanlakshmanan9852 because you missed the fact that Peter, same as perhaps all pro-abortionists, is a total moral nihilist. What he wisely left out is his believe that human life has no real intrinsic value, he is just using the "animal life weren't sacred either" both as a buttress and proxy.
I think Catholics could be more consistent by caring for all life. Bracketing humans is speciesm, and it appeals to divine revelation that humans are special. If we include all creatures that can suffer in our circle of consideration, then we may allow killing only in self-defense.
I have argued for this on my channel and my website.
The logical conclusion to his argument leads to an untenable position. By his logic we have no right to anything over animals or the very land we inhabit. That being the case we no right to use those things in any capacity. Ultimately that ends with the death of the human race. Which would contradict the view we have equal value to other species and living things on this planet because we would be denied the right to survival.
im enjoying the conversation so far, but stephanie has done some egregious obfuscation and intuition pumping so far, hopefully thatll clear up soon
continuing to watch, and while stephanie is engaging in some possibly bad faith argumentation, singer is also kind of avoiding hypotheticals in a very frustrating way (though i would argue that stephanie's hypotheticals are poor to begin with)
I find the affirmative argument more logically sound; however, the dissenter does bring up a good point, why are humans more worthy of protection than other life forms? I would affirm the affirmer's statement that you can't discriminate based on current ability. Shall plants be protected because they are alive and because it is not their fault they cannot act as other creatures do?
Are there non-religious arguments that show that humans are infinitely more valuable than other creatures and that their comfort is more important that the lives of other life forms? A basic theistic God may be used in the argument but you still must prove that we are special beings.
Would proving humans have eternal souls convince the dissentive argument?
I think from a non-theistic point of view, you have to approach it from the social-contract point of view. We treat all human equally, because that is the only way to maintain a social contract in which all rational beings are incentivized not to make things worse for everyone (you don't kill because what right would you have not to be killed, etc.). We include even non-rational people in the contract, because a line-drawing decision runs the risk of shattering the social contract, if it is possible to wrongly be labeled as "irrational" (or, you know, "sub-human").
Animals, however, cannot enter this contract with humans. (Except maybe crows, but that freaks me out.) No manner in which I treat a cow can ever affect whether or not I am eaten by a lion, even if every human on earth is doing it. There are behaviors we can say are wrong by virtue of how they affect the human social contract, like animal abuse. It is not a leap to say that animal abuse is not permitted because the desensitization of a human against the apparent pain and human-like facial expressions of an animal who cannot defend themselves is dangerous to the human social contract. We _also_ know that our positive treatment of animals will not affect the way the animals treat one another, so we won't even see any utility from that perspective.
I noticed a very illogical point trying to be made by Singer when he was talking about removing life support from a disabled infant. Abortion is the intentional ending of the human in the womb, in most cases a heathy human, clearly not close the being the same thing as recognizing that life will not be able to sustain, and life sustaining measures should stop. Comparing the two things is ridiculous.
In effect there is little difference between these scenarios. The disabled child will continue to live if they are provided life support, they will only die if you actively stop this.
by Stephanie Gray Connors's own logic. she should be vegan.
The fundamental error Stephanie makes in her argument against Peter Singer's goal of minimizing unnecessary suffering (upon which we should all agree is a good thing) is that she isn't taking into account _future_ suffering. She says killing is wrong no matter what, while Singer is making the point that killing is _sometimes_ justifiable if it avoids unnecessary and predictable suffering in the future. And it's all the more so when the agent being killed (like a fetus before 20 weeks) is unaware of being killed because it doesn't feel pain. I'm so grateful that we have the world's leading bioethicist to argue this side of the argument for us, because it often seems that we're taking the inferior moral stance when we really aren't.
Wow, Peter Singer is a true intellectual. Now lets analyze your comment. There are many born children suffering and living a terrible life, since its okay to kill an infant because they are not aware of suffering lets extend this further. How about we kill all the children in Africa in their sleep or give them a medicine that will put them in a state where they can't feel suffering. Such a great cause, we could eliminate all suffering in the world, I love atheist moral philosophers
You're morally degenerate and arguing for degeneracy
World's leading degenerate
And there is a serious flaw in your and Peter Singers thinking, how do you measure suffering and well-being and make a decision if the life is worth living? Living life +1000 points, getting hit in the face -300 points? lmao, it is a ridiculous philosophy bro, wake up
Utilitarianism is fundamentally retarded
I think that Mr. Singer cannot criticize Ms. Connors on being consistent at the sacrifice of humanity as he argued for infanticide for the first 3-6 months of a baby’s post birth life
At 51.12 Stephanie lost it for me. She is indicative of all that is wrong with the probirth brigade😣
1:11:12 was a fantastic rebuttal
No human being on the menu
You don't even shy to call them doctor what kind of college give serial killer? Any degree?
Of course Peter Singed is pro abort. Dweeb. How dare he say he cares about life itself and acted as so on his Ted talk.