I don't believe that Rogan was "owned" because it was a discussion and not a debate. He is brave and smart enough to have people on his show that will challenge his views and beliefs. He might have not come away from this interview a pro-lifer, but Seth Dillion definitely planted a seed in Joe's mind as well as the minds of Rogan's listeners.
I definitely don't agree with everything Rogan says, but I've always had *massive* respect for how much effort he puts into trying to remain objective and unbiased. He's not always perfect in that effort, but you can tell he *REALLY* tries, and I love that.
@Steve French I have, which is why I say that I certainly don't agree with everything he says. I will say, however, he seems to have gotten better over the years with being disrespectful. He used to say Christianity was outright "stupid" or "dumb", but I've recently seen him say that a person's QOL will be better by living by the morals that Christians do, even though he still doesn't believe in God.
@@DrPeppa 100% agree, even if people aren’t religious there’s still some great guidelines & morals to live by from the bible (some but not all of them i will say though)
this is why i think Joe Rogan is so popular because this is how an actual conversation should go. Not pushing a Left or Right POV but just being sincere in your response and listening to who you are talking to.
Well, I for one hope that if I'm in an "actual conversation" about abortion, my interlocutor doesn't use vacuous bromides like "it's such a human problem". I may pluck my eyes out if he does.
"Calling abortion 'health care' is like calling rape making love. Great analogy. Enjoyed 2 adults engaging in a civil conversation /debate. This is how we learn. Rogan deserves credit for allowing himself to be challenged. A rarity and why he is so successful.
Is there a source or does this just sound good to you? Not to mention that in structuring the argument like this, if there's even one counter example the argument is false.
The pro-life argument is a red herring. The fact is, women have been on the planet a very long time, and along the way have learned a few things. One of those things is how to terminate a pregnancy. A woman can terminate a pregnancy at any time, whether you like it or not, or whether any law says yay or nay, and no one would be the wiser. You would require that she do it in the most unsafe way. So the sum total of what you want is to hurt a woman. If you wanted a baby to be born, you would take a very different approach. End of story.
@@frostfree7 "So the sum total of what you want is to hurt a woman" strange extrapolation relative to the content you are replying to. But.... end of story.🙂
Interesting lane to direct the argument of individual choice to. If we are going down that line of thinking, you think US census counts all fetuses? Do you think families should receive SNAP/TANF/ Medicaid/ Tax Credits for fetuses at any stage? What if a woman has just found out she’s pregnant, can she immediately be called a mother and become eligible for all resources and services reserved for mothers/families? We’re likely looking at additional billions in spending every year. Wanna subsidize all that with higher taxes? No? Didn’t think so.
@@madhavchr Yes, I do think a woman should qualify for all those benefits the moment she becomes pregnant. You made lots of assumptions by answering your own questions in the negative. A pregnant woman is a pregnant woman, period. My point is why does the law consider a fetus not a human being in one case, but makes the opposite argument and considers it a life when talking about homicide. If a murderer can be charged with double homicide for killing a pregnant woman then a fetus is a life. You can’t have it both ways.
@Jack Hummell It’s strange how Rogan kept pressing the question of whether its a human life even down to the nano-second when sperm enters egg.. Did he think that Mr Dillon would cave and say, “Well Ok.. maybe its not human at the half-nano second upon sperm entry into egg...so therefore not human and abortable.” Mr Dillon was poised, calm and confident... just a masterpiece to watch.
An ex girlfriend aborted our baby and told me after she did it. This was years ago. We broke up. But that abortion affected her big time. She still would text me about it- wondering about what kind of person they would have been. Her life went downhill year after year. Until she eventually passed away…
I’m so sorry to hear that. My cousin had two abortions in her 20s and also just got more and more messed up as the years passed. She became obsessed with hating anyone who won’t actively cheer on “abortion rights” despite knowing that we, her family, did not judge her as unworthy of God’s love or of our love.
Trust me, I'm a try hard in my early 20s no gf since birth. What I just said is irrelevant but what I just read is something else, Im sorry to hear about it and knowing you went through something like this but this feels like being a newbie in a rehab realizing you (I) aint something you think you are. There are literally other people who have experienced something else. By the way I love you man and thank you for sharing this. This hits deep on another dimension.
And? That's one extreme other people it's the best decision they made and they have made a life for themselves got themselves a good job, bought a house got married and had children when they were ready. It's personal choice. You can't use one argument about it say well, that's it that's what it leads to no women can have abortions. They should have to have their rapist kid and if they don't want to keep it throw into the already overwhelmed system of foster and aoption services...is that good for a child? Really?
@@libertasdemocratiam887 For starters, babies do not get “thrown into the foster care system”. For every baby that is up for adoption there are many, many couples who would LOVE to adopt that baby. (Once upon a time many babies were adopted in this country. I had at least four friends growing up who were adopted --and very happy to have been adopted, by the way. The issue is that the human being in the womb is just that. He/she should not be killed simply because his or her life might have difficulty in it, any more than a three month old baby ought to be killed just because we might be able to predict that the kid will face hardship. A three month old baby cannot reason or talk or walk or fend for himself in any way. Should we say that he is “not really fully human” because he cannot do those things and “would never know what he was missing” if he were quietly killed? Any argument for,abortion can also be made to justify infanticide because honestly there is no difference other than that abortion can be done without others knowing there was a pregnancy (that is, an innocent little human) there to begin with. I get your feelings and your objections. But people have a right not to be killed in the womb. It’s just wrong to do that to someone.
@@Featherfinder if every single child a woman wante stop abort was born and put into the social care system aka adoption and fostering, the system would crumble. You may not like it but that's fact. That's the absolute fact of the matter. Whether you like it or not right now there are couples with 4 kids who are struggling to keep a roof over their head and feed 6 mouths, who truly cannot afford to have another child, who have been taking precaution via contraception which failed on them (that does happen) that's upto them to decide if they want to keep that baby or not. They may after careful consideration come to the conclusion that they simply cannot put their other children through the possibility of losing their home because the motherwould no longer be able to work because someone would need to look after the baby. She maybe working part time already while her other kids are at school, and she and her husband physically cannot afford to do that, not without losing everything and putting their other children in the position of having no home. Which would likely result in all the kids being taken into the system. Life is not perfect, life is fucking hard for alot of people, and sometimes those people have to make god awful choices they don't want to make not for their own personal gain because they couldn't be arsed taking the pill, but because they're putting their existing children first. Is that harsh? Yes but if it's a case of not being able to afford to live and support your kids, or I don't blame people for making that choice. Now you can say they shouldn't be on poverty and all that which I'm sure you will, but poverty has and always will exist, there will always be a poor. There's always be women who have been raped who do not want the child they did not consent to being put inside of them, for every on of them there's a woman who chooses to keep the child of rape, it's upto those women to make the choice, not you. Because you believe your views are more important than theirs. For every woman who chooses to sacrifice herself for her baby who dies during birth, there's another woman who chooses to abort her child and adopt or use a surrogate because she thinks it's better for her child to have two parents not a single dad riddled with grief. That's upto them not you. If abortion is taken away those women mentioned above will find alternative means that will result in death or losing the ability to have children completely. If you want to stop abuse of the system to stop allowing women who have had repeated aboritons to get them, they're clearly taking the system for a ride. But do not force other women who have very valid reasons as to why they want aboriton not have access to them. If you were homeless would you opt to keep a baby? If you'd been raped by your father or uncle would you want to keep your baby? If you were at risk of death from birth would you want to keep your baby? You can say yes to all of those things but the truth is you simply don't know until you are on that situation.
The clump of cells argument is meaningless since ultrasounds. I had an ultrasound at 7 weeks and my daughter was a recognizable tiny little human with a beating heart.
Massive respect to the guest. He was so chill and breaking off some straight logic - "Calling abortion healthcare is like calling rape love making..." If you believe all human life is what the bible says (we are created in God's image), that would change the conversation. Because people don't want to acknowledge we have ALL been created by a divine creator, the unborn are just clumps of cells. People will never set aside their "pro-choice" position until they come to a realization that they too were created in God's image. If they realized this, they are in no position to kill another life. A very sad state our planet is in...
With respect; I do not want to appear to correct you and I hope you do not mind me tagging this along here. But, your statement tickled an old thought. It is certainly true that accepting Christian morality would make the proposition of abortion morally impossible. But, really, all one has to acknowledge is that the life of human beings is sacred. Once that is accepted; and since human beings have a predictable series of development (stages of life), with one stage predictably following another. Then we must accept any stage of that continuum of development is human life and is sacred. There are small things that are destined to remain small things. But, there are also small things are destined (ie in the absence of intervention) to develop into an adult human being. These things are babies, fetuses, toddlers, preschoolers, first graders, teenagers, fertilized human ovum, and certain clumps of cells. These entities (or manifestations) will develop into adult human beings without the need for intervention. These are all forms of human life. If one form is sacred; then they all are sacred. Because, each is just a temporal manifestation of the same entity. They are all one. A more difficult argument or question is, when is it ever appropriate to take human life? How and whom determines innocence. Do we usurp gods will/ judgement by taking "guilty" human life? Are we to judge innocence and guilt on such a profound level? If we say that human life is only sacred under the circumstance of innocence; then the sacred life is only sacred relative to the changing whim of man and his determinations of guilt and innocence (ie moral relativism). That seems to me to be an impossible condition. Best to you.....
Just remember, if you're having a discussion about abortion and you invoke your religion at all, please dismiss yourself from the conversation. Let the adults talk.
@@imanilabady7151 ok you claim the unborn is not alive so when does it become alive? What does the unborn baby have to possess for you to agree that it is living?
@@Sim6dot9 actually premature babies have survived younger than 24 weeks. You really should keep up with medical advancements if you think you can be the arbiter of truth while putting a cut off past the age babies can survive. But I do have a question - do you call the baby alive just because at x weeks it can survive on its own? Is that the distinction of life you give humans? So as a nurse when I care for patients should I turn off all life support as I mean in your definition they aren’t human anymore as they are no longer sustaining themselves…
I love the bibles moral clarity and consistency. “Though shall not kill”. Then proceeds to kill everything on the planet except those in an Ark. Morality per se is messy.
Yeah, but you can have a definitive & fixed moral system without grounds in the divine. Moral clarity and consistency don't preclude irreligiosity, and having consistent values and principles that one consistentally adheres isn't something that proves the holistic and inherent value of said values and principles. Moral relativism is only messy when you're unwilling to live as a human. God didn't put us on this planet to force his will onto each other. God put us on this planet to live and be human, so we could express our love and illuminate others with kindness and compassion regardless if they adhere to our moral truths. There's no value in forcing others not to sin, only in deciding not to when you have all of opportunities to do so.
As a woman who conceived in rape and raised a perfect beautiful human into a perfect beautiful man and who speaks all over the country about such, I am absolutely horrified every day that people like Joe Rogan who have never talked to me nor asked me how I feel about using my trauma to justify killing children like my perfect son - are running around using me to say abortion is OK. Women who conceive in rape choose to abort at the same rate as women who choose to abort for any other reason. Rape has nothing to do with why women abort. Women who abort don't know what abortion is or don't care. Women who don't abort know that abortion kills her living human child.
My first girlfriend confided in me that she had an abortion when a former boyfriend had date-raped her before we met. Abortion brought her no peace. She told me every time she saw a baby she cried.
@@jamesflynn4741 I'm starting to think it never gives peace (of mind). I mean there is the moral realization that abortion is a horrible thing, especially when done by yourself. You can become a murderer only once, after that its just the amount of bodies you leave behind (and I am not trying to equate abortion to murder here). And then there is the emotional state, which is heavily affected not only by the rationale, but also by her hormonal balance. Hormonally, an abortion is something like a stillbirth. It causes her already messy hormones to be in much more disarray. So even years after an abortion, a woman can feel the after effects. I've chatted with one or two women who had an abortion and said it wasnt so bad or even was good, after prodding a little bit, asking some uncomfortable questions, presenting my views, they became unhinged and toxic. Its became obvious they were rationalizing it, lying to themselves.
You could tell Joe at first gave the pro-abortion angry response and wouldnt let the other side gives his piece but eventually relented and had to concede at least to some degree. this guest did a great job giving the proper pro-life response.
He went so far as to make it personal stating, "You don't have the right to tell *my daughter* she has to carry a rapists baby." The answer would always be the same but to take it so personally shows how irrational some people take arguments.
What I love about this conversation is it’s two strong and intelligent men having a real conversation. Men have been defaulting to whatever the woman wants for so long I just love that they are having these conversations now. When I met my husband he had been convinced he didn’t have the right to tell someone he was with to keep the baby. It’s heart breaking. So happy to see this conversation!
@@laurenbatson5918 I don't think Joe was behaving calmly at all. He was extremely emotional, and because of that was talking over his first and attempting to shut down his argument.
It occurs to me that one of the greatest "benefits" of abortion is that it relieves the baby's father of any responsibility whatsoever. Which is perhaps why you hear fewer men fighting against it. Always excited to hear men speaking out for the rights of the unborn!
That's my impression of him as well. When it comes to any topic he likes to talk with you, but when it comes to Christianity he likes to talk about you...
Joe didn't get owned at all. Just because a person articulates a position you agree with on Joe Rogan's podcast and Rogan himself doesn't agree with doesn't equate to him getting owned.
It took me a while to disagree with the rape exception but now I do. What made me decide was that you're effectively inflicting a punishment (the death penalty) on an innocent life worse than what we inflict on the guilty party (5-10 years in prison)
If you think that a woman who has been raped should keep the baby of that rapist then you are a very disturbed person and it's very unsettling that people like you are in society.
@@CatholicNonno You would say that though wouldn't you because your trying to justify an horrendous crime.You are in the minority with your very disturbed way of thinking and I thank God the rest of us have compassion, dignity and respect for other people when they most need it.
1.) Joe Rogan recently had a UFC fight Companion show with some of his buddies, and they get into abortion at some point - and I believe you can see how Joe has softened on his position a bit - and he even argues both sides and concedes it's a very difficult thing to figure out, there is no right answer because one side is always going to feel like rights are being violated. So I think this guest made a good impression on him. 2.) Can't wait for putting "owned" in the youtube title paradigm to end.
Excellent breakdown. There was so much going on in this brief but heavy conversation, so I'm glad people are giving it the attention it deserves. Seth was truly spirit filled in this conversation and it needs to be recognized.
no life matters and especially a fetus they havent touched grass. by the way in the animal kingdom kids are eaten by their own parents all the time, and guess what we used to do the same when we were monkeys,
He wasn't "owned." I wish people stopped using this type of language for a heated, yet civil debate. Anyway, rape kits have Emergency contraception included. Most would-be "rape babies" aren't implanted to begin with.
Or fertilised even. Implantation is when the fertilised egg attaches to the womb and any intervention to prevent this is akin to abortion whereas preventing fertilisation isn't.
I have the utmost respect and love for Joe, but this is one of the very few issues I disagree with him on, although I was glad he was prepared to give some ground on the issue, the Babylon Bee guy was just awesome.
@@Wesselmania He may have only looked like a fool to the fools that are successfully brainwashed into “knowing” human life starts after the baby is born.
Matt keeps saying "is it ever okay to kill a human life", and even though it's obvious that he implies it, I can't stress enough how important it is to VERBALLY include & emphasize the word "innocent" as a qualifier in such discussions (as Seth Dillon repeatedly does does Joe Rogan). There are indeed times when killing IS okay, say in cases of self-defense or as a form of justice (Capital Punishment). Preaching to the choir a bit, what distinguishes abortion from other forms of "human killing" is the innocence of the victim and their inherent defenselessness. Very, very, minor oversight on Matt's part-he knows his core audience gets all the nuts and bolts already-but it's a good opportunity to re-emphasize to the rest of us the importance of linguistic precision, especially when we're discussing theological issues to secular/religious audiences who might not be as familiar with all the nuances of the topic.
I think it's a problem with language. There are indeed times when it's permissable to end a human life, but it's never a "good" thing. Think of all the soldiers with PTSD or the guilt people feel if they ever accidentally got someone killed. Unless your a psychopath killing a person damages us in a horrendously psychological way.
Well if that child grows up to be a serial killer then it wouldn't be innocent. You don't know what the child will be or even if it will be born. You can't quantify it as either. But there are many times an innocent life should be taken. If I am driving next to a car that is going down the street out of control with a baby in the back. and it is about to run through an intersection and mow down a pack of school kids. And I ram it out of the path and into a tree killing it but saving the others. It had to go. Period.
So if my 14 year daughter is raped and is pregnant... And if abortion is not the option then what is the best option for her? Considering in mind she is not willing to go through the birthing process and also doesn't want the child. Plz someone who represent this gentleman stance .. let me me know the options.
You can't change someone who believes abortion can be a good thing in just 1 sitting. Especially not with the way we are brainwashed in today's society. It took me years to realise what abortion truly means, and funny enough religion had nothing to do with it. In this clip cracks have been made in Joe's logic... whether he follows through the thought process or not, time will tell. Babylone Bee guy is an inspiration ; wish I could keep my cool like that...
@@paxcoder Having a co-worker have 3 abortions in 5 years with no real medical or psychological follow-up (this shocked me as I had always thought abortions were rare, a last resort scenario) // realising that even in a country like France (where I live), where access to contraception is widely and easily available still 1 out of 4 pregnancies end in an abortion (not rare) // having an internship at a clinic and seeing high school girls going for their 2nd or 3rd abortion // questioning when life starts, when consciousness starts, when and how personality develops in an unborn baby // researching what an abortion actually does to the mother's body and then researching the different "abortion techniques" // not understanding how - with all the scientific progress and knowledge we have, with the different contraception methods available - there are 25% of pregnancies that are terminated in abortions // realising that abortions that are done are not practised because the baby is ill, or because the mother might risk her life, but because of convenience and because women are told that you have to be at a certain situation in you life (with money, job, partner) in order to even fathom the idea of having a child This took years as it is difficult to go against what one has been taught, explained for years, especially as a woman - you are told that without abortion, women would go back to coat hangers and knitting needles or other dangerous self-destructive methods in order to abort. You are taught that this is the lesser of the evils to stop an unwanted pregnancy... That if you are against abortion, somehow you are a traitor to all women in time and worldwide... because abortion is "progress". And before even considering the life of the unborn child, I was considering the ramifications of an abortion for the mother. How women were treated, discarded, no thought for the consequences that too many abortions could have on her body, not telling them the truth of what they were doing to their body (it is quite an upheaval for the woman's body) ... it angered me. Then, and then only was I able to even consider the possibility that the unborn baby was not just "a clump of cells". Nothing at all having to do with religion. I do not find that fighting to limit or even ban abortions ought to go the route of a religious argument. For me it comes down to one very simple yet important question : what is a human life worth? If human life is priceless, and society and laws make certain to protect all human life, then I find society is better ordered. Once society and laws can make the claim that some lives are worth more than others, then there will be disorder and decadence.
Great point, Nerd, regarding religion. Seems to me it's not so much a religious issue as a human rights issue. Joe wanted to say that "it's complicated", but the guest essentially calmly stated that no, it's really not complicated at all, and I think that's why the guest is able to remain so calm and respectful.
“Killing a human life is wrong” I wouldn’t agree with this, I think adding “innocent” is an important distinction. It’s not wrong to kill a human life in self-defense or through capital punishment, but killing an innocent life IS wrong. Innocent, like the baby in the womb.
I would argue capital punishment is wrong. I'm against capital punishment because I think giving the State the power to end human life is giving the State too much power. How can you be sure they will only use it against the guilty? St. Maria Goretti and Br. Alessandro Serenelli would argue that giving a man a chance to reform himself is worthwhile.
@@TheProphecyTV In some circumstances, but an animals life never shares the same value as a human life and I believe lowering human life to such a level is evil. The definition of murder is “The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.”. The killing of an animal cannot fit the definition of the word,
Would be great to not play into the division with a title like "gets owned". He pushed back but ultimately had an open mind and this is how we change hearts. Not everything has to be overly adversarial
Rape and underage pregnancy account for less than 1% of abortions in America. Not all women should be allowed abortion for any reason at all for such low numbers
Joe has a gift of being a mirror to the person he interviews. Why do you think surprising information gets revealed on his podcast? That's why people like listening to him because his goal is to reveal truth to what is hidden or confusing. The personal problem Joe has is moral and ethical relativism. Eventually every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, including Joe Rogan. Let's pray he becomes aware of truth and turns to God.
Jesus and God have not been shown to exists and there is no test can objectively determine they exists. Adding God or Jesus to the conversation does not add anything.
You can tell Joe gave up on the argument as soon as they got to the question of when the magic of life happens because he had no retort because he was pushing a narrative
This is why I never took Rogan as seriously as his fanboys do. His level of inquiry is so utterly pedestrian when met with perspectives he disagrees with.
Just because he's not a great rep for pro choice doesn't mean pro choice side doesn't have strong arguments. Just means JR isn't well thought out on the topic.
@@BourbonForageFishing exactly not well thought out because there aren’t real strong arguments for pro choice. The fact is killing is killing and 2 wrongs don’t make a right, these are basic truths civilized humanity can agree on. Actually wait I’m wrong this only applies to everything else not babies apparently 😑
I give Joe Rogan credit first for having an opposing view on the show and being open to the argument. That openess gives everyone, myself included, a chance to hear reason.
I didn’t hold anything about this on Joe Rogan in a negative way. I’m pro life but totally understand the rape/incest argument but we can’t live in a society where the exception is the rule. I also empathize with Joe because he’s also arguing it as a father with young daughters. As a father of 2 very young daughters I can empathize. I’m pro life until you mess with my kids then I’m absolutely pro death penalty by the system or my own hand. I would do anything in my power to ensure they don’t suffer so I get it fully. Kudos to both staying level.
The rape incest argument is equivalent to abortion is acceptable if the father is an asshole. Joe's daughter could be raped by her future or ex husband so kill the grandchild?
You say we cannot live in a society where the exception is the rule, yet you just made an exception to the rule of no one should take a life, when you say if someone harmed your daughter, you would be pro death penalty.
Rape is always brought up because it's the last resort and the extreme. Of course rape is one of the worst if not the worst things that can happen to someone and yes, but is any action the baby's fault?
My wife had a miscarriage at 8 weeks last year. We had many people reach out and say sorry for losing your baby. Same people this year posted all over SM that they hate anyone who doesn’t support abortion before 10 weeks. I was like, didn’t you just call our loss a baby last year and now it’s a choice? Very odd that you can be sorry for a loss, but also encourage it.
Not sure what's odd. You want it but lost it. i.e it's a loss. If you didn't want something in the first place (e.g sympathy, affection/gift from someone you dislike, etc), would you treat it as a 'loss' if they take it back?
@@justinreid2422 Little one, shouldn't you pray for Drew who suffered an actual loss instead? It's ... odd that you chose to pray for me instead, just for trying to resolve his logical conundrum.
Hmm … I thought Joe Rogan did what he does. He fired back, thought he had a solid point, then realized … maybe there’s more to this than I thought. He didn’t get owned. I think that’s click baitish.
Even though some part of me doesn't believe in abortion, I will never ever believe in forcing rape victims to have a baby against their will. Therefore, I support abortion when it comes to extremely evil crime done to women and underage girls. A rape victim has never asked to get pregnant and these condescending Anti-Abortionists know it! Even if the woman isn't a rape victim, if there's a very serious problem going on with her pregnancy, and if she's not in a highly financial position to have a good life for her baby, she still has the right for an abortion no matter what.
@@SamStone1964 Indeed the Church, the bride of Christ, loves children very much. So much so that thankfully there are tons of orphanages and hospitals created by the Church around the planet, notwithstanding fake news-filled situation like that in Canada. At the same time, thankfully the Church is not limited to those members who behave in an ill, abusive manner towards children. Finally, us catholics abhor all kinds of abuses towards children and hope and pray so that they get to live, in spite of the evil logic of child-murder espoused by many.
Kristan Hawkins had a great answer to the "clump of cells" argument. In a question and answer period at one of her live talks she asked the questioner what she thought a fetus was. Of course, the woman said, "just a clump of cells". Then Kristan said, "Well, I'm just a clump of cells".
You bring up a valid point but pro life doesn't mean pro all life. There are very bad people out there who are rapists and killers. Why shouldn't truly evil people be put to death but an innocent baby should? Guns to some degree I agree with you that you should try as much as possible to not kill someone but someone's you have to protect your family from bad people and that's just what it is. War is politically complex, depends on if you think what we're going into war for is absolutely necessary. Which everyone will have different opinions on. So no, you can be pro life and still not be those things.
We were already telling friends and family when my wife was 6 weeks along with our daughter. That is absolutely a life. And I cringe at the idea of abortion even as early as that
As a parent, you may think you're helping your daughter or son by pushing 'abortion', but you also have the responsibility to protect their soul-- look after their heart and mind. That guilt and regret and shame will eat at them forever after the abortion. Important to remember that abortion is killing a child and also that that fact will be ingrained into the child that had the "abortion" forever. They will never be able to see a baby or a pregnant woman without thinking about it. They will never be able to say "this is my first pregnancy" or "my eldest child" without feeling a pang of strange agony. Proceed with caution if you're thinking about suggesting your child get an "abortion"; you may think you are helping to save them from a hard life, but you are actually pushing them to commit one of the most painful sins of their life.
They won’t feel any agony, they will feel disgust to a rapist. Do not talk as a parent like you know everything. You didnot get raped so shut up with the emotional explanation.
100% , my evidence is anecdotal but after the umpteenth post abortive woman crying about her due date or binge drinking on the anniversary of their abortion made me change my mind.
This is an important conversation that more people need to have. The Pro-Life movement should be actively pursuing a strategy of changing minds on abortion instead of changing laws.
One reasoning on this subject that stuck with me was this: If scientists found a string of proteins and amino acids, i.e. "a clump of cells" on Mars, they'd almost certainly consider it alien life. So if a clump of cells can be considered life on another planet, why is it not considered life in the womb of a woman?
I think most pro-abortion people regard the unborn baby as being "biological life" from the very earliest stages. The logic gets kind of fuzzy, though. I think they would say that the unborn baby is not "human life", or at least "human life with human rights". It gets even fuzzier if you inquire about when an unborn child acquires the status of "human being". For some, this seems to happen when the child has a recognizably human appearance in utero. Maybe they would oppose abortion if the baby looked like a miniature little newborn from the moment of its conception, just a microscopic little infant? Maybe their minds just can't conceive of a human being that is shaped differently for a while? This is the "clump of cells" argument. For others, this happens when the baby passes a significant developmental milestone like when the living pre-born human being develops a circulatory system and the heart begins to beat for the first time. Interesting fact: the obviously alive human being has not developed and does not even require a functioning circulatory for its first 5 - 6 weeks! Having a heart does not make you a human! When you need one, you grow one. For others, babies apparently don't achieve this status until they have fully emerged from the birth canal. The baby undergoes a change in location, and begins to use its already developed lungs for the first time, but it's still pretty much the same baby that it was an hour ago. Personhood was not visibly conferred when the baby was delivered, so I'm not sure where they think it came from. Pro-abortionists employ extremely magical and irrational thinking where the beginning of human life is concerned, a sort of "it's like, when you know, you know" kind of approach. The understanding that life begins at conception is logical and scientific. That human life begins with conception is a cold hard fact, not matter how inconvenient.
@@MattBurrill one if the biggest arguments I think is around viability. An embryo, or fetus doesn't become a "baby" until it is viable which I think is around 22-23 weeks? Something like that, and even then it is still heavily dependent on Technology for several weeks.
@@cgordon3 The fetus/baby distinction is a very artificial construction of language, though. And so is "viability". It is true that a developing human being typically requires at minimum 23 or so weeks in the womb of its mother before it is able to survive outside the womb (and then with a great deal of medical intervention). But the question "how would the developing baby fare if it left the womb at this stage of development?" has no bearing on the personhood of the developing baby. Puberty is a significant phase of development that a born child undergoes, but it too has no bearing on personhood questions. The human person, whose life begins at conception, experiences dramatic bodily growth and change before he or she is born. This development slows but continues after birth. Pro-Abortion arguments rely on misleading use of language that dehumanizes obvious human beings. Terms like "embryo", "fetus", and "zygote" have legitimate descriptive purposes, but they are misused to rhetorically distance us from the personhood of the unborn person, effectively dehumanizing with language.
@@MattBurrill - I understand what you are saying, and I can say that you are right, from a certain point of view. If you assume that 'personhood' starts at conception, and still support abortion, then you have to admit to yourself that you just ok with ending that life up to a certain age measured in weeks. But most people who support abortion aren't willing to concede that point of view. And I think that is the biggest gap in the ongoing argument is an agreement to when the child in the womb is considered a person with rights. Also there is another argument that has nothing to do with the babies status of life, but has to do with the rights of the mother. The rights of the 'child' don't supercede the rights of the mother... in that lets say a person was dying in the hospital and needed an organ transplant for which you are a perfect match. you can't be forced to give up your organ to save the other person. Here the argument goes that you should not be able to force the mother to carry to term if she doesn't want to do so, ie gve an organ to save another life. that's a crude description of the argument, but I hope you follow what I mean.
I like Joe Rogan because he’s always trying to find the truth. You can’t help but develop your own ideas and come to your own conclusions about anything and everything, and that’s kind of the point. He regularly misses the main point, God, but he’s trying to get there whether he knows it or not - he’s just taking the long way around. Love the Babylon Bee more & more, every time I see/hear anything from them, whether it’s one of their classic posts or interviews with them or by them, they just become more and more outstanding as humans. Thanks for this post; good one. Pray up and may God bless us all.
@9:50: If the question really does boil down to "is it ever OK to kill a human life," the answer is yes, according to virtually everyone. Capital punishment kills a human life. War kills human lives. Defending one's own life against an attack often kills a human life. The question might be better phrased as, "is it ever OK to kill an innocent human life," but even then, it's not entirely straightforward. And enemy soldier is likely not guilty of anything other than service to his country. Even a crazed person trying to kill you might not be in his right mind, and not "guilty" in a moral sense- but most people would agree that it's acceptable to kill him if necessary to defend one's own life.
I think an enemy solider killing an innocent civilian is wrong and it’s wrong according to international law (if I’m not mistaken). Soldiers fight soldiers. We live in a different time when warfare is different though so. But it’s still wrong. When is killing a child ever okay? Maybe killing a child soldier is acceptable because of the circumstance, but in general, I don’t think it would be difficult to understand that it’s wrong to take an innocent life. Even murderers don’t want their own lives taken. Those who kill don’t even want to be killed and they aren’t innocent. Who has the right to take life is a better question now that I think about it.
^ Exactly! This is about *_innocent_* human life. If innocent human lives cannot be protected and can be discarded at any point in time without suffering any consequences, then be consistent and apply that standard of argumentation towards your own life and the life of those you love.
@@thewalruswasjason101 just to clarify, I'm not saying abortion is justified- I'm saying that the question needs to be asked and answered more carefully. If we *were* to proceed on the assumption that it's OK to abort a baby if the mother's life is in direct and obvious danger, yeah, it would also probably be acceptable to abort a baby even without that level of threat. We allow deadly force to be employed not only in cases where one's life is threatened, but also if "grave bodily harm" is threatened. I think an unwanted pregnancy as a result of rape could reasonably be seen as a grave consequence. Matt talked a little about not punishing the baby and punishing the rapist instead, but the reality is that the rapist's victim has to suffer severe consequences, too. The moral argument that allows killing someone in self defense but doesn't allow abortion is the rule of double effect. If you kill someone in self defense, your intent isn't actually to kill him, but to stop him- killing him is a probable result, but not your actual goal. It's a side effect. With abortion, killing the baby is a deliberate act, used as a means to an end. That's a pretty fine point, and not as simple as saying, "it's never OK to kill a human life." But it's a more true argument, and doesn't leave one open to obvious objections.
Miscarriages usually happen in the first trimester and every woman I know who has had one cries and is upset that their baby died. They don’t say “oh well, my fetus died”. There’s a reason for that. Fetus is meant to be a medical term, just like phalanges means fingers, but it’s still a baby.
A wonderful video. Very insightful. Loved seeing the logical arguments against abortion. It's so rare to get that these days ... the debate usually turns hysterical and doesnt use logic. It was great to see two men debating this is a very calm and reasonable fashion.
Joe does this with his guests. He railroads them into his way of believing. He did the same with Milo about his homosexuality. This guy is one of the few guests that have ever stood up to Joe. I stopped watching Joe because he is a bully when imposing his beliefs about drug use, homosexuality, and pornography use. His guests always back down. This one has strong Christian faith, good on him.
@@sudafedup I think Joe is more liberal in regard to sexuality so what he means is that when someone says that homosexual behaviour is deplorable (it is) on his show he bullies them
@@apoliticaldeviant1262 I've seen him get angry at guests for disagreements with his positions sometimes but I don't think that qualifies as bullying, but I guess we have a different lines as to what bullying is. I dunno. I won't argue why I don't think homosexual behavior is deplorable as it's off topic, but if someone feels strongly about a position I can see why they'd be upset at a guest. Though to be fair I think Joe Rogan isn't that smart of a guy on most of the topics he discusses so when his brain gets triggered by disagreements he tends to get heated.
@@sudafedup watch this clip again. See where he says "are you telling me my fourteen year old can't have an abortion after getting raped?" and see hownaggressive he gets with the guest. No one is telling him anything about his 14 year old. And he is trying to put that guy in a corner where he says its okay. Tell me thats not bullying.
@@elspethsilverstar6136 I'd call that an argument from emotion, not really "bullying." People get heated in debates and discussions a lot. But like I said, I have a different line into what constitutes bullying.
Seth Dillon explained his position incredibly well .. he stayed very calm and re-iterated his point solidly. I have a lot of respect for him stating this opinion on such a massive platform! We need more people to stand up like he did!
"Is it ever ok to kill a human life"? We know the answer is yes, sometimes. E.g. self-defense, war against an aggressor etc. And we also know that the intent (or lack of intent and innocence/guilt) of the "aggressor" is irrelevant. The issue is kill versus murder.
The title of the video is completely incorrect. Rogan never got “owned”. He did have an intelligent conversation with with an opposing view, or maybe a conversation with his own same view wherein he gave a counter argument. Around the 8:20 mark, the narrator suggests that the pro choice believers are ok with killing a 5 month old child and that “the blue states are going to head to soon with full on infanticide where we are euthanizing three year olds”. This guy is completely off base with these comments and I would love to hear him explain himself with someone like Rogan. Joe would listen and respond. Not the same where the narrator of this video and his echo chamber get to pause wherever they want and interject their own biased opinions.
The forcing a child to carry a baby is a valid question that always gets dismissed as an emotional appeal. I'd like to hear a pro life person address the pregnant child's perspective
Literally all the time. "2 wrongs dont make a right". Suppose for sake of argument we agree life begins at conception, why does that change the value of the life in the womb? It very much so is an appeal to emotion. However, humans are emotional creatures, and just because logic doesn't follow doesn't mean we shouldnt consider the emotions being brought up or talked about. So, from here, continuing with my "sake of argument" scenario, we acknowledge the child has a right to life, but that leaves us feeling empty and remorseful for that young woman bearing the child, and it bugs me that no one talks about this. What I say, and what I WISH so many other pro-lifers would talk about, is the fact that we're willing to support that young girl/woman in every way possible. Obviously, what she went through was one of the most detestable crimes known to man kind and she deserves to be comforted and supported through the birth and after with taking care of the child. I, personally, would not only donate money to help a mother in need, but I would even offer services to help take care of the child or to donate clothing, what have you. I'm certain many other pro-lifers can do the same. What a lot of people also love to forget is how many resources are available. If that young girl doesn't have a supportive family, she may have friends that do, or at the very least many church's and their communities would help out. At least catholic churches I cannot speak to the protestants. The topic of how we help young women with their financial and other struggles is never brought up and its a way more compelling and compassionate approach that the pro-aborts would look stupid if they were to deny it.
One side of the debate frames their position in emotion and a (deliberately?) squishy version of personhood (which looks suspiciously like ensoulment, despite protestations that religion should have no place in this debate). The other side of the debate tries to get clear answers (and generally gives clear answers), and uses basic moral principles to then guide behavior, regardless of the emotional outcome. The two sides nearly always come away thinking that they won because the other side was cold/cruel/indifferent to suffering or was illogical/unprincipled/incapable of providing a clear moral framework. Rationally, the pro-life guy won. Frankly, I think it is a hard case to lose. I suspect the other side believes they won because they still feel like abortion should be okay. Since it doesn't appear that minds were changed, I would call the debate a wash, particularly if our goal is to convince people of abortion's immorality. This isn't because of a failure on the part of the pro-lifer, but because these debates seem almost impossible to make real headway in.
5:54 about sums it up for me, personally. So thankful for someone finally not being owned by Rogan's overemotional, non-logical argumentation. l do wish Seth would've brought up the fact that human life beginning at conception is pretty much a universally accepted scientific fact and that scientists don't declare a human to be a human when "it looks like a baby", but that's just a minor nitpick. Seth clearly did a great job both in answering the questions and in terms of not being emotional when providing said answers, so that's something I was very pleased to see.
I like how you initially commented on the guests demeanor. You can have all the logic and morality in the world on your side of a debate but you aren't convincing anyone if you have the wrong energy.
I think there is a disconnect between what seems to be a common sense - or logical - approach to the moral issues discussed here and the approach of appealing to authority because you accept that moral truth has already been revealed and that it justifies your view on these issues. You can use either approach to argue in conversation but only one of these is the fundamental basis of how you arrive at and accept your own morality. You say that Joe appeals to Shame - and the guest argues with logic. I think that if I used more or less the same argument as the guest to say that it was wrong to murder an innocent animal for food then Joe would reject this as an appeal to shame but the guest would also reject it in spite of the argument's logical similarity to his pro-life argument. So why would human life be sacred but not all life? Is this a common sense logical claim or a claim that appeals to authority, i.e. scripture or revealed truth? If it is okay to to kill and eat animals is it also okay to perform an abortion on an animal without any restrictions? If this is not the case can that be easily argued without an appeal to authority? If Joe does not believe in God you cannot expect him to assess the issue through the same lens as you do - so is he actually being immoral by arguing in favour of pro-choice? I think both speakers argue from a position of sincerity and morality.
This is an enlightening perspective that Seth Dillon is laying down here. I think that the real issue here is freedom, the right to choose. In this day of cancel culture, the mechanism of control is the problem. Information being manipulated and censored is treating humans as incapable of handling truth, or reality as it exists. We have problems like 'climate crisis', or here, abortion, which are too big for us to handle. So we need an entity greater than the individual to control the situation. Basically big government leading to communism, etc. We are programmed to not take responsibility for ourselves, and to not think for ourselves. This is all tied into our culture of comfort and compartmentalization. It is easy and reassuring to trust the experts, to let the thought leaders figure out this complicated stuff. I think freedom is the best thing. Abortion should be legal, as to make it illegal is just another form of manipulation and censorship. However, it should not be regulated one way or another by government, or use tax dollars to support or prevent it (along with many other things). The language and understanding of the issue should be spoken of plainly. Abortion is a termination of life. We need to call it as it really is. This way we can begin to change the direction of this and all other expressions of trauma and dis ease. I disagree with the host here (Aquinas?) that the repulsion of Christianity is based on their (Christians) position on the sexual revolution. I think that is a part of it, but underlying that it is a repulsion of control and judgement itself. Basically that most peoples experience with Christianity is the hypocrisy and distortion exhibited by Christians as compared with the teachings of their leader, Jesus. The problem with Christianity, is that Christians follow/worship their leader (religion), instead of following his message/teaching. It's really that simple. The message Jesus brings is the highest teaching in this realm, but it has been perverted to dis-empower and further enslave people. Abortion does not need human laws to prevent it, that is like making drugs illegal, and putting people in prison for using them. Like drugs, this comes down to a mental illness issue. So to remedy the situation (a pregnancy desired to be terminated), the individuals in the situation need support. An example could be that people who want to crusade in the saving of life, could team together to provide incentives to bring a child to term. This is just one example of using proper technology of creation to energize what you want, rather than our false programming of fighting against what we don't want, which only reinforces/perpetuates what we don't want. Morality does come into play here, and it is a natural expression of a well person. This realm needs to be healed, and this is accomplished by building a new world/system, and not fighting the old. This all begins within. It's a big shift, but we at least need to see the way clearly, and have a direction to point towards. This is a mess, really. I think it comes down to that we live in a sick system, and we are programmed from all directions to be cut off from our divine source, to exist as self hating soulless beings, and this is the real issue. In saying that abortion should be legal, that we should all have freedom, I am not saying that there won't be consequences. I think from a perspective of cause and effect, that there is no 'free lunch' here, and that in the light of freedom, we will really move into a culture of healing and wellness. It will take a sea change shift of consciousness, and that may be happening now, as consciousness evolves. I've heard it expressed that you cannot really judge the situation of abortion from our limited perspective. That there are matters of 'soul contracts' in operation, where the developing life form has a soul and is an active entity within the equation. Some thoughts as I submit a RUclips comment here, perhaps my first in over 5 years. Most of us don't leave comments.
im pro choice. but if theres rape involved or danger of the mothers life if she carries through with it, i dont see the problem. If a young 12/14 year old girl is raped by either a stranger or even incest occured, then why ruin the girls life with a baby at such a young age? Now im against the women that has 6 abortions and uses abortion as a birthcontrol.
No joke… this was one of the most impactful and important conversations of our time. Give the other guy a pod cast… I like Joe cos he seems to represent a generation or two and he’s actually flexible at times. But the Babylon Bee guy is a legend. He’s what we need. Check out Babylon Bee 🐝 so good!
We didn't watch the same podcast because he definitely didn't get owned. I'm pro life and literally everyone I know who watched it said Joe made us pro life people look stupid. You can cherry pick bits and pieces the entire conversation tells a different story bud.
Yep. It was a good discussion with good points raised by both sides in an incredibly polarizing topic where people are generally unable to have an actual dialog. This video is a result of the brain cancer that is confirmation bias and the lack of the poster's awareness of his own biases.
Props to Joe Rogan for his willingness to have such a "measured discussion" rather than label his guest an anti-women, anti-science sexist, and then shut him down.
"what if it was my 14 yr old pregnant daughter...." Imagine your grandson someday giving you a warm hug and saying "Thank you grandpa for not killing me for the sin of my father"
What if it was your 14yr old daughter who told you she was pregnant but will die if the pregnancy goes full term and the baby may not survive after birth. My cousin tried for yrs for a family. When she finally got pregnant the Dr told her exactly. They chose abortion and later went on to have 3 daughters.
@@graememckay9972 There is a difference between direct abortion (in which the death of the unborn human being is intended) and indirect abortion (in which the death of the unborn human being is an unintended consequence of treatment, say, for example, for ectopic pregnancy or uterine cancer): direct abortion destroys one life when two would otherwise live; indirect abortion saves one life when two would likely otherwise die.
Joe is a good guy that’s relatively more neutral than anyone else anywhere else . I appreciate him over and over for this fact . The Pro -Life guy is articulate and chill , he’s awesome… great pints and analogies that I’ve never heard before
When you say “It is never okay to kill a human life.” The next logical questions come up are what about self defense, war, death penalty. What would be the justification for things like these?
we can easily take ou the premises of "it is always wrong to take a human life". For example it is not wrong to take a human life when that human is threatening to kill someone, aka self defence. Here, we easily conclude that it is NOT always wrong to take a human life.
False. Sometimes it is inevitable that you end up killing a person in self-defence. But that doesn't mean that you should actively seek to kill that person. Actively seeking to killing a person is sin. Your ethical duty and objective is to simply defend yourself and others - which does not necessitate that you seek out to end the life of another human being, regardless if they're an aggressor. In other words: stopping a threat is not the same thing as deliberately seeking to kill somebody.
@@csongorarpad4670 my point was that the premise was debunked. As someone suggested they should have added innocent life to the premise or sometjing like that
@@csongorarpad4670 I agree with you...I understood him to say that it was wrong to intentionally kill a human life - I interpreted intentionally to mean premeditated which is different from killing in self defense.
Gotta love the fundamentalism here. It’s just lazy to something is “always wrong” full stop. It’s just simply not true, and it could potentially be dangerous
Going to very clear here I am against abortion except for rape. That’s my opinion. However from a technical stand point, the premise “it’s ALWAYS wrong to take human life” is flawed. Therefore the logic is unsound. If you can’t think of any examples of where taking human life is not wrong then I’d be happy to give a few examples.
I feel like rape overrides everything else because it’s a person being condemned for no fault of their own. My moral intuition is to say abortion is wrong on the grounds that a person is not taking responsibility for their own actions and is therefore willing to prevent the transition into a human being for their unborn child, but taking the burden of blame on the woman out of the equation, and I no longer feel like it’s their moral responsibility to see the pregnancy through.
For anyone who is interested: the word "fetus" in Latin means "little one"
Interesting, I've never heard that
or young one or little child. great point to bring up
What I've come across it means unborn baby.?
@@anomalousviewer3164 Etymology of the word in Latin means young child, young one.
According to Google translate it to "offsprings"
I don't believe that Rogan was "owned" because it was a discussion and not a debate. He is brave and smart enough to have people on his show that will challenge his views and beliefs. He might have not come away from this interview a pro-lifer, but Seth Dillion definitely planted a seed in Joe's mind as well as the minds of Rogan's listeners.
Yes that’s what it’s all about. Give Joe the credit he’s due, he gives people a platform even when they are unpopular.
Good take
Well said sir.
"Conflict sells clicks." It's the grifters way.
@@fakename3208 Especially if they are unpopular..............it is all about ratings.
I definitely don't agree with everything Rogan says, but I've always had *massive* respect for how much effort he puts into trying to remain objective and unbiased.
He's not always perfect in that effort, but you can tell he *REALLY* tries, and I love that.
He might want to try, but he's another democrat owned puppet. He flip-flops to whatever fits the agenda.
No he doesn’t. He just runs over anyone that tries to share a different opinion. The video they showed literally showed this happening over 10 times
@Steve French I have, which is why I say that I certainly don't agree with everything he says.
I will say, however, he seems to have gotten better over the years with being disrespectful. He used to say Christianity was outright "stupid" or "dumb", but I've recently seen him say that a person's QOL will be better by living by the morals that Christians do, even though he still doesn't believe in God.
@@DrPeppa 100% agree, even if people aren’t religious there’s still some great guidelines & morals to live by from the bible (some but not all of them i will say though)
@@Drifty325i Definitely 👍
this is why i think Joe Rogan is so popular because this is how an actual conversation should go. Not pushing a Left or Right POV but just being sincere in your response and listening to who you are talking to.
Well, I for one hope that if I'm in an "actual conversation" about abortion, my interlocutor doesn't use vacuous bromides like "it's such a human problem". I may pluck my eyes out if he does.
@@scottbuchanan9426 🙄🙄
"Calling abortion 'health care' is like calling rape making love. Great analogy. Enjoyed 2 adults engaging in a civil conversation /debate. This is how we learn. Rogan deserves credit for allowing himself to be challenged. A rarity and why he is so successful.
Is there a source or does this just sound good to you? Not to mention that in structuring the argument like this, if there's even one counter example the argument is false.
Two men that got nothing with caring a baby for 10month lmfao hahahha smh#pro choice
SO FUCKING TRUE
The pro-life argument is a red herring. The fact is, women have been on the planet a very long time, and along the way have learned a few things. One of those things is how to terminate a pregnancy. A woman can terminate a pregnancy at any time, whether you like it or not, or whether any law says yay or nay, and no one would be the wiser. You would require that she do it in the most unsafe way. So the sum total of what you want is to hurt a woman. If you wanted a baby to be born, you would take a very different approach. End of story.
@@frostfree7 "So the sum total of what you want is to hurt a woman" strange extrapolation relative to the content you are replying to. But.... end of story.🙂
A "clump of cells" on Mars would be celebrated worldwide as "THERE'S LIFE ON MARS!", but here on Earth we kill it.
Never pleasured a woman eh?
A clump of cells with human DNA 🧬
If a fetus is not a human life then why is killing a pregnant woman a double homicide?
Thats only in the 30+ pro life states buddy
It’s shouldn’t even be a political debate either it’s just common sense
Damn... OWNED!
Interesting lane to direct the argument of individual choice to. If we are going down that line of thinking, you think US census counts all fetuses? Do you think families should receive SNAP/TANF/ Medicaid/ Tax Credits for fetuses at any stage? What if a woman has just found out she’s pregnant, can she immediately be called a mother and become eligible for all resources and services reserved for mothers/families? We’re likely looking at additional billions in spending every year. Wanna subsidize all that with higher taxes? No? Didn’t think so.
@@madhavchr Yes, I do think a woman should qualify for all those benefits the moment she becomes pregnant. You made lots of assumptions by answering your own questions in the negative. A pregnant woman is a pregnant woman, period.
My point is why does the law consider a fetus not a human being in one case, but makes the opposite argument and considers it a life when talking about homicide. If a murderer can be charged with double homicide for killing a pregnant woman then a fetus is a life. You can’t have it both ways.
It was so worth the watch again.. The guest was perfectly poised and calm. I am taking lessons from him. 👏
@Jack Hummell It’s strange how Rogan kept pressing the question of whether its a human life even down to the nano-second when sperm enters egg.. Did he think that Mr Dillon would cave and say, “Well Ok.. maybe its not human at the half-nano second upon sperm entry into egg...so therefore not human and abortable.” Mr Dillon was poised, calm and confident... just a masterpiece to watch.
@@dija5578 I would say its not a human life unless it was born.
Eugenics | Planned Parenthood | Social Darwinism | ruclips.net/video/VLc8I0k_78M/видео.html ?vd adfdsdsa
@@kos-mos1127 why?
@@mikelroa8719 A human is an individual organism. An individual organism is an organism that has been born.
An ex girlfriend aborted our baby and told me after she did it. This was years ago. We broke up. But that abortion affected her big time. She still would text me about it- wondering about what kind of person they would have been. Her life went downhill year after year. Until she eventually passed away…
I’m so sorry to hear that. My cousin had two abortions in her 20s and also just got more and more messed up as the years passed. She became obsessed with hating anyone who won’t actively cheer on “abortion rights” despite knowing that we, her family, did not judge her as unworthy of God’s love or of our love.
Trust me, I'm a try hard in my early 20s no gf since birth. What I just said is irrelevant but what I just read is something else, Im sorry to hear about it and knowing you went through something like this but this feels like being a newbie in a rehab realizing you (I) aint something you think you are. There are literally other people who have experienced something else. By the way I love you man and thank you for sharing this. This hits deep on another dimension.
And? That's one extreme other people it's the best decision they made and they have made a life for themselves got themselves a good job, bought a house got married and had children when they were ready.
It's personal choice. You can't use one argument about it say well, that's it that's what it leads to no women can have abortions. They should have to have their rapist kid and if they don't want to keep it throw into the already overwhelmed system of foster and aoption services...is that good for a child? Really?
@@libertasdemocratiam887 For starters, babies do not get “thrown into the foster care system”. For every baby that is up for adoption there are many, many couples who would LOVE to adopt that baby. (Once upon a time many babies were adopted in this country. I had at least four friends growing up who were adopted --and very happy to have been adopted, by the way. The issue is that the human being in the womb is just that. He/she should not be killed simply because his or her life might have difficulty in it, any more than a three month old baby ought to be killed just because we might be able to predict that the kid will face hardship. A three month old baby cannot reason or talk or walk or fend for himself in any way. Should we say that he is “not really fully human” because he cannot do those things and “would never know what he was missing” if he were quietly killed? Any argument for,abortion can also be made to justify infanticide because honestly there is no difference other than that abortion can be done without others knowing there was a pregnancy (that is, an innocent little human) there to begin with. I get your feelings and your objections. But people have a right not to be killed in the womb. It’s just wrong to do that to someone.
@@Featherfinder if every single child a woman wante stop abort was born and put into the social care system aka adoption and fostering, the system would crumble.
You may not like it but that's fact. That's the absolute fact of the matter.
Whether you like it or not right now there are couples with 4 kids who are struggling to keep a roof over their head and feed 6 mouths, who truly cannot afford to have another child, who have been taking precaution via contraception which failed on them (that does happen) that's upto them to decide if they want to keep that baby or not. They may after careful consideration come to the conclusion that they simply cannot put their other children through the possibility of losing their home because the motherwould no longer be able to work because someone would need to look after the baby. She maybe working part time already while her other kids are at school, and she and her husband physically cannot afford to do that, not without losing everything and putting their other children in the position of having no home. Which would likely result in all the kids being taken into the system.
Life is not perfect, life is fucking hard for alot of people, and sometimes those people have to make god awful choices they don't want to make not for their own personal gain because they couldn't be arsed taking the pill, but because they're putting their existing children first. Is that harsh? Yes but if it's a case of not being able to afford to live and support your kids, or I don't blame people for making that choice.
Now you can say they shouldn't be on poverty and all that which I'm sure you will, but poverty has and always will exist, there will always be a poor. There's always be women who have been raped who do not want the child they did not consent to being put inside of them, for every on of them there's a woman who chooses to keep the child of rape, it's upto those women to make the choice, not you. Because you believe your views are more important than theirs.
For every woman who chooses to sacrifice herself for her baby who dies during birth, there's another woman who chooses to abort her child and adopt or use a surrogate because she thinks it's better for her child to have two parents not a single dad riddled with grief. That's upto them not you.
If abortion is taken away those women mentioned above will find alternative means that will result in death or losing the ability to have children completely.
If you want to stop abuse of the system to stop allowing women who have had repeated aboritons to get them, they're clearly taking the system for a ride. But do not force other women who have very valid reasons as to why they want aboriton not have access to them.
If you were homeless would you opt to keep a baby? If you'd been raped by your father or uncle would you want to keep your baby? If you were at risk of death from birth would you want to keep your baby? You can say yes to all of those things but the truth is you simply don't know until you are on that situation.
The clump of cells argument is meaningless since ultrasounds. I had an ultrasound at 7 weeks and my daughter was a recognizable tiny little human with a beating heart.
Heart is formed and starts beating 21 days after conception
And she had a soul too
@@michellemcdermott2026 how do you know there are souls?
@@aice336 Jeremiah 1
I knew you before I formed you in your mother's womb
@@aice336 Who's asking? 😉
Additionally:
- My body, my choice.
- So you have two heads?
what?
@@aice336 Their own head and the head of the baby in the womb
Eugenics | Planned Parenthood | Social Darwinism | ruclips.net/video/VLc8I0k_78M/видео.html ?vds a34asdfda
@@desales20 got it, so abortion is okay prior to the formation of a head.
😂
Massive respect to the guest. He was so chill and breaking off some straight logic - "Calling abortion healthcare is like calling rape love making..." If you believe all human life is what the bible says (we are created in God's image), that would change the conversation. Because people don't want to acknowledge we have ALL been created by a divine creator, the unborn are just clumps of cells. People will never set aside their "pro-choice" position until they come to a realization that they too were created in God's image. If they realized this, they are in no position to kill another life. A very sad state our planet is in...
With respect; I do not want to appear to correct you and I hope you do not mind me tagging this along here. But, your statement tickled an old thought.
It is certainly true that accepting Christian morality would make the proposition of abortion morally impossible. But, really, all one has to acknowledge is that the life of human beings is sacred. Once that is accepted; and since human beings have a predictable series of development (stages of life), with one stage predictably following another. Then we must accept any stage of that continuum of development is human life and is sacred.
There are small things that are destined to remain small things. But, there are also small things are destined (ie in the absence of intervention) to develop into an adult human being. These things are babies, fetuses, toddlers, preschoolers, first graders, teenagers, fertilized human ovum, and certain clumps of cells. These entities (or manifestations) will develop into adult human beings without the need for intervention. These are all forms of human life. If one form is sacred; then they all are sacred. Because, each is just a temporal manifestation of the same entity. They are all one.
A more difficult argument or question is, when is it ever appropriate to take human life? How and whom determines innocence. Do we usurp gods will/ judgement by taking "guilty" human life? Are we to judge innocence and guilt on such a profound level?
If we say that human life is only sacred under the circumstance of innocence; then the sacred life is only sacred relative to the changing whim of man and his determinations of guilt and innocence (ie moral relativism). That seems to me to be an impossible condition.
Best to you.....
Just remember, if you're having a discussion about abortion and you invoke your religion at all, please dismiss yourself from the conversation.
Let the adults talk.
How do you kill something that isn’t alive?
@@imanilabady7151 ok you claim the unborn is not alive so when does it become alive?
What does the unborn baby have to possess for you to agree that it is living?
@@Sim6dot9 actually premature babies have survived younger than 24 weeks.
You really should keep up with medical advancements if you think you can be the arbiter of truth while putting a cut off past the age babies can survive.
But I do have a question - do you call the baby alive just because at x weeks it can survive on its own?
Is that the distinction of life you give humans?
So as a nurse when I care for patients should I turn off all life support as I mean in your definition they aren’t human anymore as they are no longer sustaining themselves…
moral relativism is messy Joe. Moral clarity and consistency is orderly but difficult to adhere to. Big difference.
This is a fantastic comment.
Well said!
I love the bibles moral clarity and consistency. “Though shall not kill”. Then proceeds to kill everything on the planet except those in an Ark. Morality per se is messy.
Yeah, but you can have a definitive & fixed moral system without grounds in the divine. Moral clarity and consistency don't preclude irreligiosity, and having consistent values and principles that one consistentally adheres isn't something that proves the holistic and inherent value of said values and principles.
Moral relativism is only messy when you're unwilling to live as a human. God didn't put us on this planet to force his will onto each other. God put us on this planet to live and be human, so we could express our love and illuminate others with kindness and compassion regardless if they adhere to our moral truths. There's no value in forcing others not to sin, only in deciding not to when you have all of opportunities to do so.
@@horridhenry9920 THOUGH shall not kill. God creates life and ends life at His own will.
As a woman who conceived in rape and raised a perfect beautiful human into a perfect beautiful man and who speaks all over the country about such, I am absolutely horrified every day that people like Joe Rogan who have never talked to me nor asked me how I feel about using my trauma to justify killing children like my perfect son - are running around using me to say abortion is OK. Women who conceive in rape choose to abort at the same rate as women who choose to abort for any other reason. Rape has nothing to do with why women abort. Women who abort don't know what abortion is or don't care. Women who don't abort know that abortion kills her living human child.
Eugenics | Planned Parenthood | Social Darwinism | ruclips.net/video/VLc8I0k_78M/видео.html ?dvs 34asdf afda
Well said sister .Thank you for choosing LIFE!
My first girlfriend confided in me that she had an abortion when a former boyfriend had date-raped her before we met. Abortion brought her no peace. She told me every time she saw a baby she cried.
@@jamesflynn4741 I'm starting to think it never gives peace (of mind).
I mean there is the moral realization that abortion is a horrible thing, especially when done by yourself. You can become a murderer only once, after that its just the amount of bodies you leave behind (and I am not trying to equate abortion to murder here).
And then there is the emotional state, which is heavily affected not only by the rationale, but also by her hormonal balance. Hormonally, an abortion is something like a stillbirth. It causes her already messy hormones to be in much more disarray. So even years after an abortion, a woman can feel the after effects.
I've chatted with one or two women who had an abortion and said it wasnt so bad or even was good, after prodding a little bit, asking some uncomfortable questions, presenting my views, they became unhinged and toxic. Its became obvious they were rationalizing it, lying to themselves.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Blessings to you and your ministry Seth 🙏
You could tell Joe at first gave the pro-abortion angry response and wouldnt let the other side gives his piece but eventually relented and had to concede at least to some degree. this guest did a great job giving the proper pro-life response.
He went so far as to make it personal stating, "You don't have the right to tell *my daughter* she has to carry a rapists baby." The answer would always be the same but to take it so personally shows how irrational some people take arguments.
Stupid comment. That nerd was interrupting him that entire time 😂 prolly why Joe got mad
@Jered Keller Not to mention the money you make from the right. I mean some of you are still sending Bannon your money.............
Eugenics | Planned Parenthood | Social Darwinism | ruclips.net/video/VLc8I0k_78M/видео.html ?vds43asdfsdaads
@@FullDottle the guest kept interrupting. also forcing women to carry babies is irrational :P
What I love about this conversation is it’s two strong and intelligent men having a real conversation. Men have been defaulting to whatever the woman wants for so long I just love that they are having these conversations now. When I met my husband he had been convinced he didn’t have the right to tell someone he was with to keep the baby. It’s heart breaking. So happy to see this conversation!
Joesephine
because they have been trying to destroy the family unit for years, they have made men weak
Genesis talks about this concept. Metaphorically.
and they are disagreeing calmly.
@@laurenbatson5918 I don't think Joe was behaving calmly at all. He was extremely emotional, and because of that was talking over his first and attempting to shut down his argument.
It occurs to me that one of the greatest "benefits" of abortion is that it relieves the baby's father of any responsibility whatsoever. Which is perhaps why you hear fewer men fighting against it. Always excited to hear men speaking out for the rights of the unborn!
Also the mother
Do I have to die for the crimes of my father?
Do I have to be forced to carry my rapist kid while being a kid
You are not going to die for your fathers crimes but you will have to deal with the consequence of your fathers crimes.
Eugenics | Planned Parenthood | Social Darwinism | ruclips.net/video/VLc8I0k_78M/видео.html ?vdsassdfdsa
A sperm that goes into an egg within a week cannot speak and ask questions.
According to the bible you do. We die because Adam and Eve brought sin into the world.
Joe has a hangup on Christianity and it rears up now and then. Love the logic of the Babylon Bee guy.
Yea, it's so easy to tell if a person has a hangup with Christianity. It's like spotting an elephant a mile away.
That's my impression of him as well.
When it comes to any topic he likes to talk with you, but when it comes to Christianity he likes to talk about you...
@@jonson856 he's been pictured with head of the satanic church. He knows more than he lets on
Eugenics | Planned Parenthood | Social Darwinism | ruclips.net/video/VLc8I0k_78M/видео.html ?vd sasdsd
I have a very justified hangup with any religion that tells me I deserve to burn in a lake of fire forever for not following it
I’m always learning apologetics when witnessing well formed pro-life arguments. Thank you, and happy Sunday🙏🏼
He's not pro-life, he's pro-birth. No regard for the mother or child beyond being born.
Joe didn't get owned at all. Just because a person articulates a position you agree with on Joe Rogan's podcast and Rogan himself doesn't agree with doesn't equate to him getting owned.
he was owned, doesn't matter if they agree, he made no good counter
Ye he didn’t get owned but he definitely didn’t come out of that a winner
@@shadykracker not a winner means he lost ....AKA owned
@@plinnytheother6107 bro in what world do you win a moral debate when you could have different fundamental beliefs?
@@Purdin347 It is called a learning process. So I guess every professor owned you.
It took me a while to disagree with the rape exception but now I do. What made me decide was that you're effectively inflicting a punishment (the death penalty) on an innocent life worse than what we inflict on the guilty party (5-10 years in prison)
Very succinct way of putting it. You highlight the idea that the unborn is punished the most
Brilliant and indisputable point.
If you think that a woman who has been raped should keep the baby of that rapist then you are a very disturbed person and it's very unsettling that people like you are in society.
@@stephenwilson9480 Actually, your comment is unsettling and makes one question your place in society.
@@CatholicNonno You would say that though wouldn't you because your trying to justify an horrendous crime.You are in the minority with your very disturbed way of thinking and I thank God the rest of us have compassion, dignity and respect for other people when they most need it.
Abortion is to Healthcare what rape is to love making. Beyond Profound.
1.) Joe Rogan recently had a UFC fight Companion show with some of his buddies, and they get into abortion at some point - and I believe you can see how Joe has softened on his position a bit - and he even argues both sides and concedes it's a very difficult thing to figure out, there is no right answer because one side is always going to feel like rights are being violated. So I think this guest made a good impression on him.
2.) Can't wait for putting "owned" in the youtube title paradigm to end.
Eugenics | Planned Parenthood | Social Darwinism | ruclips.net/video/VLc8I0k_78M/видео.html ?vd safdsa
He hasn't soften his position he has said the same thing forever...pro life people are weird
@@legion24100 all of us are weird brother.
Just found your channel. Thrilled to go through the archive today.
Grace be to God
Eugenics | Planned Parenthood | Social Darwinism | ruclips.net/video/VLc8I0k_78M/видео.html ?vdsafdsa
Excellent breakdown. There was so much going on in this brief but heavy conversation, so I'm glad people are giving it the attention it deserves. Seth was truly spirit filled in this conversation and it needs to be recognized.
no life matters and especially a fetus they havent touched grass. by the way in the animal kingdom kids are eaten by their own parents all the time, and guess what we used to do the same when we were monkeys,
He wasn't "owned." I wish people stopped using this type of language for a heated, yet civil debate.
Anyway, rape kits have Emergency contraception included. Most would-be "rape babies" aren't implanted to begin with.
Or fertilised even. Implantation is when the fertilised egg attaches to the womb and any intervention to prevent this is akin to abortion whereas preventing fertilisation isn't.
“Owned” was used as clickbait. Human nature and it works
Eugenics | Planned Parenthood | Social Darwinism | ruclips.net/video/VLc8I0k_78M/видео.html ?vdsadfdsaa
But the ones that are should be forced to give birth? You guys never wanna address what to do when it DOES happen.
I have the utmost respect and love for Joe, but this is one of the very few issues I disagree with him on, although I was glad he was prepared to give some ground on the issue, the Babylon Bee guy was just awesome.
thats fine. you shouldn't agree with someone on everything.
This Seth guy looked like a fool, his belief is radically unpopular with the country
@@Wesselmania and that makes him a fool? what is your definition of 'fool'...he is a fool because he believes an unpopular viewpoint?
Eugenics | Planned Parenthood | Social Darwinism | ruclips.net/video/VLc8I0k_78M/видео.html ?vd sa4asfsa
@@Wesselmania He may have only looked like a fool to the fools that are successfully brainwashed into “knowing” human life starts after the baby is born.
It's very simple. No one can use someone else body without their consent.
Matt keeps saying "is it ever okay to kill a human life", and even though it's obvious that he implies it, I can't stress enough how important it is to VERBALLY include & emphasize the word "innocent" as a qualifier in such discussions (as Seth Dillon repeatedly does does Joe Rogan).
There are indeed times when killing IS okay, say in cases of self-defense or as a form of justice (Capital Punishment). Preaching to the choir a bit, what distinguishes abortion from other forms of "human killing" is the innocence of the victim and their inherent defenselessness. Very, very, minor oversight on Matt's part-he knows his core audience gets all the nuts and bolts already-but it's a good opportunity to re-emphasize to the rest of us the importance of linguistic precision, especially when we're discussing theological issues to secular/religious audiences who might not be as familiar with all the nuances of the topic.
What about war... Many innocent people are killed? It's it EVER ok to kill innocent lives?
@@KJ-lb4tj No
I think it's a problem with language. There are indeed times when it's permissable to end a human life, but it's never a "good" thing. Think of all the soldiers with PTSD or the guilt people feel if they ever accidentally got someone killed. Unless your a psychopath killing a person damages us in a horrendously psychological way.
@@KJ-lb4tj your tone is implying everyone enjoys war.
Well if that child grows up to be a serial killer then it wouldn't be innocent. You don't know what the child will be or even if it will be born. You can't quantify it as either. But there are many times an innocent life should be taken. If I am driving next to a car that is going down the street out of control with a baby in the back. and it is about to run through an intersection and mow down a pack of school kids. And I ram it out of the path and into a tree killing it but saving the others. It had to go. Period.
So if my 14 year daughter is raped and is pregnant... And if abortion is not the option then what is the best option for her?
Considering in mind she is not willing to go through the birthing process and also doesn't want the child. Plz someone who represent this gentleman stance .. let me me know the options.
Great clip..i love when someone speaks in a clear precise way on a difficult subject.
You can't change someone who believes abortion can be a good thing in just 1 sitting. Especially not with the way we are brainwashed in today's society.
It took me years to realise what abortion truly means, and funny enough religion had nothing to do with it.
In this clip cracks have been made in Joe's logic... whether he follows through the thought process or not, time will tell.
Babylone Bee guy is an inspiration ; wish I could keep my cool like that...
What did it have to do for you?
@@paxcoder Having a co-worker have 3 abortions in 5 years with no real medical or psychological follow-up (this shocked me as I had always thought abortions were rare, a last resort scenario) // realising that even in a country like France (where I live), where access to contraception is widely and easily available still 1 out of 4 pregnancies end in an abortion (not rare) // having an internship at a clinic and seeing high school girls going for their 2nd or 3rd abortion // questioning when life starts, when consciousness starts, when and how personality develops in an unborn baby // researching what an abortion actually does to the mother's body and then researching the different "abortion techniques" // not understanding how - with all the scientific progress and knowledge we have, with the different contraception methods available - there are 25% of pregnancies that are terminated in abortions // realising that abortions that are done are not practised because the baby is ill, or because the mother might risk her life, but because of convenience and because women are told that you have to be at a certain situation in you life (with money, job, partner) in order to even fathom the idea of having a child
This took years as it is difficult to go against what one has been taught, explained for years, especially as a woman - you are told that without abortion, women would go back to coat hangers and knitting needles or other dangerous self-destructive methods in order to abort. You are taught that this is the lesser of the evils to stop an unwanted pregnancy... That if you are against abortion, somehow you are a traitor to all women in time and worldwide... because abortion is "progress".
And before even considering the life of the unborn child, I was considering the ramifications of an abortion for the mother. How women were treated, discarded, no thought for the consequences that too many abortions could have on her body, not telling them the truth of what they were doing to their body (it is quite an upheaval for the woman's body) ... it angered me.
Then, and then only was I able to even consider the possibility that the unborn baby was not just "a clump of cells".
Nothing at all having to do with religion. I do not find that fighting to limit or even ban abortions ought to go the route of a religious argument.
For me it comes down to one very simple yet important question : what is a human life worth?
If human life is priceless, and society and laws make certain to protect all human life, then I find society is better ordered.
Once society and laws can make the claim that some lives are worth more than others, then there will be disorder and decadence.
I had my opinion changed in a 10 minute RUclips video. But I wasn’t staunchly proabort, I just never really ever thought about it before
Great point, Nerd, regarding religion. Seems to me it's not so much a religious issue as a human rights issue. Joe wanted to say that "it's complicated", but the guest essentially calmly stated that no, it's really not complicated at all, and I think that's why the guest is able to remain so calm and respectful.
Eugenics | Planned Parenthood | Social Darwinism | ruclips.net/video/VLc8I0k_78M/видео.html ?vds asd fdsa
“Killing a human life is wrong”
I wouldn’t agree with this, I think adding “innocent” is an important distinction. It’s not wrong to kill a human life in self-defense or through capital punishment, but killing an innocent life IS wrong. Innocent, like the baby in the womb.
Feminist would probably just say abortion is a form of self defense from the parasite that is feeding off of them.
Agreed. It is wrong to harm or kill innocent human life
I would argue capital punishment is wrong. I'm against capital punishment because I think giving the State the power to end human life is giving the State too much power. How can you be sure they will only use it against the guilty? St. Maria Goretti and Br. Alessandro Serenelli would argue that giving a man a chance to reform himself is worthwhile.
@@Jimb0tr0n I agree, and I’m a nationalist conservative. Generally people on my side of the isle are pro death penalty, but I just can’t.
@@TheProphecyTV In some circumstances, but an animals life never shares the same value as a human life and I believe lowering human life to such a level is evil. The definition of murder is “The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.”. The killing of an animal cannot fit the definition of the word,
I love this guest!!! Yes, he’s logical and calm. Beautiful. ❤
Love Joe for having this emotionally charged conversation with a well-spoken guest. Good commentary as well.
Having it be emotionally charged didn't help.
Would be great to not play into the division with a title like "gets owned". He pushed back but ultimately had an open mind and this is how we change hearts. Not everything has to be overly adversarial
Well, how else would he get clicks?
If someone who thinks killing innocent children isn't your adversary then idk what is
@Andrew Andrew may God bless you Andrew x2
Thanks for clicking👍
I think preventing financially reasoned killing of children is a perfectly acceptable place to be adversarial.
Rape and underage pregnancy account for less than 1% of abortions in America. Not all women should be allowed abortion for any reason at all for such low numbers
Yes now that is some logic their, good on you😊
Joe has a gift of being a mirror to the person he interviews. Why do you think surprising information gets revealed on his podcast? That's why people like listening to him because his goal is to reveal truth to what is hidden or confusing. The personal problem Joe has is moral and ethical relativism. Eventually every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, including Joe Rogan. Let's pray he becomes aware of truth and turns to God.
Jesus and God have not been shown to exists and there is no test can objectively determine they exists. Adding God or Jesus to the conversation does not add anything.
@@kos-mos1127 You saying "exists" doesn't really help your argument, especially when you give no examples.
@@kos-mos1127 everyone who lives by God knows that God exists. there's no reason that needs to be proven to you, until the moment you go looking
You can tell Joe gave up on the argument as soon as they got to the question of when the magic of life happens because he had no retort because he was pushing a narrative
This is why I never took Rogan as seriously as his fanboys do. His level of inquiry is so utterly pedestrian when met with perspectives he disagrees with.
@@TickleMeElmo55 pedestrian is a good word for it
Eugenics | Planned Parenthood | Social Darwinism | ruclips.net/video/VLc8I0k_78M/видео.html ?vds 43asdfsda
Just because he's not a great rep for pro choice doesn't mean pro choice side doesn't have strong arguments. Just means JR isn't well thought out on the topic.
@@BourbonForageFishing exactly not well thought out because there aren’t real strong arguments for pro choice. The fact is killing is killing and 2 wrongs don’t make a right, these are basic truths civilized humanity can agree on. Actually wait I’m wrong this only applies to everything else not babies apparently 😑
So good to hear this back and forth. Rogan's guest was terrific. Sensible and calm. Spot on with his remarks.
I really liked how calm he stayed as well. What a great reminder to all of us!
I give Joe Rogan credit first for having an opposing view on the show and being open to the argument.
That openess gives everyone, myself included, a chance to hear reason.
so joe's 14yr old daughter should have to raise some rapists kid ?
What is the Babylon Bee guy's take on capital punishment. That's also killing someone. Is he against that?
I didn’t hold anything about this on Joe Rogan in a negative way. I’m pro life but totally understand the rape/incest argument but we can’t live in a society where the exception is the rule. I also empathize with Joe because he’s also arguing it as a father with young daughters. As a father of 2 very young daughters I can empathize. I’m pro life until you mess with my kids then I’m absolutely pro death penalty by the system or my own hand. I would do anything in my power to ensure they don’t suffer so I get it fully. Kudos to both staying level.
Rape is less than 1% of abortion reason, incest similarly as low
The rape incest argument is equivalent to abortion is acceptable if the father is an asshole. Joe's daughter could be raped by her future or ex husband so kill the grandchild?
You say we cannot live in a society where the exception is the rule, yet you just made an exception to the rule of no one should take a life, when you say if someone harmed your daughter, you would be pro death penalty.
@@_Peregrine_ Yeah but rape is the topic at hand and it is being denied.
Rape is always brought up because it's the last resort and the extreme. Of course rape is one of the worst if not the worst things that can happen to someone and yes, but is any action the baby's fault?
This is how you watch a clip. Very short interruptions, quick comments, let said clip play. Well done.
I think Horton said it best. "a person's a person, no matter how small"
My wife had a miscarriage at 8 weeks last year. We had many people reach out and say sorry for losing your baby. Same people this year posted all over SM that they hate anyone who doesn’t support abortion before 10 weeks. I was like, didn’t you just call our loss a baby last year and now it’s a choice? Very odd that you can be sorry for a loss, but also encourage it.
ironic isn't it?
Not sure what's odd. You want it but lost it. i.e it's a loss.
If you didn't want something in the first place (e.g sympathy, affection/gift from someone you dislike, etc), would you treat it as a 'loss' if they take it back?
@@munkitchew5829 I am praying for you child
☦️☦️☦️
@@justinreid2422 Little one, shouldn't you pray for Drew who suffered an actual loss instead? It's ... odd that you chose to pray for me instead, just for trying to resolve his logical conundrum.
@@munkitchew5829 he lost a child and shared his personal experience and you did not respond kindly
I'm still praying for you🙏
Hmm … I thought Joe Rogan did what he does. He fired back, thought he had a solid point, then realized … maybe there’s more to this than I thought.
He didn’t get owned. I think that’s click baitish.
Even though some part of me doesn't believe in abortion, I will never ever believe in forcing rape victims to have a baby against their will. Therefore, I support abortion when it comes to extremely evil crime done to women and underage girls. A rape victim has never asked to get pregnant and these condescending Anti-Abortionists know it! Even if the woman isn't a rape victim, if there's a very serious problem going on with her pregnancy, and if she's not in a highly financial position to have a good life for her baby, she still has the right for an abortion no matter what.
Glory to the Holy Catholic Church!
And small boys
@@meek6809 What are you trying to argue?
@@coralbricks Perhaps the love the Holy Catholic Church has for small boys?
@@SamStone1964 Indeed the Church, the bride of Christ, loves children very much. So much so that thankfully there are tons of orphanages and hospitals created by the Church around the planet, notwithstanding fake news-filled situation like that in Canada. At the same time, thankfully the Church is not limited to those members who behave in an ill, abusive manner towards children. Finally, us catholics abhor all kinds of abuses towards children and hope and pray so that they get to live, in spite of the evil logic of child-murder espoused by many.
@@coralbricks Oh yes the priests just love the orphanages don't they? Constant supply of small boys.
Kristan Hawkins had a great answer to the "clump of cells" argument.
In a question and answer period at one of her live talks she asked the questioner what she thought a fetus was. Of course, the woman said, "just a clump of cells". Then Kristan said, "Well, I'm just a clump of cells".
Is Kristen in somebody else’s body?
@@horridhenry9920 She’s in Mother Earth’s body
Right? Everything in existence is a clump of cells.
She also said what species is the clump of cells, no one could answer it
If you're REALLY pro-life, then you should:
- Be anti-death penalty.
- Be anti-war.
- Have non-lethal rounds in your firearms.
Change my mind
Shooting a criminal is still taking a life.
You bring up a valid point but pro life doesn't mean pro all life. There are very bad people out there who are rapists and killers. Why shouldn't truly evil people be put to death but an innocent baby should? Guns to some degree I agree with you that you should try as much as possible to not kill someone but someone's you have to protect your family from bad people and that's just what it is. War is politically complex, depends on if you think what we're going into war for is absolutely necessary. Which everyone will have different opinions on. So no, you can be pro life and still not be those things.
Nobody cares to change your mind
I don’t agree with war, I agree with defending your country at all costs
We were already telling friends and family when my wife was 6 weeks along with our daughter. That is absolutely a life. And I cringe at the idea of abortion even as early as that
As a parent, you may think you're helping your daughter or son by pushing 'abortion', but you also have the responsibility to protect their soul-- look after their heart and mind. That guilt and regret and shame will eat at them forever after the abortion. Important to remember that abortion is killing a child and also that that fact will be ingrained into the child that had the "abortion" forever. They will never be able to see a baby or a pregnant woman without thinking about it. They will never be able to say "this is my first pregnancy" or "my eldest child" without feeling a pang of strange agony. Proceed with caution if you're thinking about suggesting your child get an "abortion"; you may think you are helping to save them from a hard life, but you are actually pushing them to commit one of the most painful sins of their life.
They won’t feel any agony, they will feel disgust to a rapist. Do not talk as a parent like you know everything. You didnot get raped so shut up with the emotional explanation.
100% , my evidence is anecdotal but after the umpteenth post abortive woman crying about her due date or binge drinking on the anniversary of their abortion made me change my mind.
Being on the fence and After watching this clip, I have definitely moved onto the pro choice side.
This is an important conversation that more people need to have. The Pro-Life movement should be actively pursuing a strategy of changing minds on abortion instead of changing laws.
No reason it can't and shouldn't do both.
One reasoning on this subject that stuck with me was this: If scientists found a string of proteins and amino acids, i.e. "a clump of cells" on Mars, they'd almost certainly consider it alien life. So if a clump of cells can be considered life on another planet, why is it not considered life in the womb of a woman?
Can you imagine what those same scientists would do to those cells? The answer is NOT let it be and flourish
I think most pro-abortion people regard the unborn baby as being "biological life" from the very earliest stages. The logic gets kind of fuzzy, though. I think they would say that the unborn baby is not "human life", or at least "human life with human rights".
It gets even fuzzier if you inquire about when an unborn child acquires the status of "human being". For some, this seems to happen when the child has a recognizably human appearance in utero. Maybe they would oppose abortion if the baby looked like a miniature little newborn from the moment of its conception, just a microscopic little infant? Maybe their minds just can't conceive of a human being that is shaped differently for a while? This is the "clump of cells" argument.
For others, this happens when the baby passes a significant developmental milestone like when the living pre-born human being develops a circulatory system and the heart begins to beat for the first time. Interesting fact: the obviously alive human being has not developed and does not even require a functioning circulatory for its first 5 - 6 weeks! Having a heart does not make you a human! When you need one, you grow one.
For others, babies apparently don't achieve this status until they have fully emerged from the birth canal. The baby undergoes a change in location, and begins to use its already developed lungs for the first time, but it's still pretty much the same baby that it was an hour ago. Personhood was not visibly conferred when the baby was delivered, so I'm not sure where they think it came from.
Pro-abortionists employ extremely magical and irrational thinking where the beginning of human life is concerned, a sort of "it's like, when you know, you know" kind of approach. The understanding that life begins at conception is logical and scientific. That human life begins with conception is a cold hard fact, not matter how inconvenient.
@@MattBurrill one if the biggest arguments I think is around viability. An embryo, or fetus doesn't become a "baby" until it is viable which I think is around 22-23 weeks? Something like that, and even then it is still heavily dependent on Technology for several weeks.
@@cgordon3 The fetus/baby distinction is a very artificial construction of language, though. And so is "viability". It is true that a developing human being typically requires at minimum 23 or so weeks in the womb of its mother before it is able to survive outside the womb (and then with a great deal of medical intervention).
But the question "how would the developing baby fare if it left the womb at this stage of development?" has no bearing on the personhood of the developing baby. Puberty is a significant phase of development that a born child undergoes, but it too has no bearing on personhood questions. The human person, whose life begins at conception, experiences dramatic bodily growth and change before he or she is born. This development slows but continues after birth.
Pro-Abortion arguments rely on misleading use of language that dehumanizes obvious human beings. Terms like "embryo", "fetus", and "zygote" have legitimate descriptive purposes, but they are misused to rhetorically distance us from the personhood of the unborn person, effectively dehumanizing with language.
@@MattBurrill - I understand what you are saying, and I can say that you are right, from a certain point of view. If you assume that 'personhood' starts at conception, and still support abortion, then you have to admit to yourself that you just ok with ending that life up to a certain age measured in weeks. But most people who support abortion aren't willing to concede that point of view. And I think that is the biggest gap in the ongoing argument is an agreement to when the child in the womb is considered a person with rights.
Also there is another argument that has nothing to do with the babies status of life, but has to do with the rights of the mother. The rights of the 'child' don't supercede the rights of the mother... in that lets say a person was dying in the hospital and needed an organ transplant for which you are a perfect match. you can't be forced to give up your organ to save the other person. Here the argument goes that you should not be able to force the mother to carry to term if she doesn't want to do so, ie gve an organ to save another life. that's a crude description of the argument, but I hope you follow what I mean.
I like Joe Rogan because he’s always trying to find the truth. You can’t help but develop your own ideas and come to your own conclusions about anything and everything, and that’s kind of the point. He regularly misses the main point, God, but he’s trying to get there whether he knows it or not - he’s just taking the long way around.
Love the Babylon Bee more & more, every time I see/hear anything from them, whether it’s one of their classic posts or interviews with them or by them, they just become more and more outstanding as humans.
Thanks for this post; good one.
Pray up and may God bless us all.
@9:50: If the question really does boil down to "is it ever OK to kill a human life," the answer is yes, according to virtually everyone. Capital punishment kills a human life. War kills human lives. Defending one's own life against an attack often kills a human life.
The question might be better phrased as, "is it ever OK to kill an innocent human life," but even then, it's not entirely straightforward. And enemy soldier is likely not guilty of anything other than service to his country. Even a crazed person trying to kill you might not be in his right mind, and not "guilty" in a moral sense- but most people would agree that it's acceptable to kill him if necessary to defend one's own life.
So is it justified to kill an innocent human life if that life poses no obvious and direct threat on the mothers life?
I think an enemy solider killing an innocent civilian is wrong and it’s wrong according to international law (if I’m not mistaken). Soldiers fight soldiers. We live in a different time when warfare is different though so. But it’s still wrong. When is killing a child ever okay? Maybe killing a child soldier is acceptable because of the circumstance, but in general, I don’t think it would be difficult to understand that it’s wrong to take an innocent life. Even murderers don’t want their own lives taken. Those who kill don’t even want to be killed and they aren’t innocent. Who has the right to take life is a better question now that I think about it.
^ Exactly! This is about *_innocent_* human life. If innocent human lives cannot be protected and can be discarded at any point in time without suffering any consequences, then be consistent and apply that standard of argumentation towards your own life and the life of those you love.
Yeah I see where you’re going but you can’t equate a non threatening baby with a trained killer who’s a critical threat.
@@thewalruswasjason101 just to clarify, I'm not saying abortion is justified- I'm saying that the question needs to be asked and answered more carefully.
If we *were* to proceed on the assumption that it's OK to abort a baby if the mother's life is in direct and obvious danger, yeah, it would also probably be acceptable to abort a baby even without that level of threat. We allow deadly force to be employed not only in cases where one's life is threatened, but also if "grave bodily harm" is threatened. I think an unwanted pregnancy as a result of rape could reasonably be seen as a grave consequence. Matt talked a little about not punishing the baby and punishing the rapist instead, but the reality is that the rapist's victim has to suffer severe consequences, too.
The moral argument that allows killing someone in self defense but doesn't allow abortion is the rule of double effect. If you kill someone in self defense, your intent isn't actually to kill him, but to stop him- killing him is a probable result, but not your actual goal. It's a side effect. With abortion, killing the baby is a deliberate act, used as a means to an end.
That's a pretty fine point, and not as simple as saying, "it's never OK to kill a human life." But it's a more true argument, and doesn't leave one open to obvious objections.
"Gets Owned" LOL Ok Bud take it easy!!!
Miscarriages usually happen in the first trimester and every woman I know who has had one cries and is upset that their baby died. They don’t say “oh well, my fetus died”. There’s a reason for that. Fetus is meant to be a medical term, just like phalanges means fingers, but it’s still a baby.
That guy spoke with such wisdom, thumb up young men!!!
Seth Dillon is my new hero! God bless him for staying so calm and presenting such excellent logical arguements.
I am totally pro life, but when someone rapes a minor, that child was conceived from evil and the mother should have the choice at that point.
Fr
But the baby dosnt desurve to have it’s life robbed from it
A wonderful video. Very insightful. Loved seeing the logical arguments against abortion. It's so rare to get that these days ... the debate usually turns hysterical and doesnt use logic. It was great to see two men debating this is a very calm and reasonable fashion.
Joe does this with his guests. He railroads them into his way of believing. He did the same with Milo about his homosexuality. This guy is one of the few guests that have ever stood up to Joe. I stopped watching Joe because he is a bully when imposing his beliefs about drug use, homosexuality, and pornography use. His guests always back down. This one has strong Christian faith, good on him.
What do you mean bully homosexuality?
@@sudafedup I think Joe is more liberal in regard to sexuality so what he means is that when someone says that homosexual behaviour is deplorable (it is) on his show he bullies them
@@apoliticaldeviant1262 I've seen him get angry at guests for disagreements with his positions sometimes but I don't think that qualifies as bullying, but I guess we have a different lines as to what bullying is. I dunno. I won't argue why I don't think homosexual behavior is deplorable as it's off topic, but if someone feels strongly about a position I can see why they'd be upset at a guest. Though to be fair I think Joe Rogan isn't that smart of a guy on most of the topics he discusses so when his brain gets triggered by disagreements he tends to get heated.
@@sudafedup watch this clip again. See where he says "are you telling me my fourteen year old can't have an abortion after getting raped?" and see hownaggressive he gets with the guest. No one is telling him anything about his 14 year old. And he is trying to put that guy in a corner where he says its okay. Tell me thats not bullying.
@@elspethsilverstar6136 I'd call that an argument from emotion, not really "bullying." People get heated in debates and discussions a lot. But like I said, I have a different line into what constitutes bullying.
Regarding rape, why should the child pay for the sins of the father?
Seth Dillon explained his position incredibly well .. he stayed very calm and re-iterated his point solidly. I have a lot of respect for him stating this opinion on such a massive platform! We need more people to stand up like he did!
"Is it ever ok to kill a human life"? We know the answer is yes, sometimes. E.g. self-defense, war against an aggressor etc. And we also know that the intent (or lack of intent and innocence/guilt) of the "aggressor" is irrelevant. The issue is kill versus murder.
The title of the video is completely incorrect. Rogan never got “owned”. He did have an intelligent conversation with with an opposing view, or maybe a conversation with his own same view wherein he gave a counter argument.
Around the 8:20 mark, the narrator suggests that the pro choice believers are ok with killing a 5 month old child and that “the blue states are going to head to soon with full on infanticide where we are euthanizing three year olds”.
This guy is completely off base with these comments and I would love to hear him explain himself with someone like Rogan. Joe would listen and respond. Not the same where the narrator of this video and his echo chamber get to pause wherever they want and interject their own biased opinions.
The forcing a child to carry a baby is a valid question that always gets dismissed as an emotional appeal. I'd like to hear a pro life person address the pregnant child's perspective
I'm pro life but that's a very good point. What a horrific position to be in.
I would say pro life is all appeal to emotion as well
Literally all the time. "2 wrongs dont make a right". Suppose for sake of argument we agree life begins at conception, why does that change the value of the life in the womb? It very much so is an appeal to emotion.
However, humans are emotional creatures, and just because logic doesn't follow doesn't mean we shouldnt consider the emotions being brought up or talked about. So, from here, continuing with my "sake of argument" scenario, we acknowledge the child has a right to life, but that leaves us feeling empty and remorseful for that young woman bearing the child, and it bugs me that no one talks about this.
What I say, and what I WISH so many other pro-lifers would talk about, is the fact that we're willing to support that young girl/woman in every way possible. Obviously, what she went through was one of the most detestable crimes known to man kind and she deserves to be comforted and supported through the birth and after with taking care of the child. I, personally, would not only donate money to help a mother in need, but I would even offer services to help take care of the child or to donate clothing, what have you. I'm certain many other pro-lifers can do the same.
What a lot of people also love to forget is how many resources are available. If that young girl doesn't have a supportive family, she may have friends that do, or at the very least many church's and their communities would help out. At least catholic churches I cannot speak to the protestants.
The topic of how we help young women with their financial and other struggles is never brought up and its a way more compelling and compassionate approach that the pro-aborts would look stupid if they were to deny it.
If she wasn’t forced to have sex, she needs to deal with the consequences of having unprotected sex
Amazing clip, so well spoken by Seth. God bless him. I hope this message gets out to more people.
Seth is out of touch with reality
@@Wesselmania go on
Eugenics | Planned Parenthood | Social Darwinism | ruclips.net/video/VLc8I0k_78M/видео.html ?vds adfda
Michael you are a confused little boy
It’s not always wrong to kill a human life.
It’s wrong to kill an innocent life.
Yes
👏 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
How can you say he got owned when he's not there to debate with you? Kind of stupid don't you think
Your thoughts on how the debate went?
Nice that he steered clear of abortion being a 'religious' issue. Keep it based on reason, and science.
One side of the debate frames their position in emotion and a (deliberately?) squishy version of personhood (which looks suspiciously like ensoulment, despite protestations that religion should have no place in this debate). The other side of the debate tries to get clear answers (and generally gives clear answers), and uses basic moral principles to then guide behavior, regardless of the emotional outcome. The two sides nearly always come away thinking that they won because the other side was cold/cruel/indifferent to suffering or was illogical/unprincipled/incapable of providing a clear moral framework. Rationally, the pro-life guy won. Frankly, I think it is a hard case to lose. I suspect the other side believes they won because they still feel like abortion should be okay. Since it doesn't appear that minds were changed, I would call the debate a wash, particularly if our goal is to convince people of abortion's immorality. This isn't because of a failure on the part of the pro-lifer, but because these debates seem almost impossible to make real headway in.
5:54 about sums it up for me, personally. So thankful for someone finally not being owned by Rogan's overemotional, non-logical argumentation. l do wish Seth would've brought up the fact that human life beginning at conception is pretty much a universally accepted scientific fact and that scientists don't declare a human to be a human when "it looks like a baby", but that's just a minor nitpick. Seth clearly did a great job both in answering the questions and in terms of not being emotional when providing said answers, so that's something I was very pleased to see.
I like how you initially commented on the guests demeanor. You can have all the logic and morality in the world on your side of a debate but you aren't convincing anyone if you have the wrong energy.
I think there is a disconnect between what seems to be a common sense - or logical - approach to the moral issues discussed here and the approach of appealing to authority because you accept that moral truth has already been revealed and that it justifies your view on these issues. You can use either approach to argue in conversation but only one of these is the fundamental basis of how you arrive at and accept your own morality.
You say that Joe appeals to Shame - and the guest argues with logic. I think that if I used more or less the same argument as the guest to say that it was wrong to murder an innocent animal for food then Joe would reject this as an appeal to shame but the guest would also reject it in spite of the argument's logical similarity to his pro-life argument.
So why would human life be sacred but not all life? Is this a common sense logical claim or a claim that appeals to authority, i.e. scripture or revealed truth? If it is okay to to kill and eat animals is it also okay to perform an abortion on an animal without any restrictions? If this is not the case can that be easily argued without an appeal to authority?
If Joe does not believe in God you cannot expect him to assess the issue through the same lens as you do - so is he actually being immoral by arguing in favour of pro-choice? I think both speakers argue from a position of sincerity and morality.
This is an enlightening perspective that Seth Dillon is laying down here. I think that the real issue here is freedom, the right to choose. In this day of cancel culture, the mechanism of control is the problem. Information being manipulated and censored is treating humans as incapable of handling truth, or reality as it exists. We have problems like 'climate crisis', or here, abortion, which are too big for us to handle. So we need an entity greater than the individual to control the situation. Basically big government leading to communism, etc.
We are programmed to not take responsibility for ourselves, and to not think for ourselves. This is all tied into our culture of comfort and compartmentalization. It is easy and reassuring to trust the experts, to let the thought leaders figure out this complicated stuff.
I think freedom is the best thing.
Abortion should be legal, as to make it illegal is just another form of manipulation and censorship. However, it should not be regulated one way or another by government, or use tax dollars to support or prevent it (along with many other things). The language and understanding of the issue should be spoken of plainly. Abortion is a termination of life. We need to call it as it really is. This way we can begin to change the direction of this and all other expressions of trauma and dis ease.
I disagree with the host here (Aquinas?) that the repulsion of Christianity is based on their (Christians) position on the sexual revolution. I think that is a part of it, but underlying that it is a repulsion of control and judgement itself. Basically that most peoples experience with Christianity is the hypocrisy and distortion exhibited by Christians as compared with the teachings of their leader, Jesus. The problem with Christianity, is that Christians follow/worship their leader (religion), instead of following his message/teaching. It's really that simple. The message Jesus brings is the highest teaching in this realm, but it has been perverted to dis-empower and further enslave people.
Abortion does not need human laws to prevent it, that is like making drugs illegal, and putting people in prison for using them. Like drugs, this comes down to a mental illness issue. So to remedy the situation (a pregnancy desired to be terminated), the individuals in the situation need support. An example could be that people who want to crusade in the saving of life, could team together to provide incentives to bring a child to term. This is just one example of using proper technology of creation to energize what you want, rather than our false programming of fighting against what we don't want, which only reinforces/perpetuates what we don't want.
Morality does come into play here, and it is a natural expression of a well person.
This realm needs to be healed, and this is accomplished by building a new world/system, and not fighting the old. This all begins within. It's a big shift, but we at least need to see the way clearly, and have a direction to point towards.
This is a mess, really. I think it comes down to that we live in a sick system, and we are programmed from all directions to be cut off from our divine source, to exist as self hating soulless beings, and this is the real issue.
In saying that abortion should be legal, that we should all have freedom, I am not saying that there won't be consequences. I think from a perspective of cause and effect, that there is no 'free lunch' here, and that in the light of freedom, we will really move into a culture of healing and wellness. It will take a sea change shift of consciousness, and that may be happening now, as consciousness evolves.
I've heard it expressed that you cannot really judge the situation of abortion from our limited perspective. That there are matters of 'soul contracts' in operation, where the developing life form has a soul and is an active entity within the equation.
Some thoughts as I submit a RUclips comment here, perhaps my first in over 5 years. Most of us don't leave comments.
I just saw a clip of this discussion that was cut to make it seem like Rogan "destroyed a pro-lifer"
Lol, I thought the "destroys" titles were reserved for parody at this point.
Yeah, in no way, shape, form or fashion did Joe get “owned”. 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️
im pro choice. but if theres rape involved or danger of the mothers life if she carries through with it, i dont see the problem. If a young 12/14 year old girl is raped by either a stranger or even incest occured, then why ruin the girls life with a baby at such a young age? Now im against the women that has 6 abortions and uses abortion as a birthcontrol.
No joke… this was one of the most impactful and important conversations of our time. Give the other guy a pod cast… I like Joe cos he seems to represent a generation or two and he’s actually flexible at times. But the Babylon Bee guy is a legend. He’s what we need. Check out Babylon Bee 🐝 so good!
We didn't watch the same podcast because he definitely didn't get owned. I'm pro life and literally everyone I know who watched it said Joe made us pro life people look stupid. You can cherry pick bits and pieces the entire conversation tells a different story bud.
Ya true, but this was still a great conversation however u argue
Yep. It was a good discussion with good points raised by both sides in an incredibly polarizing topic where people are generally unable to have an actual dialog.
This video is a result of the brain cancer that is confirmation bias and the lack of the poster's awareness of his own biases.
Exactly
I didn't hear a singular good point in moral or scientific favor of abortion. Because it doesn't exist.
Props to Joe Rogan for his willingness to have such a "measured discussion" rather than label his guest an anti-women, anti-science sexist, and then shut him down.
"what if it was my 14 yr old pregnant daughter...."
Imagine your grandson someday giving you a warm hug and saying "Thank you grandpa for not killing me for the sin of my father"
Thank you!! The manner of our conception does not determine our inherent value as a child of God!!!
What if it was your 14yr old daughter who told you she was pregnant but will die if the pregnancy goes full term and the baby may not survive after birth.
My cousin tried for yrs for a family. When she finally got pregnant the Dr told her exactly. They chose abortion and later went on to have 3 daughters.
@@graememckay9972 There is a difference between direct abortion (in which the death of the unborn human being is intended) and indirect abortion (in which the death of the unborn human being is an unintended consequence of treatment, say, for example, for ectopic pregnancy or uterine cancer): direct abortion destroys one life when two would otherwise live; indirect abortion saves one life when two would likely otherwise die.
@@graememckay9972 if at any point the life of mother is in danger it is always morally rt to save the mother. IMHO
Imagine putting your daughter through the trauma of having to relive her rape every time she sees her child.
"You can't tell my 14 year old daughter that she had to carry a rapists baby"
No. You can't tell the baby that it has to be murdered. 🤦
Good thing it can't hear.
@@topercaker2646 No, she literally doesn't. Roe v Wade was overturned recently. She has no "rights" to an abortion. Wake up.
You can, because it's still her baby.
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 Mother's don't suddenly have the right to murder their babies.... That's not how the law works. Lol 😆🤦
Things are not black and white. That's why the separation of religion and state is a good thing so some groups can't impose world views by law.
Kudos to Joe for being willing to discuss the hard issues! At least the discussion is out there. Joe doesn't have to be right.
whos to say he is right or wrong?
@@Schyler__Parker who’s to say he’s wrong or right?
If you support the murder of the most innocent, then you are wrong!
@@paulwojcik6339 Abortion is not murder.
What do you call it when you hire someone to stop someone's heart from beating?
Joe is a good guy that’s relatively more neutral than anyone else anywhere else . I appreciate him over and over for this fact . The Pro -Life guy is articulate and chill , he’s awesome… great pints and analogies that I’ve never heard before
ruclips.net/video/j5sYn76ImjY/видео.html
It's always wrong to kill an INNOCENT human life...
Of course it is, pro choice people just don’t care
When you say “It is never okay to kill a human life.” The next logical questions come up are what about self defense, war, death penalty. What would be the justification for things like these?
Hardly anyone says that. Like the guy in the video, most prolife people believe it's never okay to kill innocent human life.
we can easily take ou the premises of "it is always wrong to take a human life". For example it is not wrong to take a human life when that human is threatening to kill someone, aka self defence. Here, we easily conclude that it is NOT always wrong to take a human life.
False. Sometimes it is inevitable that you end up killing a person in self-defence. But that doesn't mean that you should actively seek to kill that person. Actively seeking to killing a person is sin. Your ethical duty and objective is to simply defend yourself and others - which does not necessitate that you seek out to end the life of another human being, regardless if they're an aggressor.
In other words: stopping a threat is not the same thing as deliberately seeking to kill somebody.
True. The syllogism should include “innocent” before human life.
@@Inillotempore333 Exactly right!
@@csongorarpad4670 my point was that the premise was debunked. As someone suggested they should have added innocent life to the premise or sometjing like that
@@csongorarpad4670 I agree with you...I understood him to say that it was wrong to intentionally kill a human life - I interpreted intentionally to mean premeditated which is different from killing in self defense.
Gotta love the fundamentalism here. It’s just lazy to something is “always wrong” full stop. It’s just simply not true, and it could potentially be dangerous
Matt, You need to get this guy on your show.
This was a conversation between two intelligent people. Nobody got owned
Mmmmmm. I think Joe got owned a bit here. But I agree, it was a good conversation.
Going to very clear here I am against abortion except for rape. That’s my opinion. However from a technical stand point, the premise “it’s ALWAYS wrong to take human life” is flawed. Therefore the logic is unsound. If you can’t think of any examples of where taking human life is not wrong then I’d be happy to give a few examples.
I feel like rape overrides everything else because it’s a person being condemned for no fault of their own. My moral intuition is to say abortion is wrong on the grounds that a person is not taking responsibility for their own actions and is therefore willing to prevent the transition into a human being for their unborn child, but taking the burden of blame on the woman out of the equation, and I no longer feel like it’s their moral responsibility to see the pregnancy through.
Wow. That young man stayed calm and stuck to his guns and stuck to the truth
❤️🙏
He stuck to his truth
@@Drifty325i There is only one truth
I always agree with no abortion 100 percent. Thanks for putting this on.God Bless you. Saint Eustace & Companions, Martyrs. Pray for us.
you can't "own" someone without a real two way discussion. This is a reaction video not "owning"
Click bait titles, sadly helps getting more views
Correct. And I tend to agree with Joe on this one.
I love how well you articulate and keep rewarding rational, productive truths w beers lol
Yeah except he sneers when Joe talks, f him.