@leadsheep From what little I’ve seen of his other videos, yeah. Honestly, he seems a bit insecure about the arguments he’s making, almost like he’s reading snippets from an apologetics website or something. And in this particular video, he doesn’t seem comfortable enough to improvise or adapt, so the best he can do is paraphrase the points that just got refuted. It makes me wonder about the Evangelical apologetics influencer culture. If you’re young and want to launch your career it seems like it’d be an _extremely_ easy racket to just repackage apologetics written by others… basically market your face instead of your brain.
he didn't tho. he is just debating competing religious views. but religion should have nothing to do with the legal question of when and how abortion is permissible. applying any religious views to this debate is misguided.
@@scambammer6102 Tell that to the christian nationalist politicians and Supreme Court Justices that are legislating and making legal rulings solely based on their religious views.
It’s a discussion of whether they have valid understanding of the science or the holy texts, and he proves they have neither. That is not him having a contrary religious belief but him using his expertise to prove that this dogma has no place in the debate and that it has no support in the text as the OP claims. He is being an academic.
It's always very interesting to see people directly responding to experts such as yourself. The non expert rarely seems to be arguing in good faith (and the irony is palpable) yet you manage to be respectful and genuine in your responses nonetheless. Beyond that, the information you present is consistently thoroughly and rigorously vetted and as unimpeachable as information in these spaces can be. Thank you for your honesty and integrity and for your time and expertise as always :)
While I appreciate your acknowledgment of Dr. McClellan's perspective, it's paramount to recognize that the realm of biblical scholarship is vast and multi-faceted. Many scholars, who are equally rigorous in their methodologies, arrive at divergent interpretations of Exodus 21 and related texts. As with any academic discipline, it's critical to engage with a plurality of viewpoints to ensure a comprehensive understanding. Dr. McClellan's take, while valuable, represents just one facet of a broader and ongoing discourse.
I don't think @TheistBrooks is arguing in bad faith. I think he's just wrong, and he doesn't know it yet. He may be biased and is digging in his heels, but I bet he honestly thinks his argument is sound.
@@juanausensi499 While it's a valid concern that personal beliefs can introduce bias, it's essential to recognize that many scholars, both believers and non-believers, are trained to approach their research with rigorous objectivity. The academic field of biblical studies encompasses a diverse spectrum of perspectives, and each brings its own insights and challenges. It's always beneficial to engage with a range of voices to get a comprehensive understanding.
@@jshauns I'm not unfamiliar with biblical scholarship. But i'm unfamliar with any any scholar believer showing evidence against the Bible's credibility. That, in my opinion, shows bias. Or maybe you can show me an example of a scholar believer who did just that.
I find it hilarious that this kid calls you "Lil' bro" at the end of his video. We who are older than this kid don't respect his intelligence or his expertise which doesn't seem to exist. Kids like this crack me up. I thought I knew it all when I was his age but I had at least read the Bible twice by the time I was his age and knew it wasn't the infallible word of God. I almost feel sorry for this kid but he seems content in his ignorance. Yeah, God is so pro-life except for the dozens of times he is not in the Old Testament alone. Poor kid.
But the benefit of responding isn’t just for that guy. Other people who may be curious or uncertain will see the response and may learn, even if they’re not part of the conversation.
It's not about winning, Dan's not even making an argument, just pointing out this kids an ass. Dan once said he considers himself "a dispassionate observer here to call balls and strikes" he doesn't see this as an argument.
See, _I_ know that, and _you_ know that… but there are a lot of viewers readily being led astray when these types of self-qualifying views aren’t critically addressed.
When Dan says that the quickening denoted personhood for almost 2000 years he is totally right. Even the pope didn’t declare that personhood begins at conception until 1869! And in doing so he overturned 1500 years of previous Roman Catholic teachings.
Well said take down. I remember some really interesting arguments against the "life begins at conception" perception by asking them why the actual law doesn't match up with this. Pregnant folks can't put a fetus as a dependent or add them as a beneficiary on their insurance. There are way too many stories of pregnant inmates who aren't given any medical care but yet those corrections facilities aren't charged with endangering the unborn in any capacity, hmmm. Almost as if trying to define full personhood at conception is a means to control the actual person carrying the "person".
Has anyone ever replied to say that they think the laws you cited should be changed to be consistent with their personhood-at-conception "pro-life" position?
It's a noble effort and you treated their argument with possibly more respect than it deserves. I doubt it will go far, though because their view hinges on two axioms: 1) you are either pro-choice or pro-forced-birth; there's no other position and 2) that life and personhood begin simultaneously at conception. And that first one means they're basically having a completely different conversation to you, and that second one is the kind of metaphysical pre-supposition that's hard to argue in either direction because it basically comes down to "I believe it's this way because it's convenient to believe it's this way."
Whenever the subject of abortion comes up, I point out that the argument is really about personhood and not human life. A tumor is human life, but it will never be a human life.....unless it started out as a politician.
Dan, you do such a phenomenal job of synthesizing both science and the Bible, it’s truly impressive. Is there a way for you to also bring in something to address what medicine knows about fatal birth defects, ectopic pregnancies, preeclampsia, and other conditions that can lead to the death of the fetus and the mother? So many Christians blithely ignore such conditions and pretend that women seeking abortion do so “just because they don’t want to take responsibility,” or it would “interfere with their lifestyle,” or other similar nonsense.
The problem is that he thinks his lack of understanding in all of the areas concerning this topic will be resolved by preaching his way through the academic consensus. But even if is level of education doesn't match his level of confidence, he can still make a career out of masturbating the misconceptions of those who couldn't care less about getting educated, like himself. You were very concise, as usual, Dan.
Perfect demonstation of what happens when someone is stuck in an echo-chamber or bubble of misinformation. They just can't grasp that their ideology might not be founded on facts.
Since a soul joining a body can’t be demonstrated that seems to be an argument that can’t be settled conclusively. What position did you take in these conversation? Why?
This was a great comparison/contrast. Faith and belief is one thing, but history and accurate translations often show a different take. It’s disingenuous to present belief as “proof”. Thanks for the distinction. My orthodox Jewish friend would totally agree with your take on the Torah giving guidance for everyday moral decisions. She told me that there’s no prohibition in Judaism on abortion-that it’s allowable. Shortly after she told me this, a group including a Jewish congregation from Miami filled a lawsuit against the state of Florida for abortion laws that prevent their 1st amendment right to practice their religion. We’ll see how that plays out. I realize he’s a Christian, but when I want a more accurate take on what we call the Old Testament, I’m asking a Rabbi. Or you, Dan, since you apparently can read these languages, too. These videos are really enlightening. Thank you for making them!
Just so I am clear, the quickening is when the highlanders meet to fight to the only one, right ? Or it is the feeling the highlanders get when they cut off another highlanders head? Part 2 really confused me 😂 I could never be this arrogant about Christopher Lambert
Yup! This is the 'is-ought' problem. Just because life begins at conception (is) doesn't necessarily mean that it (ought) to be considered a person. Life and personhood are not one and the same, we don't actually consider mowing grass as murder. Even the study about biologists that TheistBrooks cites in his first video mentions this difference, showing he likely didn't read it.
1. He is not arguing with Dan. 2. He not even attempting to convince US the viewers who are interested in a discussion. 3. He is aiming at people who already agree with his view point to provide them with the false impression that the random apologists ….and actual experts that disagree have equally rational view points. It was the whole point of the “little bro” comment. Seems to be a reactionary response to the natural decline in religious participation and influence in western civilization. Every objective measure I have seen shows religious participation and adherence has been trending down, so there have been a couple of attempts to reverse the trend. The most disingenuous attempts are THESE by the likes of people like Cameron Bertuzi, WLC, Mohammed Hijab, Jordan Peterson and others. They know they just have to SHOW UP to a discussion like this and appear to have the bare minimum of an argument or interpretation and the “sunken cost fallacy” and “confirmation bias”of their targeted demographics will take care of the rest. To put it another way…. If they just step in the ring with enough champions it doesn’t matter to the people invested in their success how quickly they get knocked out or that their record is 0 to 50, they will always put CHAMPIONSHIP CONTENDER on the Flyer, knowing that ticket buyers who don’t know any better will assume it means they can box.
I was watching this thinking, "how can this person even believe they have a chance to win here", and then I read your comment and it makes sense. The point isn't to win, it's to make it look like you are trying to win and lose. In fact, winning might be worse for the cause than losing. At least in losing they get to once again play the victim, the "Christianity is under attack" chestnut. When you know your base is going to believe you unconditionally, all you have to do is put on a show for them.
Every measure probably won't show a decline in religious influence if you include humanitarianism It has every quality of a religion 🗄: • Organization • Dogma; especially much, much more than it advertises • Reality denial, when the facts don't line up with dogma • Holy wars to spread and “defend” the faith • Being deeply supremacist • Various sects with infighting It just happens to be a religion in self denial. Though it does not have a dedicated clergy, unlike most religions (but certainly not all; Christians ✝ that don't listen to clergy for one are not that uncommon), so in that way, there is secularisation.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana im not sure if it was your intent or not, but this line has the sort of Jordan Peterson-y “all beliefs are religious” vibe that in think goes back to even Marx. They always leave out the what I would argue is the definitive quality of “rigidity” that whatever other dogmas or even faith based belief structures outside of religion lack. The two most common examples I hear are “sCiEncE is religion” since the majority of those who believe in its practices rely on a measure of faith rather then reproducing scientific results themselves. Or the other common ones is “cApITalIsM is religion” The difference between “science” or “capitalism” or even “humanitarianism”when compared to religious belief is epistemological. It is why the other 3 can continually adapt to a changing world where religion struggles is ability to update core beliefs. People also do this when comparing like a religion to a cult say. But again to my observation the difference is rigidity. As dogmatic and authoritarian as cults are even THEY can update their views if the cult leader changes their views about what flavor of koolaide gets you onto the meteor or whatever. The entire endeavor of science is to continually update one’s beliefs based on the latest or most accurate evidence, a similar thing can be said for capitalism and it’s insights about human nature and markets. But religion can’t do that as the only people capable of “updating” it’s core ideas are inaccessible or dead. So religion has the weakness of being susceptible to people “interpretations” while also being too rigid to adapt quickly to new information. At least humanitarians CAN ADAPT their dogmas to reality about what they think is best for humans, but like if compelling evidence surfaced showing that like Jesus never existed and was the 2000 year old equivalent of like spider man Christian’s would have to either disregard it or cease to be Christians.
When do humanitarians adapt their dogma to any greater extent than any other religion ? After decades of inflicting misery on nations 🏛 without cause, they don't change their mind in any meaningful way at all. Like, seriously, name a time when humanitarians on mass changed their beliefs to align with evidence 📑. @@interloc1290
To respond to the ideas about life support, I'll put it simply like this. Life support is a life-preserving medical intervention. If you remove a life-preserving medical intervention, then you are killing that person, the same way you'd be killing a diabetic to take their insulin away. It doesn't make sense to me to quibble over chances of survival or quality of life - those are things for individuals to care about. For us to try to make social/legal policy or decide a social norm on, it's more than enough to simply ask "does this preserve life or not?" If the answer is "yes", then removing it is absolutely killing that person regardless of the question of whether it's murder. We do not interfere with any family's decision to remove life-preserving medical intervention in the case of life support. We like to assume that, in every circumstance, life support is only removed when the person has no hope of recovery. But I can tell you that is not true, and we still do not get in the way of the family making that decision. We don't question it, and we shouldn't. It's not up to us to tell other people how to make that decision, no matter what the arguments about it might be. It's that simple. It literally doesn't matter if abortion is killing a person. 2000 year-old arguments about what is or isn't a person *do not matter* in 2023. All that matters is, is it our position to get involved in this decision? And the answer to that should be no, for the same reasons it is not any of our positions to interfere with someone taking a family member off lifesupport.
So I've always been pro-choice because abortion is a big reason why I'm alive (my twin brother had a fatal fetal anomaly that put me and my mom at risk, so she made a really tough decision). That being said, besides the circumstances of my birth, one of the best arguments I've heard for why abortion should be available on demand is Judith Jarvis Thomson's thought experiment in "A Defense of Abortion." It actually gets to the whole idea of life support. Imagine a violinist, a living person, has a rare blood disorder that can only be cured by connecting both your circulatory systems for 9mo. Without this treatment, that only you can provide, it is guaranteed he will die. Even with it, there's a .0054% chance he'll still die. What's more, there is a .000329% chance this procedure will kill you. It might also leave you temporarily or permanently altered in negative ways. Under these circumstances, is it defensible legally or morally to force you to do this procedure against your will? Under the current laws of the land, could a doctor or judge or police officer force you to provide this sort of aid? Judith and I would say no. So why is it okay to force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will? Even if it is a living person, by the standards we have just set out, that shouldn't matter. Read the whole thing, it's good.
I cannot accept that life and personhood are necessarily coterminous because I know for a fact that my favourite aunt has been a person my whole life but she insists that life begins at 50!
While it's inaudible due to the edit, Dan's microphone drops onto the floor of his office at the end of this with a thud that I could hear here in East Sandy. Dan lives about 10-ish(?) miles to the west of me. In fact, anytime I hear a thud from across the valley, I'm pretty sure it's just Dan wrapping up another video. Used to think it was Howlitzer target practice at Camp Williams.
Dunning-Kruger let's us understand that only the really skilled in any particular discipline recognise their limitations. The neophyte has no such understanding.
Do you think TheistBrooks is debating in good faith? You were pretty clear in your video, so either he's not debating in good faith, or his comprehension is lacking.
I think the kid is just ignorant and didn't even take the time to try and understand Dan's arguments. I could be wrong but that is what it seems like to me.
I usually don't comment on people's personalities on videos, but this little kid is tied for the most unlikable apologist I've come across since I started following apologetics in 1986. I feel nothing but sorrow towards him. I want to hope for him but can't muster it.
We were having this talk when she told me about her babies dying one after birth and 1 pre birth. And how she didn't feel. She didn't name her, but she named. The second one that died after birth.
My mother had 6 pregnancies. 3 of us survived infancy. 2 were miscarriages and 1 lived 17 hours after birth. My mother named the 3 of us that survived and the 1 that lived 17 hours after birth. She did not name the 2 miscarriages, didn't care to know their sex, and it didn't bother her that they were disposed of just like any other piece of tissue that would have been removed from her body. This is a woman who is a strident "pro-life" evangelical Christian.
With the development of science and reason, Christian apologists are forced to battle in an arena for which they are woefully unskilled. Really hard to win a gunfight when you steadfastly refuse to relinquish the idea that the best weapon is a good stick. 🤣
@@charlestownsend9280 well that is something for society to decide. I don’t think a baby’s rights ever should override the mothers but I am deeply uncomfortable that we think that the child has no right to life while in the womb. For me that makes the child property, which also troubles me deeply. One thing I am sure of, at some point the child should have a right to life but that does not mean that life is maintained within the mother. It does mean however that the mother does not have a right to end the child’s life. My current thinking on this is that right should start at around 23 weeks gestation which is the earliest that a premature child has been born and lived. I’m sure this will be pushed back as science improves.
Wait hang on... that argument he makes about "innocent human life" doesn't even hold up with Christian theology. "For all have sinned" in Romans 3:23? "There is no one righteous, not even one" in Romans 3:10? Where is this "innocent life" he's talking about in Christian theology?
Biologist here... first off, thank you! Folks just saying "life" in this context annoys the hell out of me. You're 100% correct that personhood is the relevant question, not life. But I'd like to add that life and even human life are not nearly as well defined scientifically as most people seem to think. It gets complicated really quick
Human life started with the first human, and never stopped. Of course 'first human' is not well defined, but i think that's the best answer we can get. If we should put in jail a mother that had an abortion, or not, is obviously NOT a scientific problem.
@@juanausensi499 Science does have some relevant insights about personhood though. If, for example, we decide that self-awareness is something which is important for person vs not-person, evidence suggests that babies typically aren't people until they are maybe 12-18 months old. I'm not advocating for infanticide being made legal, but that is could be rational evidence-based position. Kind of sobering
@@travcollier That's my position, too. I think what defines our humanity is what happens in our brains. The problem is, of course, not everybody define humanity that way.
I couldn't believe what I was hearing at 6:13 when he said Jesus was the one who gave the Law a moral framework. 🙄 Even though he hasn't done the legwork (as you correctly pointed out), I disagree with you that he's only against abortion because of identity politics. He may feel legit discomfort with the idea and want the Bible and "science" to validate that sense.
This is a good example of why you don't play chess with a pigeon. Debating people who engage in magical thinking just elevates their arguments. Of course, a fetus is not a person. Of course, the idea of ensoulment or people being animated by ghosts inside of them is silly. There's no foundation for these beliefs.
And the debate continues raging around the issue of when personhood is achieved. Right now, in many states, it is the existence of a heartbeat. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line will ultimately be arbitrary, but the current standard seems overly eager to attribute personhood considering the fetus is not particular close to having a functional brain at that stage.
Interestingly in ‘GOD AN ANATOMY’ Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou explains how common in ancient south-west Asia the idea was that the heart is a COGNITIVE organ. Literally, not figuratively. This idea is certainly reflected in the bible. Interesting how that dove-tails into your comment. BTW, I highly recommend the book.
I think it should be viability, when the fetus can live independent of the mother. But yeah, I guess everyone has their own viewpoint on it. I hate the heartbeat argument, because you can have a heartbeat but be braindead...
I think the line can be less arbitrary if we first define what IS a person. I know it can sound silly, but really, we don't have a good definition for that.
@@juanausensi499 I argue that cats, dogs, parrots, corvids, and apes are persons of a less capable sort. Humans with down syndrome are persons even though they lack full mental acuity.
Personally i believe a soul goes through a process to attatch to a human that takes place over time and is complete usually around 3 months after birth. At birth infants are mostly just eating pooping machines but around 3 months i find there is a time where you look in their eyes and can really see there is a person there looking back. Conaidering the first couple months of a human life are historically the most precarious it would make sense logically, i think, for a soul not to fully commit to a body until it gets past that point.
I'll say it again: to say that life begins at conception seems just silly to me. The egg and the sperm are both fully alive, so how can life "begin" at conception? It's clear that conception is the continuation of the lives of the parents. Whether personhood begins at conception is quite a different issue.
The idea that life begins at conception is based on the idea that the zygote has a set of DNA that is separate and different from both the mother and the father.
@NielMalan I understand what you're getting at. Its definitely an interesting take. But the individual life must begin somewhere, no? Even if my parents were to die, I am not considered dead simply because those who formed me are dead.
@@jonathanfield7250 It fits in with the point that Dr McClellan makes in this video: an individual does start to exist, but it's a _process_, never a _point_. There comes a state of affairs of which one can say, "this is a separate individual person, completely separate from their parents", but if you examine their life, one can never find the point where it happened. Is it when they can vote? Is it when they can walk on their own? Is it when they can feed themself? Is it when they are born? Is it when the fetus is viable? Is it when there's a heartbeat? Is it when the zygote implants in the uterus? Is it when the zygote is ready to implant? Is it when the egg meets the sperm? Is it when the mother has been impregnated? It seems impossible to fix the start of life to a point. Every time we assert that after _this_ point it's a new life, there's a voice that asks "and before this point?", and the answer is never unambiguous. But the _process_ is obvious. Of course this is just another version of the sorites paradox.
@@NielMalan A unique set of genes is not a good frame for personhood. First, it makes no distinction between humans and other species. Second, there are distinct humans with the same set of genes (twins). Third, a human cell with a mutation can be also unique, but surely we don't want to give personhood to that unique human cell.
"life" started billions of years ago , sapiens are just a by product of that ignition.... can we speak about how morals are personal philosophy and ethics are for the whole of society?
Sometimes zealous Christians need to just be told to “Shut up and pray about it.” Speaking as if with authority on God’s behalf on _any_ topic without directly verifiable personal delegation _by God_ is the epitome of arrogance and a blatant act of blasphemy.
I know it’s ENTIRELY against Dan’s measured, respectful and professional tone… but I was really hoping he was gonna call this dude Little Bro at the end.
Also addressing your point of access 21:22-23 are used to think it was very obvious that this passage was not in favor of abortion, and before I thought people just weren’t reading it carefully and had the wrong translation and etc. but after doing more research and this past year I realize how much more actually ambiguous the context of this passage is, in fact there’s actually many valid arguments you could make to point in the direction that this passage does not grant person heard of a fetus. The ancient near East in-laws seem to be pretty divided when it comes to this issue, The laws of Hammurabi seem to point in the direction of a fetus well it doesn’t explicitly say it’s not a person is not worthy of the same rights as its mother or a boring human being, The middle of Syrian laws however seem to imply that abortion is murder. Mini east Asian laws of you brought up seem to believe that and strongly imply that fetuses are not persons.
Reincarnation muddies the waters, as it gives a reason to both consider a fetus a person and be okay with abortion: "They are not attached to their body and are not invested in it. They'll just reincarnate, with a minor setback, or maybe even a bonus from increased experience (karma). Even if they are killed, they don't actually care, so no *harm* done." So don't go around putting a modern paradigm on works that didn't know such a society was possible.
I'm not convinced that understanding what the biblical writers and early interpreters thought about pregnancy & fetuses & when personhood begins is particularly helpful. Surely their thinking was heavily influenced by what was possible or not regarding natural births? I'm certain their rationale would be different if they had the understanding and tech we have.
I think the question of the relevance of the Biblical text on today's world is a different question to be debated. I valid question, but not one I believe they are trying to address here, I believe the underlying presumption here is that it is indeed important, at least from the perspective of Theistbrooks.
You should reach out to the streamer Destiny, I think it would be an interesting conversation. He has the view the personhood begins when consciousness starts forming
Dan, I think you are using way to many big words for these people. Also I want to point out that I worked in auto insurance for years. When we would pay out a bodily injusry claim on an unborn child, regardless of age of gestation, it was as property and not given even close to the same dollar amount the state attributed to a grown adult. That price was alot less than you'd imagine, but the fetus...nope not even close. So I find it ironic my state's abortion stance considering that it has not changed. You don't sufdenly pay out full adult person money after 6 weeks. Still not considered a full developed human.
Gametes are cells whether or not conception occurs, but clearly neither kind constitute people, but they are alive. .. and that's when the goalpost gets moved from "life" to "a life "
It also doesn't view them as having a soul until they get the breath of life. So if you are going completely biblically life begins at birth both physically and spiritually.
@@charlestownsend9280 your point regarding a soul is largely addressed in these videos, if not using that specific language. As Dan has noted, there was discussion and debate on the topic, one of which is the quickening of the soul... I think it was Augustin who argued that the soul quickened at 21 days (3 weeks - 3 and 7 being perfect numbers)
I would have to disagree with both Dan and this creator in their position that “life” begins at conception. Biologically speaking, the definition of life is very complicated, but there is no difference in the attributes that would define life between a fertilized egg and an underutilized egg or spermatozoa. So by any definition you could apply to a zygote, life begins long before conception.
Let's take the "life support" argument a little farther. Let's say that, in order to continue life support for the person, you need to provide the electrical power by riding a stationary bike. It is your peddling of the stationary bike that provides the necessary power to keep the person alive. At some point, you decide you aren't going to do it any more. Even though you know the person will die, you aren't going to commit to continuously riding the exercise bike. Murder? Hell no.
I wonder if this fellow accepts the theory of evolution. I doubt it. But perhaps he can perceive how the theory presents a similar difficulty in identifying an individual (or pair of individuals) that ISN’T homo sapien and yet their children ARE homo sapien. Because speciation is such a gradual process the application of labels may always be arbitrary.
There are a frustratingly large amount of people, many of them christian, who can't tell the difference between the argument you are making is flawed and I disagree. Personally I'm far more likely to point out a major flaw in an argument I agree with because I care a lot more about that being represented well than something I disagree with. Just because I agree with your conclusion doesn't mean that the way you got there makes any sense. To be clear, I don't know what Dan thinks and I'm not sharing my opinion on this issue. I'm only saying that seeing a flaw in an argument isn't the same as disagreeing with someone's point.
the bible's ethical teaching, such as it is, is objectively *not* pro-life. this should not influence anyone's moral beliefs any more than any other ethical stances in the bible (pro-slavery, anti-lgbt, pro-marital rape, etc.)
Did he actually call Dan "lil bro"? Thats some next level arrogance.
He didn’t really _call_ Dan “lil bro” so much as he hastily mumbled it.
@@nw42I find most of the clips of this dude are similarly "hastily mumbled." That's an apt description.
@leadsheep From what little I’ve seen of his other videos, yeah. Honestly, he seems a bit insecure about the arguments he’s making, almost like he’s reading snippets from an apologetics website or something. And in this particular video, he doesn’t seem comfortable enough to improvise or adapt, so the best he can do is paraphrase the points that just got refuted.
It makes me wonder about the Evangelical apologetics influencer culture. If you’re young and want to launch your career it seems like it’d be an _extremely_ easy racket to just repackage apologetics written by others… basically market your face instead of your brain.
Yeah I had to rewatch it just because I couldn’t believe he just said that
What else would you expect? Religion breeds arrogance.
2:15 “You are not nearly well enough informed to realize how bad you are going about it”
What a polite way of putting it. 😂
Dan is a diplomat, for sure. I'd just call them a stupid little shit. 😂😂😂
Known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
I love watching Dan destroy their petty, simplistic arguments
he didn't tho. he is just debating competing religious views. but religion should have nothing to do with the legal question of when and how abortion is permissible. applying any religious views to this debate is misguided.
@@scambammer6102 Tell that to the christian nationalist politicians and Supreme Court Justices that are legislating and making legal rulings solely based on their religious views.
It’s a discussion of whether they have valid understanding of the science or the holy texts, and he proves they have neither. That is not him having a contrary religious belief but him using his expertise to prove that this dogma has no place in the debate and that it has no support in the text as the OP claims. He is being an academic.
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y Yes I absolutely do tell it to them. Thanks for agreeing with me.
@scambammer6102 you may have told them but they are not listening to you. At all.
I ask god, if she sees fit, to grant me the confidence of an apologist responding to our boi, Dan. Especially when I i have to deal with my in-laws.
It's always very interesting to see people directly responding to experts such as yourself. The non expert rarely seems to be arguing in good faith (and the irony is palpable) yet you manage to be respectful and genuine in your responses nonetheless. Beyond that, the information you present is consistently thoroughly and rigorously vetted and as unimpeachable as information in these spaces can be. Thank you for your honesty and integrity and for your time and expertise as always :)
While I appreciate your acknowledgment of Dr. McClellan's perspective, it's paramount to recognize that the realm of biblical scholarship is vast and multi-faceted. Many scholars, who are equally rigorous in their methodologies, arrive at divergent interpretations of Exodus 21 and related texts. As with any academic discipline, it's critical to engage with a plurality of viewpoints to ensure a comprehensive understanding. Dr. McClellan's take, while valuable, represents just one facet of a broader and ongoing discourse.
@@jshauns Call me unfair, but i think biblical studies done by a believer in the bible is going to be biased
I don't think @TheistBrooks is arguing in bad faith. I think he's just wrong, and he doesn't know it yet.
He may be biased and is digging in his heels, but I bet he honestly thinks his argument is sound.
@@juanausensi499 While it's a valid concern that personal beliefs can introduce bias, it's essential to recognize that many scholars, both believers and non-believers, are trained to approach their research with rigorous objectivity. The academic field of biblical studies encompasses a diverse spectrum of perspectives, and each brings its own insights and challenges. It's always beneficial to engage with a range of voices to get a comprehensive understanding.
@@jshauns I'm not unfamiliar with biblical scholarship. But i'm unfamliar with any any scholar believer showing evidence against the Bible's credibility. That, in my opinion, shows bias. Or maybe you can show me an example of a scholar believer who did just that.
This kid should try reading the Bible and try understanding modern science. Hopefully he will get there one day.
I find it hilarious that this kid calls you "Lil' bro" at the end of his video. We who are older than this kid don't respect his intelligence or his expertise which doesn't seem to exist. Kids like this crack me up. I thought I knew it all when I was his age but I had at least read the Bible twice by the time I was his age and knew it wasn't the infallible word of God. I almost feel sorry for this kid but he seems content in his ignorance. Yeah, God is so pro-life except for the dozens of times he is not in the Old Testament alone. Poor kid.
@@nates9029 The "li'l bro" comment should have come with a cringe warning.
@@MarcillaSmith - Amen!
I wouldn't hold my breath.
@@nates9029 seems like you don’t even understand the Bible you’re arguing against
That last part was calmly brutal. If I were the subject of this video, I don't think I'd ever recover.
Damn. That was a brutal dismembering, but one that was thoroughly warranted - and dare I say ? - fully deserved.
I mean, the kid basically asked for it lol
That dude seems like he just enjoys hearing himself talk. You’re not going to win because he’s already convinced himself he’s right.
But the benefit of responding isn’t just for that guy. Other people who may be curious or uncertain will see the response and may learn, even if they’re not part of the conversation.
"Science doesn't really have a firm opinion, however it is certainly not occurring at the moment of conception."
Well that makes sense.
It's not about winning, Dan's not even making an argument, just pointing out this kids an ass. Dan once said he considers himself "a dispassionate observer here to call balls and strikes" he doesn't see this as an argument.
See, _I_ know that, and _you_ know that… but there are a lot of viewers readily being led astray when these types of self-qualifying views aren’t critically addressed.
When Dan says that the quickening denoted personhood for almost 2000 years he is totally right. Even the pope didn’t declare that personhood begins at conception until 1869! And in doing so he overturned 1500 years of previous Roman Catholic teachings.
Well said take down.
I remember some really interesting arguments against the "life begins at conception" perception by asking them why the actual law doesn't match up with this. Pregnant folks can't put a fetus as a dependent or add them as a beneficiary on their insurance. There are way too many stories of pregnant inmates who aren't given any medical care but yet those corrections facilities aren't charged with endangering the unborn in any capacity, hmmm.
Almost as if trying to define full personhood at conception is a means to control the actual person carrying the "person".
Has anyone ever replied to say that they think the laws you cited should be changed to be consistent with their personhood-at-conception "pro-life" position?
Reminds me of an Aron Ra quote: “Christians read between the lines and IGNORE the lines”
It's a noble effort and you treated their argument with possibly more respect than it deserves. I doubt it will go far, though because their view hinges on two axioms: 1) you are either pro-choice or pro-forced-birth; there's no other position and 2) that life and personhood begin simultaneously at conception. And that first one means they're basically having a completely different conversation to you, and that second one is the kind of metaphysical pre-supposition that's hard to argue in either direction because it basically comes down to "I believe it's this way because it's convenient to believe it's this way."
Whenever the subject of abortion comes up, I point out that the argument is really about personhood and not human life. A tumor is human life, but it will never be a human life.....unless it started out as a politician.
Dan, you do such a phenomenal job of synthesizing both science and the Bible, it’s truly impressive.
Is there a way for you to also bring in something to address what medicine knows about fatal birth defects, ectopic pregnancies, preeclampsia, and other conditions that can lead to the death of the fetus and the mother? So many Christians blithely ignore such conditions and pretend that women seeking abortion do so “just because they don’t want to take responsibility,” or it would “interfere with their lifestyle,” or other similar nonsense.
Woo! Dan gets spicy. So relatable.
The problem is that he thinks his lack of understanding in all of the areas concerning this topic will be resolved by preaching his way through the academic consensus. But even if is level of education doesn't match his level of confidence,
he can still make a career out of masturbating the misconceptions of those who couldn't care less about getting educated, like himself.
You were very concise, as usual, Dan.
Bless you. This has to be exhausting.
Perfect. Defines and distinguishes terms. Relates these to expert knowledge of biblical sources. A pleasure to follow
I like this line of thinking. It's like asking if an egg is already a baby chick.
Perfect demonstation of what happens when someone is stuck in an echo-chamber or bubble of misinformation. They just can't grasp that their ideology might not be founded on facts.
Did this yutz really just call Dan “little bro?” 😂
You have explain to me what my mother was trying to explain. Twenty five years. We were having this same conversation When the soul joins the body.
Since a soul joining a body can’t be demonstrated that seems to be an argument that can’t be settled conclusively.
What position did you take in these conversation? Why?
This was a great comparison/contrast. Faith and belief is one thing, but history and accurate translations often show a different take. It’s disingenuous to present belief as “proof”. Thanks for the distinction.
My orthodox Jewish friend would totally agree with your take on the Torah giving guidance for everyday moral decisions. She told me that there’s no prohibition in Judaism on abortion-that it’s allowable. Shortly after she told me this, a group including a Jewish congregation from Miami filled a lawsuit against the state of Florida for abortion laws that prevent their 1st amendment right to practice their religion. We’ll see how that plays out.
I realize he’s a Christian, but when I want a more accurate take on what we call the Old Testament, I’m asking a Rabbi. Or you, Dan, since you apparently can read these languages, too.
These videos are really enlightening. Thank you for making them!
Just so I am clear, the quickening is when the highlanders meet to fight to the only one, right ?
Or it is the feeling the highlanders get when they cut off another highlanders head?
Part 2 really confused me 😂
I could never be this arrogant about Christopher Lambert
Yup! This is the 'is-ought' problem. Just because life begins at conception (is) doesn't necessarily mean that it (ought) to be considered a person. Life and personhood are not one and the same, we don't actually consider mowing grass as murder. Even the study about biologists that TheistBrooks cites in his first video mentions this difference, showing he likely didn't read it.
Loved this video, keep doing your thing Dan! Also, I loved your Divine Images book!
Mic drop. That was awesome 🎉
1. He is not arguing with Dan.
2. He not even attempting to convince US the viewers who are interested in a discussion.
3. He is aiming at people who already agree with his view point
to provide them with the false impression that the random apologists ….and actual experts that disagree have equally rational view points. It was the whole point of the “little bro” comment.
Seems to be a reactionary response to the natural decline in religious participation and influence in western civilization. Every objective measure I have seen shows religious participation and adherence has been trending down, so there have been a couple of attempts to reverse the trend.
The most disingenuous attempts are THESE by the likes of people like Cameron Bertuzi, WLC, Mohammed Hijab, Jordan Peterson and others.
They know they just have to SHOW UP to a discussion like this and appear to have the bare minimum of an argument or interpretation and the “sunken cost fallacy” and “confirmation bias”of their targeted demographics will take care of the rest.
To put it another way….
If they just step in the ring with enough champions it doesn’t matter to the people invested in their success how quickly they get knocked out or that their record is 0 to 50, they will always put CHAMPIONSHIP CONTENDER on the Flyer, knowing that ticket buyers who don’t know any better will assume it means they can box.
I was watching this thinking, "how can this person even believe they have a chance to win here", and then I read your comment and it makes sense. The point isn't to win, it's to make it look like you are trying to win and lose. In fact, winning might be worse for the cause than losing. At least in losing they get to once again play the victim, the "Christianity is under attack" chestnut. When you know your base is going to believe you unconditionally, all you have to do is put on a show for them.
Every measure probably won't show a decline in religious influence if you include humanitarianism
It has every quality of a religion 🗄:
• Organization
• Dogma; especially much, much more than it advertises
• Reality denial, when the facts don't line up with dogma
• Holy wars to spread and “defend” the faith
• Being deeply supremacist
• Various sects with infighting
It just happens to be a religion in self denial.
Though it does not have a dedicated clergy, unlike most religions (but certainly not all; Christians ✝ that don't listen to clergy for one are not that uncommon), so in that way, there is secularisation.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana im not sure if it was your intent or not, but this line has the sort of Jordan Peterson-y “all beliefs are religious” vibe that in think goes back to even Marx.
They always leave out the what I would argue is the definitive quality of “rigidity” that whatever other dogmas or even faith based belief structures outside of religion lack.
The two most common examples I hear are “sCiEncE is religion” since the majority of those who believe in its practices rely on a measure of faith rather then reproducing scientific results themselves. Or the other common ones is “cApITalIsM is religion”
The difference between “science” or “capitalism” or even “humanitarianism”when compared to religious belief is epistemological. It is why the other 3 can continually adapt to a changing world where religion struggles is ability to update core beliefs.
People also do this when comparing like a religion to a cult say. But again to my observation the difference is rigidity. As dogmatic and authoritarian as cults are even THEY can update their views if the cult leader changes their views about what flavor of koolaide gets you onto the meteor or whatever. The entire endeavor of science is to continually update one’s beliefs based on the latest or most accurate evidence, a similar thing can be said for capitalism and it’s insights about human nature and markets.
But religion can’t do that as the only people capable of “updating” it’s core ideas are inaccessible or dead. So religion has the weakness of being susceptible to people “interpretations” while also being too rigid to adapt quickly to new information.
At least humanitarians CAN ADAPT their dogmas to reality about what they think is best for humans, but like if compelling evidence surfaced showing that like Jesus never existed and was the 2000 year old equivalent of like spider man Christian’s would have to either disregard it or cease to be Christians.
When do humanitarians adapt their dogma to any greater extent than any other religion ?
After decades of inflicting misery on nations 🏛 without cause, they don't change their mind in any meaningful way at all.
Like, seriously, name a time when humanitarians on mass changed their beliefs to align with evidence 📑.
@@interloc1290
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana But isit a good or a bad religion?
To respond to the ideas about life support, I'll put it simply like this. Life support is a life-preserving medical intervention. If you remove a life-preserving medical intervention, then you are killing that person, the same way you'd be killing a diabetic to take their insulin away. It doesn't make sense to me to quibble over chances of survival or quality of life - those are things for individuals to care about. For us to try to make social/legal policy or decide a social norm on, it's more than enough to simply ask "does this preserve life or not?" If the answer is "yes", then removing it is absolutely killing that person regardless of the question of whether it's murder. We do not interfere with any family's decision to remove life-preserving medical intervention in the case of life support. We like to assume that, in every circumstance, life support is only removed when the person has no hope of recovery. But I can tell you that is not true, and we still do not get in the way of the family making that decision. We don't question it, and we shouldn't. It's not up to us to tell other people how to make that decision, no matter what the arguments about it might be. It's that simple. It literally doesn't matter if abortion is killing a person. 2000 year-old arguments about what is or isn't a person *do not matter* in 2023. All that matters is, is it our position to get involved in this decision? And the answer to that should be no, for the same reasons it is not any of our positions to interfere with someone taking a family member off lifesupport.
Thank you for this.
So I've always been pro-choice because abortion is a big reason why I'm alive (my twin brother had a fatal fetal anomaly that put me and my mom at risk, so she made a really tough decision).
That being said, besides the circumstances of my birth, one of the best arguments I've heard for why abortion should be available on demand is Judith Jarvis Thomson's thought experiment in "A Defense of Abortion."
It actually gets to the whole idea of life support. Imagine a violinist, a living person, has a rare blood disorder that can only be cured by connecting both your circulatory systems for 9mo. Without this treatment, that only you can provide, it is guaranteed he will die. Even with it, there's a .0054% chance he'll still die. What's more, there is a .000329% chance this procedure will kill you. It might also leave you temporarily or permanently altered in negative ways.
Under these circumstances, is it defensible legally or morally to force you to do this procedure against your will? Under the current laws of the land, could a doctor or judge or police officer force you to provide this sort of aid? Judith and I would say no.
So why is it okay to force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will? Even if it is a living person, by the standards we have just set out, that shouldn't matter. Read the whole thing, it's good.
Outstanding work sir
I cannot accept that life and personhood are necessarily coterminous because I know for a fact that my favourite aunt has been a person my whole life but she insists that life begins at 50!
I love how you deconstruct this guy's argument. I am very impressed with your knowledge of the bible and language.
Once again, excellent work Dan!
I'd wager ten bucks that that dude's responses were written by ChatGPT.
ruclips.net/video/Ll-lia-FEIY/видео.html
Thank you!
While it's inaudible due to the edit, Dan's microphone drops onto the floor of his office at the end of this with a thud that I could hear here in East Sandy. Dan lives about 10-ish(?) miles to the west of me. In fact, anytime I hear a thud from across the valley, I'm pretty sure it's just Dan wrapping up another video. Used to think it was Howlitzer target practice at Camp Williams.
Dunning-Kruger let's us understand that only the really skilled in any particular discipline recognise their limitations. The neophyte has no such understanding.
Do you think TheistBrooks is debating in good faith? You were pretty clear in your video, so either he's not debating in good faith, or his comprehension is lacking.
I think he's debating in a bathroom
I think the kid is just ignorant and didn't even take the time to try and understand Dan's arguments. I could be wrong but that is what it seems like to me.
No. He is piggybacking Dan for attention.
I think he is arguing in good faith. It’s just seriously ignorant faith.
Both are possible at the same time.
8:56 AND BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE!!
I usually don't comment on people's personalities on videos, but this little kid is tied for the most unlikable apologist I've come across since I started following apologetics in 1986. I feel nothing but sorrow towards him. I want to hope for him but can't muster it.
He threw in the lil bro because his ego cant handle whats happening
Life does not begin at conception. It continues at conception. Both the egg and sperm were already alive before fertilization.
Dan makes these simple-minded Christians look entirely foolish.
“Little Bro” man, that guy really thinks he’s something doesn’t he.
Yep a total tool
We were having this talk when she told me about her babies dying one after birth and 1 pre birth. And how she didn't feel. She didn't name her, but she named. The second one that died after birth.
My mother had 6 pregnancies. 3 of us survived infancy. 2 were miscarriages and 1 lived 17 hours after birth. My mother named the 3 of us that survived and the 1 that lived 17 hours after birth. She did not name the 2 miscarriages, didn't care to know their sex, and it didn't bother her that they were disposed of just like any other piece of tissue that would have been removed from her body. This is a woman who is a strident "pro-life" evangelical Christian.
Is this boy a Christian? He sure seems he doesnt have the HOLY SPIRIT and DECERNMENT !
TY DAN GOD BLESS YOU BROTHER
Damn, he got burned so bad that even *I* can feel it, being the same species!
With the development of science and reason, Christian apologists are forced to battle in an arena for which they are woefully unskilled.
Really hard to win a gunfight when you steadfastly refuse to relinquish the idea that the best weapon is a good stick. 🤣
Technically, the question is when does that life gain rights and thus becomes a person. People have rights given to them ,life does not.
And at what point do their rights override the pregnant person's rights.
@@charlestownsend9280 well that is something for society to decide. I don’t think a baby’s rights ever should override the mothers but I am deeply uncomfortable that we think that the child has no right to life while in the womb. For me that makes the child property, which also troubles me deeply.
One thing I am sure of, at some point the child should have a right to life but that does not mean that life is maintained within the mother. It does mean however that the mother does not have a right to end the child’s life. My current thinking on this is that right should start at around 23 weeks gestation which is the earliest that a premature child has been born and lived. I’m sure this will be pushed back as science improves.
Wait hang on... that argument he makes about "innocent human life" doesn't even hold up with Christian theology. "For all have sinned" in Romans 3:23? "There is no one righteous, not even one" in Romans 3:10? Where is this "innocent life" he's talking about in Christian theology?
Biologist here... first off, thank you!
Folks just saying "life" in this context annoys the hell out of me. You're 100% correct that personhood is the relevant question, not life.
But I'd like to add that life and even human life are not nearly as well defined scientifically as most people seem to think. It gets complicated really quick
Human life started with the first human, and never stopped. Of course 'first human' is not well defined, but i think that's the best answer we can get.
If we should put in jail a mother that had an abortion, or not, is obviously NOT a scientific problem.
@@juanausensi499 Science does have some relevant insights about personhood though. If, for example, we decide that self-awareness is something which is important for person vs not-person, evidence suggests that babies typically aren't people until they are maybe 12-18 months old.
I'm not advocating for infanticide being made legal, but that is could be rational evidence-based position. Kind of sobering
@@travcollier That's my position, too. I think what defines our humanity is what happens in our brains. The problem is, of course, not everybody define humanity that way.
Don't bring a crayon to a knowledge fight.
"Post-Weyrich and Falwell"... an accurate description.
But let's not forget the Catholics. They have an awful lot to say on the matter.
I couldn't believe what I was hearing at 6:13 when he said Jesus was the one who gave the Law a moral framework. 🙄 Even though he hasn't done the legwork (as you correctly pointed out), I disagree with you that he's only against abortion because of identity politics. He may feel legit discomfort with the idea and want the Bible and "science" to validate that sense.
I'm literally watching a college professor debate someone that was an average high school student. This is much more of a murder than an abortion.
This is a good example of why you don't play chess with a pigeon. Debating people who engage in magical thinking just elevates their arguments. Of course, a fetus is not a person. Of course, the idea of ensoulment or people being animated by ghosts inside of them is silly. There's no foundation for these beliefs.
And the debate continues raging around the issue of when personhood is achieved. Right now, in many states, it is the existence of a heartbeat. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line will ultimately be arbitrary, but the current standard seems overly eager to attribute personhood considering the fetus is not particular close to having a functional brain at that stage.
Interestingly in ‘GOD AN ANATOMY’ Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou explains how common in ancient south-west Asia the idea was that the heart is a COGNITIVE organ. Literally, not figuratively.
This idea is certainly reflected in the bible.
Interesting how that dove-tails into your comment.
BTW, I highly recommend the book.
@@boboak9168 I do recall reading something to that effect about Ancient Egypt.
I think it should be viability, when the fetus can live independent of the mother. But yeah, I guess everyone has their own viewpoint on it. I hate the heartbeat argument, because you can have a heartbeat but be braindead...
I think the line can be less arbitrary if we first define what IS a person. I know it can sound silly, but really, we don't have a good definition for that.
@@juanausensi499 I argue that cats, dogs, parrots, corvids, and apes are persons of a less capable sort. Humans with down syndrome are persons even though they lack full mental acuity.
lol OMG slayed. He said you're so uninformed you don't know how poorly you're going about this.
Nearly all evangelicals today have no idea that, prior to the early 70s, American protestant churches had no problem at all with abortion.
I love that you're calling out RW IP.
Personally i believe a soul goes through a process to attatch to a human that takes place over time and is complete usually around 3 months after birth. At birth infants are mostly just eating pooping machines but around 3 months i find there is a time where you look in their eyes and can really see there is a person there looking back.
Conaidering the first couple months of a human life are historically the most precarious it would make sense logically, i think, for a soul not to fully commit to a body until it gets past that point.
I'll say it again: to say that life begins at conception seems just silly to me. The egg and the sperm are both fully alive, so how can life "begin" at conception? It's clear that conception is the continuation of the lives of the parents.
Whether personhood begins at conception is quite a different issue.
The idea that life begins at conception is based on the idea that the zygote has a set of DNA that is separate and different from both the mother and the father.
@@jonathanfield7250 Yes, that's why personhood can be argued to start at conception, but at no point are the zygote and its precursors not alive.
@NielMalan I understand what you're getting at. Its definitely an interesting take. But the individual life must begin somewhere, no? Even if my parents were to die, I am not considered dead simply because those who formed me are dead.
@@jonathanfield7250 It fits in with the point that Dr McClellan makes in this video: an individual does start to exist, but it's a _process_, never a _point_.
There comes a state of affairs of which one can say, "this is a separate individual person, completely separate from their parents", but if you examine their life, one can never find the point where it happened. Is it when they can vote? Is it when they can walk on their own? Is it when they can feed themself? Is it when they are born? Is it when the fetus is viable? Is it when there's a heartbeat? Is it when the zygote implants in the uterus? Is it when the zygote is ready to implant? Is it when the egg meets the sperm? Is it when the mother has been impregnated?
It seems impossible to fix the start of life to a point. Every time we assert that after _this_ point it's a new life, there's a voice that asks "and before this point?", and the answer is never unambiguous. But the _process_ is obvious.
Of course this is just another version of the sorites paradox.
@@NielMalan A unique set of genes is not a good frame for personhood. First, it makes no distinction between humans and other species. Second, there are distinct humans with the same set of genes (twins). Third, a human cell with a mutation can be also unique, but surely we don't want to give personhood to that unique human cell.
"life" started billions of years ago , sapiens are just a by product of that ignition.... can we speak about how morals are personal philosophy and ethics are for the whole of society?
Theist Brooks must think the egg is the same thing as the chicken.
Sometimes zealous Christians need to just be told to “Shut up and pray about it.”
Speaking as if with authority on God’s behalf on _any_ topic without directly verifiable personal delegation _by God_ is the epitome of arrogance and a blatant act of blasphemy.
It's so dumbing watching a teenager try and debate a scholar.
Hey. I'm right because the Bible tells me so and if it doesn't I'm going to ignore it and still claim that it does. So there!
I'm curious to if Dan mentioned the material of the early church talking about this issue of personhood??
Life doesn't begin at conception for one of an identical twin 🧒🧒 pair.
I love how these guys don't even seem to bother trying to at least google you first before claiming that you're uneducated in these subjects 😆🙈
Watching that other dude try and sound smart is cringy
I know it’s ENTIRELY against Dan’s measured, respectful and professional tone… but I was really hoping he was gonna call this dude Little Bro at the end.
Also addressing your point of access 21:22-23 are used to think it was very obvious that this passage was not in favor of abortion, and before I thought people just weren’t reading it carefully and had the wrong translation and etc. but after doing more research and this past year I realize how much more actually ambiguous the context of this passage is, in fact there’s actually many valid arguments you could make to point in the direction that this passage does not grant person heard of a fetus. The ancient near East in-laws seem to be pretty divided when it comes to this issue, The laws of Hammurabi seem to point in the direction of a fetus well it doesn’t explicitly say it’s not a person is not worthy of the same rights as its mother or a boring human being, The middle of Syrian laws however seem to imply that abortion is murder. Mini east Asian laws of you brought up seem to believe that and strongly imply that fetuses are not persons.
Reincarnation muddies the waters, as it gives a reason to both consider a fetus a person and be okay with abortion:
"They are not attached to their body and are not invested in it. They'll just reincarnate, with a minor setback, or maybe even a bonus from increased experience (karma).
Even if they are killed, they don't actually care, so no *harm* done."
So don't go around putting a modern paradigm on works that didn't know such a society was possible.
Boom!!
I'm not convinced that understanding what the biblical writers and early interpreters thought about pregnancy & fetuses & when personhood begins is particularly helpful. Surely their thinking was heavily influenced by what was possible or not regarding natural births? I'm certain their rationale would be different if they had the understanding and tech we have.
I think the question of the relevance of the Biblical text on today's world is a different question to be debated. I valid question, but not one I believe they are trying to address here, I believe the underlying presumption here is that it is indeed important, at least from the perspective of Theistbrooks.
You should reach out to the streamer Destiny, I think it would be an interesting conversation. He has the view the personhood begins when consciousness starts forming
Dan, I think you are using way to many big words for these people. Also I want to point out that I worked in auto insurance for years. When we would pay out a bodily injusry claim on an unborn child, regardless of age of gestation, it was as property and not given even close to the same dollar amount the state attributed to a grown adult. That price was alot less than you'd imagine, but the fetus...nope not even close. So I find it ironic my state's abortion stance considering that it has not changed. You don't sufdenly pay out full adult person money after 6 weeks. Still not considered a full developed human.
Why is it that when humans do it. It's called an abortion but when it is a chicken then it is an omelet
Gametes are cells whether or not conception occurs, but clearly neither kind constitute people, but they are alive.
.. and that's when the goalpost gets moved from "life" to "a life "
I think he would mean an individual human organism. Sperm isnt an organism.
zthe Bible repeatedly life is contained within Blood.
Therefore, something (like a fetus) which lacks blood, lacks life. 😊
It also doesn't view them as having a soul until they get the breath of life. So if you are going completely biblically life begins at birth both physically and spiritually.
@@charlestownsend9280 your point regarding a soul is largely addressed in these videos, if not using that specific language.
As Dan has noted, there was discussion and debate on the topic, one of which is the quickening of the soul... I think it was Augustin who argued that the soul quickened at 21 days (3 weeks - 3 and 7 being perfect numbers)
I would have to disagree with both Dan and this creator in their position that “life” begins at conception. Biologically speaking, the definition of life is very complicated, but there is no difference in the attributes that would define life between a fertilized egg and an underutilized egg or spermatozoa. So by any definition you could apply to a zygote, life begins long before conception.
Savage academia.
Why does Brooks talk like that... You can tell he thinks he sounds so erudite and well learned but he just sounds like a robot
Am I the only one who thought Dan should have ended with “bro”?
🤘
Let's take the "life support" argument a little farther.
Let's say that, in order to continue life support for the person, you need to provide the electrical power by riding a stationary bike. It is your peddling of the stationary bike that provides the necessary power to keep the person alive.
At some point, you decide you aren't going to do it any more. Even though you know the person will die, you aren't going to commit to continuously riding the exercise bike.
Murder?
Hell no.
A fetus is not an individual until it is no longer physically tied to its mother
Does this kid have a lot of followers? Why respond to someone who obviously doesn’t have an argument?
174k on tiktok. Just the most dogmatic christians youll ever meet tho. Nothing but an NPC comment section.
If life begins at conception, how do we determine which identical twin is a living being with a soul, and which split off after?
they have half-soul each one, duh!
Well, "Lil Bro" Dan just diced and chopped you into a million pieces...
W brooks
Who’s in charge of monitoring the Guf?
It’s you. Haven’t you been doing it? 😮
@@boboak9168 NOPE I'm in charge of the Holy Hand Grenade
@@NotMyGumDropButtons.444 then may your counting game be on point, Holy Brother.
I wonder if this fellow accepts the theory of evolution. I doubt it.
But perhaps he can perceive how the theory presents a similar difficulty in identifying an individual (or pair of individuals) that ISN’T homo sapien and yet their children ARE homo sapien.
Because speciation is such a gradual process the application of labels may always be arbitrary.
There are a frustratingly large amount of people, many of them christian, who can't tell the difference between the argument you are making is flawed and I disagree.
Personally I'm far more likely to point out a major flaw in an argument I agree with because I care a lot more about that being represented well than something I disagree with.
Just because I agree with your conclusion doesn't mean that the way you got there makes any sense.
To be clear, I don't know what Dan thinks and I'm not sharing my opinion on this issue. I'm only saying that seeing a flaw in an argument isn't the same as disagreeing with someone's point.
It is amusing watching this whippersnapper argue with a professional scholar while sitting in his bedroom.
Dan, stop playing with your food and just eat it.
the bible's ethical teaching, such as it is, is objectively *not* pro-life. this should not influence anyone's moral beliefs any more than any other ethical stances in the bible (pro-slavery, anti-lgbt, pro-marital rape, etc.)