DIALOGUE: Do humans gradually become persons? (with Randal Rauser)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- In this episode Trent discusses Protestant theologian Randal Rauser’s “gradualist” position on the unborn and the critiques of what Rauser calls Trent’s “absolutist” pro-life position.
To support this channel: / counseloftrent
Randal's blog: randalrauser.c...
What a crazy point in history where being human isn’t enough to obtain human rights.
Unfortunately, this has been the case for the vast majority of history. This is not new. Slavery has existed for virtually all of human history.
exactly, it should be obvious that right for abortion should be legal
@@Kevigen That is a very good point. Ever since Genesis chapter 3 mankind has been drowning in sin. History is filled with every type of evil practice imaginable. And isn't this what Romans 3:23 says "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." We all fall short of the perfection that God demands.
@@Mish844 Once upon a time the weakest in society (woman and child) were controlled dehumanized by stronger bigger person (men) now women want to control dehumanize her unborn babies to kill them.
A fetus is not a human nor has special rights to violate the bodily autonomy of a woman.
While I disagree with Rauser I respect the intellectual and irenic way he approached the issue in the dialogue.
My main objection to his argument from the moral intuitions of fetuses gradually increasing in value is that this intuition does not logically inform who I can kill and who I must not kill.
I’ll grant that my squishy brain’s initial reaction is to value a 9 month old fetus over a 1 week old fetus. That’s natural, since one looks a lot more like a baby. But this doesn’t imply anything about which one, if any, I can kill.
It’s analogous to racism. Human brains are built to better empathize with people who look similar, but if we don’t police this with reason we’ll start to believe the first lie 1.) that people who look less like us are less valuable, and then 2.) that we can kill less valuable people. NONE of those conclusions logically follows from my original human intuition that I can empathize with one group better. I have to police that intuition by using reason to compare it to my other intuition: that I can’t kill innocent humans.
I think the intuitions that older fetuses are more valuable than younger fetuses is based off the same kind of faulty empathy instinct. When we police this with reason, we see that there is no ontological difference between the two: they are both living humans. Likewise, when we police racist intuitions with reason we understand that skin color does not create an ontological difference between races: we are all living humans.
Once I use reason to realize that they’re human, I will have to discard my racist intuition. (This dovetails nicely with Trent’s argument that we can be much more sure about intuitions that tell us “don’t do that” then intuitions that tell us “you can do that.”) Regardless, it’s certainly not the case that every intuition is always moral bedrock. Most people for centuries intuited that slavery was acceptable for “out” groups, but this is false.
Ultimately, my intuition that I can’t kill 3rd trimester fetuses, plus my use of reason to determine why I feel that intuition, yields the new discovery that I can’t kill any fetuses (they’re all human). This then has to overturn my weaker intuition about what I can do.
Very well said.
This was an awesome conversation. Key word being conversation. It’s so great to talk about ideas and thoughts without being a total Richard while doing it. Everyone can learn. Great job.
Seeing professing Christians defending a pro-choice view is always off-putting, but at least this discussion shows that abortion isn't a religious vs. non-religious issue as many defenders of abortion claim.
Since most Catholics are pro choice, being a Christian isn’t an indicator for which stand someone will take on this question.
it isn't, at least no necessarily and not inherently. Problem is when religious people willfully use specifically religious rhetoric to justify whatever their position is. If you're going to just constantly smuggle Jesus and the bible into an issue I'd have to be an idiot not to treat this in a religious vs non religious issue.
@@Mish844 usually religious rhetoric is used towards others who profess to be religious. If you claim to be Christian, it’s well within reason for me to argue from a christian frame of reference to try and change your mind.
@@bruhmingo 2 issues. First, some of those people seem to wrongly assume they are dealing with people of their faith. Secondly, entire rhetoric of natural law was designed to address irreligious people while obfuscating that this is based on user's specific faith. Natural law in apologetics afaik is pretty popular shtick.
Honestly, as an agnostic, I don’t see how anyone can argue for abortion. Becoming pro-life was the first shift that opened me towards religion (and Catholicism in particular). But I became pro-life first, irrespective of any metaphysical questions. Abortion, it seems to me, is plainly wrong.
Well said. I’m Catholic. My friend is atheist and anti abortion.
How did your intuition about abortion open you to religion? I'm not sure that I am able to connect those dots in my brain, so I'd be interested in hearing more from you about that.
@@Kevigen Not directly, per se. I began nearly five years ago researching and listening to debates and arguments for/against abortion. I was a staunch atheist at the time and staunchly pro-choice. But I found myself increasingly dissatisfied with “my side” in all of the debates. Their arguments always seemed to pale in comparison to the pro-life’s side. It forced me to spend a long time thinking about what that meant for me and my view on the topic. Eventually, after talking to many close friends, family and acquaintances about it, I sort of just accepted that I didn’t really believe the pro-choice side anymore and come out as pro-life. I lost some friends over it.
The religion aspect is sort of difficult to tell, and I don’t want to make it seem that it was this part of my life that single-handedly opened me up to religion, but it definitely showed me different ways of looking at the issue. Most of the pro-lifers I was reading and listening to, ironically or not, we’re Catholic. That’s to be expected, I guess, knowing the Catholic stance on the issue. But what impressed me was their lack of “Catholicity”, as it were, in their arguments. They were arguing on common ground with their interlocutors. In fact, I usually found out that they were Catholic after the fact. So their arguments stood on purely logical grounds. But them being Catholic forced me to reevaluate my own biases toward the religious at the time. From that lifting of prejudice, I was then able to read the Bible and apologetics in a new, unbiased light. It was very liberating, to be honest.
@@bookishbrendan8875 I'd love to talk to you more about this, because our stories are almost inverses of each other? I grew up Traditional Catholic, and over time, my confidence in the truth of the Church dropped so far that I stopped practicing Catholicism, but my pro-life stance never really changed much.
@@Kevigen are you properly catechized? I’ve found myself growing closer and closer to the truth of the Catholic faith after being raised staunchly anti-Catholic southern baptist. Never thought I would be here but I can’t deny it after deep diving into the intricacies and history of the faith
33:35 There's no ontological growth after conception, it's only biological formal development and there are no substantial(what something is) transformation in the being of that entity, which is a human being. The ontological identity of a human embryo is a human being which formally develops during it's entire life, but now is in the formal develpoment of the pregnancy.
Well said
Had a fight with a pro-choicer recently. They used the ol’ “a seed isn’t a tree” line. But a tree and a seed *are* the same entity, albeit in different stages of said entity’s existence. So there is no ontological error. It always makes me laugh when they try to argue that something else entirely exists *in* utero, then magically causes something wholly ontologically new to exists post-birth. I’m inclined to ask, “okay, but then where did the previous entity go? Did it just disappear like magic? Poof!”
@@bookishbrendan8875 "And a rooster isn't a chicken, right OJ Simpson?"
@@bookishbrendan8875 yeah, for some people is not clear that thare's a significant differentiation between substantial(what something is) continuity of an entity and formal(how something is) being of that entity. But it should be clear even without pfilosophical digression that abortion is murder, and here's how:1. pregnancy is the natural process in which a human being is developed inside a womb of the mother 2.It is a human being becouse an adult human female can be pregnant only with a human being 3.It is alive becouse it is a developing organism and not an organism in decomposition 4.there are only 2 ways a pregnancy can end 1st delivery of the living human child ;2nd death of that child before he or she could be born and there are no other options. Since abortion is not in the 1st case it clearly can be only the 2nd
@@drindorini3413 I totally agree. In fact, I’d extend that out to larger society. I think the divorcing of the “substantial” essentialist ontology from the “formal” existentialist one results in the solipsisms we see today (ie, “identifying” as a woman is equivalent to actually “being” a woman, because to them, both words mean the same thing.
Trent, thank you for your contributions to the pro-life side.
Looking forward to seeing how Rauser's position does not inevitably lead to an adoptionist/Nestorian Christology. Did the Logos assume a complete human nature at conception?
It's nice to see Trent hosting a modern-day Marcionite.
Like they say, there are no new heresy's
I’m guessing you’ve never read any of his work
@@jonostake I have actually read his work. In his book, Jesus loves Canaanites, he selectively chooses those parts of Jesus that go together with his worldview and ignores those parts that do not go together. Let's start with corporal punishment. It is no secret that Rauser is not a fan of OT violence such as corporal punishment. Well, didn't Jesus use corporal punishment to drive out the individuals at the temple? Since Rauser uses modern moral norms to judge scripture, shouldn't Jesus be accused of violating the religious freedom of those individuals? That's the logical conclusion but he special pleads to try to avoid that conclusion.
Check out Thom Stark's book the human faces of God where Stark follows that logical argument and declares that Jesus is a "flawed role model" ((pg 133-34) for upholding the many judgments of God in both the OT and NT which Rauser hates so much. It is not just me who sees this major objection towards Rauser's theology. Study Rauser's former colleague Professor Jerry Shepherd's many responses to Peter Enns (the latter to whom Rauser is sympathetic) and even he notices that Enns is a "Neo-Marcionite". Check out the Catholic theologian J Luis Dizon's review of Rauser's book Jesus loves Canaanites. He comes to the same conclusion that Rauser is a "Neo-Marcionite".
Skeptical scholars would also note that Rauser is selectively choosing Jesus' sayings. Read John Dominic Crossan's Jesus and the violence of scripture where he demolishes the idea that Jesus is a peaceful individual or read Bart Ehrman's short blog post titled "is this a God that you would worship"?
There's a lot that I would argue and it would take a whole essay to support my conclusion. My brief argument supports my conclusion that Rauser is a modern-day Marcionite.
@@computationaltheist7267 I don't think Jesus physically struck the individuals in the temple, he just overturned their money tables.
I look at Bart Ehrman's short blog, it would be interesting to see how he interprets "who does not worship God properly is thrown into the Lake of fire"
@@yajunyuan7665 Your first sentence is a fair analysis but it does not stop the fact that it was a violent act and hence violated religious freedom. Rauser will never go that far into criticizing Jesus for violating people's religious freedom.
Ehrman's blog was meant to expose how Rauser selectively reads Jesus. If you haven't noticed, Rauser always says to be more like Jesus and has never bothered to tell us what this means for the violent Jesus. Since Rauser believes that Jesus can give a false theological answer, why even follow such a fallible individual in the first place?
As much as I disagree with him on almost everything, I have to admit that I enjoy Randal being in Christian discourse. Feel free to bring him back.
I was happy to see that Professor Rauser quickly defused Mr. Horne's attempt to distract attention from the embryo thought experiment. Good faith discussions should always first respond to the thought experiment on it's own terms instead of first modifying it in ways that simply muddy the waters.
Rauser’s point about tragedy I think ignores an intrinsic and extrinsic aspect of why it’s a tragedy.
Intrinsic: Any human being killed could be called a tragedy at least on some level, by mere force of the fact that they are human.
Extrinsic: there can be other factors like innocence, dependents, age, etc… that render this more or less of a tragedy.
Importantly, our intuitions on who it’s wrong to kill are based on the intrinsic property of humanity. Telling me that Grandma had already had a full life won’t exonerate you in a murder trial, you still killed a human being.
So our intuitions about who’s more valuable seems to be located in the extrinsic level, yet all humans still get rights to protection from violence intrinsically.
in talking about the embryos in the thought experiment, I think a huge part of that is that the embryos are not in their proper location for growing and surviving on their own anyways. just the embroyos being seperated from the mother they're already compromised.
Trent, the thought experiment at 35ish minutes that ends at 40 should not be controversial among Catholics. We can say the same thing about different ways to murder people! Murders can be *more or less* evil, and yet still both be intrinsically evil (e.g. axe murderer rapist necrophile vs a physician-assisted suicide). St JP2 recognized the gradient of evil in the context of contraception: with regard to a prostitute who flagrantly disregards risk of pregnancy (and subsequent abortion) and one who uses contraception, he said that both situations are gravely evil, but using contraception was (according to JP2) “a step in the right direction.” He absolutely condemned the use of contraception, but could recognize it as morally *better* than the alternative (not *good* or even neutral though)
@Excuse me but yeah, and they already are (think: first, second, third degree murder, manslaughter, etc).
@EMB123 hey take it up with St JPII 🤷♀️ I’m just saying actions can be more or less evil. Premeditating a crime is more evil than manslaughter. Both are still crimes, but one is worse than another. It’s just an analogy, like the one with the prostitute as well.
EDIT: you’ve already granted my point. The subjective factors (mindset/intention) affect moral culpability even when it is an intrinsically evil action (killing an innocent person).
The embryos in a fire argument only means embryos don’t have equal moral worth if one is willing to apply that same logic to the trolley experiment.
The embryos thought experiment is lacking in other areas as well. I'm disappointed that neither Horn nor Rauser brought up the fact that saving the two year old merely required getting the toddler out of the building, but saving the 100 embryos required very quickly finding 100 fertile women willing to be impregnated by them, or very quickly finding another cryogenic facility - which aren't likely to be located on every other city block. Merely removing them from the burning building doesn't do much to prolong their survival.
any time after conception! it is a human life!
I must be an absolutist...
w/love
I was a "hollow ball of cells" at one point. I probably still am. :)
So was Randal
That argument basically boils down to it's ok to discriminate against people based on what they look like
@@Elf0304 The elephant man didn't look human but was and a mannequin looks human but isn't.
What a great guest and another great show
When discussing abortion, why does NO ONE bring up the fact that the children in the womb do not belong to us and even our bodies do not belong to us; We are all God's children. We don't create our children, GOD DOES. We, and those in the womb, belong to Him. Abortion kills HIS children and when pro-aborts die, He will have some harsh words for them (words they won't like !!!). This is also why murder and suicide are Mortal Sins.
No offense to either but can’t believe it took 30 minutes to grant that the thought experiment might show a birthed infant is perhaps more valuable than an embryo but recognize it doesn’t follow from that that killing embryos is morally permissible. It seemed Trent just thought of that on the spot and a lightbulb went off which is good but I was just surprised he had never thought of that before. That’s the first thing I thought of given this thought experiment.
Maybe he was going at a low pace because Randal said he had little experience debating this topic. I still found it unenjoyable, Trent did not provide the consistent answers easily drawable from his position even when asked to do so.
A really good discussion, and I appreciate the visibility on people of faith who hold more pro-choice (or at least not entirely anti-abortion) views. It shows that this is a genuinely thorny issue with genuine philosophical disagreement, and not (as some more... 'militant' Catholic commentators might suggest) as simple case of one side being obviously right and the other being a bunch of demonically-possessed, blood-thirsty moral monsters. I think Rauser is correct that there is obviously a difference in moral worth between a foetus and an infant; although I find he was unable to articulate why that difference exists with any degree of force.
Personally, because of my metaphysical beliefs (non-existence of the soul, non-existence of objective moral facts, etc); I think the line has to be drawn on the level of cognitive development and activity. Trent is understandably queasy about this because it does definitely open the door to discussions around euthanasia, and the denial of the intrinsic value of life means that people just deciding to "opt out" of living also isn't morally wrong, which would attack the Catholic prohibition of suicide.
To me, neither of those are reasons in and of itself to push back against this explanation. If anything, I'd say this explanation is a good reason to seriously reconsider (as some governments on the planet already have) why we want to have people suffer agony in terminal conditions for no clear benefit.
Judging morality based on hierarchy of human intuition will result in morality changing over time, for human intuition for what is right and wrong changes over time. It leads to morality being determined by popular vote. 175 years ago, human slavery of African Americans was thought to be okay based on a hierarchy of human intuition. Today, almost everyone considers it wrong. What changed?
That, and, what happens if two people’s intuitions differ? They can’t both be right. I guess you might go with the extreme moral relativist route of saying that each person should act upon their own intuitions, but that’s not really morality at all at that point, since people acting on their intuitions is kind of the default.
Also, nobody actually fully applies that claim. If the whole world’s psychology magically shifted such that everyone except that person suddenly found it intuitive that it’s right to kill people of that person’s nationality, said person would never say “guess it must be right for me to die” but would instead argue in favor of the objective reality that it’s unjust.
I think a better moral question than the burning IVF would be:
Would you rather save two twelve-year-olds or a pregnant twenty-four year-old woman.
Or simply "would you save some fertilized embryos from a fire". Having less extrinsic value does not equal zero value.
The argument is not that everybody is equally valuable but that everybody is equally human. When given a choice between two humans we have to use tie breakers to decide what to do.
Or "should human beings be saved from fires"? Would you save embryos or a stick of gum? A wheel of cheese?
If my child was in the burning build it's to bad for anyone else b/c I will be saving my child first.
Now does that mean everyone else is not a human being or I would not be sad that other human beings were burnt to death, no it just means that my child is more valuable to me than anyone else. like we would expect my own child to be.
First time hearing Randal Rauser. I agree it was a very respectable dialogue and really appreciate it. Will have to do a lot more thinking about this moral intuition position. In one way you could say it is your conscience informing you, but Dr. Rauser seems to have no boundaries on how it can inform you as he gradualism position made less sense as the dialogue went on. It produced internal inconsistencies. Interesting.
Pro life 🌹👩🍼
Any Christian who allows room in their morality for abortion should take an honest look at Psalm 139:16. If God has a plan for someone before they are even formed, who are we to meddle with His plan? Moreover, by terminating a pregnancy, is one not effectively telling God they believe His plan for the unformed individual should end in the womb?
Yes, and gods plan for these aborted fetuses was obviously to be aborted!
I truly hate the way these debates go, along deontological lines. Thats not how the church speaks. Talk of value, the value of all beings. Trent talking about having more clear intuitions what NOT to do is a great example. All intuitions about prohibitions presuppose an obligation to love something, to value something, to respect something. Discussing on the level of law like obligations and thought experiments is a limiting overly narrow way of doing ethics that ignores the fundamental moral reality: goodness, value, loveability.
I'm sorry, because I want to be appreciative of people whose views I disagree with being given the opportunity to speak; but I have trouble respecting Dr Rauser after the way he utterly ambushed Dr. Swamidass when he appeared on Dr Rauser's channel.
Irenic dialogue simply can't occur when one side of it engages in kangaroo courts and insists on having sometime answer for another person on a stance they didn't take.
An absolutist in regards to child slavery but not child murder.
*Sigh*
It's like a lot of these people just don't like seeing the consequences of whatever their positions actually are. I doubt this guy would be able to hold his position at all if he just watched some abortion videos.
This is the answer. Have your guest watch just an hour of abortion videos and then have this same discussion again. Watch in real time how quickly he becomes an absolutist.
@@watrbottl6138 Exactly. All the arguments and justifications melt away in the face of the absolute horror of it all. Unless you really are just a ghoul and gore and violence against babies simply does nothing to phase you. At that point there's nothing to discuss anymore, we'll just see them on the battlefield.
@@Silverhailo21 One of my best examples of this is Bernard Nathanson. He was one of the founders of NARAL and largely influenced the Roe V. Wade decision (with a bunch of lies, but a story for another day). Then the ultrasound was developed, and he was invited to witness an abortion live. He was shocked and horrified. He dedicated the rest of his life to the pro-life cause and made several films demonstrating the atrocities brought forth by abortion.
@@watrbottl6138 Indeed. It's all abstract and theoretical to these people. Pathetic and evil.
It's remarkable how quickly all this nonsense disappears in the face of reality.
If your view is greatly influenced by seeing something traumatic and/or very emotional rather than pure logic, I don't see how that's a merit.
I've been needing a good argument against this.
Is Trent honestly saying that if his 10 year old dotter (a child) got pregnant through an act of rape, he would force her to carry the pregnancy through? Now if that’s not immoral, I don’t know what is.
God bless you all! ❤️ 🙏🏻
Abortion does not harm the fetus because there is no “someone” there to harm. Harm entails a conscious being whose well-being takes a turn for the worse.
Now, if we want to layer on additional criteria for moral consideration in order to exclude certain non-human animals, fine. But, I think that our intuitions that the human species is somehow special or exceptional is a form of speciesism was advantageous for survival.
Hi.
I think there is some confusion here. The objective moral worth of the embryo is the same as a 2 year old.
What you guys keep tripping over is what is individual's obligation or duty to that embryo, vs that of a toddler. What can be required of that 3rd party.
I think you guys know this but you're not zeroing in. Rights - what arises from nature and recognized by the state... things you can demand of, or impose on, others. Human offspring have rights. Things they can demand of their parents: food, water, shelter, education, attention, protection, NOT being killed by them. A fetus is human off-spring, therefore the fetus has the right not to be killed.
No, you can't morally go to a random person and appeal to blood ties in order to get stuff from them. I think you have issues with telling difference between objective and subjective. In fact, unless the parent(s) willfully takes that burden, the child can't make such demands at all, that includes demanding someone to lend that body in order for the child to develop. Not to mention the fact that it isn't children making those demands, but authoritarian prolifers, conviniently on behalf of people who can't speak.
Sorry, your comment was just a lot of horseshit, as they say.
Now I’m no philosopher, but it seems like he’s completely betrayed the quote he started this discussion with. The point of the quote is “we have intuitions, and we examine those to construct a consistent set of principles that explains it.” Yet he hasn’t proposed any consistent principles, just generic feelings, which for him seem strongly rooted in how violent it appears.
42:24 concerning right and wrong, it’s about personhood rather than life, which is why ending the life/development of non-persons is not the same question as persons because the rights of both are not the same.
But then we’d be bothered by the methods involved regardless of personhood. We’d expect a humane method without pain, which means we define personhood minimally in terms of that cognitive function. Thus ~27 weeks is a change from non-person to person.
I believe many of these life issues are quite important to understanding why someone may want to be Christian. Why is human life more important than non-human life? As a Christian I think it is because we are made in the image of God. I don't think atheists have much of a framework to work with. But that is a different topic.
I think many people may seem unsure Randal considers a blastocyst a human being because you often refer to a blastocyst as "a clump of cells." Perhaps all humans are a clump of cells so it is not inaccurate, but it is somewhat dehumanizing to refer to a blastocyst as a clump of cells when you don't refer to other humans that way. If you consider a blastocyst a human being then refer to it as a human being and talk about how killing this human being is not as important as killing that human being.
An issue is made whether a woman or doctor should be punished differently depending on the age of the human that is killed. I think the difference stems from mens rea. Although science has a consensus that human life starts at conception I think many people are not so certain. Many Christians including myself are not as certain that every blastocyst has a soul as I am sure every 7 year old has a soul. I like both of you want to err on the side of caution so I think we should avoid killing humans at any age. But it just seems to me that we are not as certain in the case of the zygote as the 7 year old. But if you are just as certain that killing the zygote is killing a human being with a soul made in the image of God... well then I think you are in a morally equivalent spot.
The mens rea is the issue. Even if the person falsely fully believes the zygote is human with a soul made in the image of God (and kills it anyway) has more moral guilt than than someone that doesn't. Take someone that thinks they are shooting a real person but it ends up just being a manikin. The fact that they shot the manikin thinking they were killing a person imparts quite a bit of guilt.
I think many women do not realize they are killing a human being that is made in the image of God. The pro life goal is not to punish people for doing wrong but to get them to understand what they are doing is wrong so they don't want to do it anyway.
As an atheist (though we're not a monolithic philosophical cohort xD) I'm happy to attempt to provide a reason why human life is more important than non-human life.
Firstly, I think it would be intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge that the main, actual reason why we treat humans as superior to other animals is... we are human ourselves. It is simple anthropocentrism.
Now for a more intellectually satisfying answer, I personally think you can safely attribute our superior value to our level of sapience. Put somewhat flippantly: Pigs don't write poetry. There is clearly a level of cognitive activity beyond which it becomes unethical to treat those beings in certain ways. If we were to encounter an alien civilization, they would (or at least should) automatically be granted "human" rights, not because they're genetically homo sapiens, but because they have a certain level of Sapience.
I agree that, if you are committed to the existence of a metaphysical structure like a Soul, then the ultimate question is whether or not a particular agent has a soul or not. I just don't share that belief, so I'm not caught on the horns of that particular dilemma. I also don't think we should legislate assuming the existence of a soul; as that would be legislating based on a particular religious conviction; which I'm pretty sure the 1st amendment strictly prohibits.
@@EspadaKing777 I appreciate the response. The problem is we clearly protect humans that can't write poetry. And when we try to name any particular trait we seem to find counterexamples. My concern is that some trait will become the basis and then people that don't have that trait will suddenly be seen as less than human.
@@niceforkinmove5511 I was trying in inject levity into my answer, I hope that came across! xD
The only trait I believe can be selected is sapience, our particular form of self-aware consciousness that sets us apart from other animals. If there is someone who doesn't have that trait, it is because they are brain dead or in an extreme coma, and those tend to be the sorts of people around which doctors already might counsel removing them from life support, subject to the wishes of their medical proxy. I draw the difference on personhood, not belonging to a certain species. I find the 'species' based definition both too broad and too narrow.
Awesome stuff
Why is he saying 'pregnant people'?
I reckon it is in order to accomodate trans folks
lol, they put "context" on this video. I guess they think you're misinformation 😁
@Insouciance 2 did you watch the video?
@Insouciance 2 It did not come up in the video.
"Nonsense" generally implies at least one contradiction, care to point at one?
If religion is false, what is wrong with murder?
@Insouciance 2 So when killing your wife out of jealousy wasn't unlawful like in the kingdom of the two siciies, was it righteous to do that?
Some of the issue is how sure are you that you are killing a human? Do all blastocysts have a soul? To the extent you are not sure your action is evil the penalty should be less. I think many women do not realize they are killing a human being that is made in the image of God. To the extent they are less sure then the penalty should be less. Indeed if as the Judge I am not as sure the blastocyst has a soul then I perhaps should be more hesitant to give a harsh penalty.
Always interesting to me, that belief is presented as a binary system: Believer vs non-believer. Really it's a vast spectrum.
Christ told the loving Father (ironic) in Mark 9 that,
23 "If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth."
24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
We are all unbelievers to some degree. There are doctrines we do not accept, truths we are not ready to hear, and covenants with the Lord that we are not ready to make. The Apostles in this story could not do the miracles that Jesus performed, and didn't know why. The hard truth is that most of us - if asked to sacrifice too much before we are ready - or burdened by savory doctrinal meat when we are still drinking the sweet milk of the Gospel - would react as the rich ruler did when asked to sell everything he owned. It would be asking too much.
"Christians" who advocate for abortion are at a different level of belief where their vantage point does not permit them to see the long-term effect of their position. It's not entirely different (in principle) than the preferred vices of others. Some abuse their bodies with drugs and alcohol, while others are unfaithful to their spouses and children. Who _really_ keeps the Sabbath Day holy? Who studies their scriptures with real intent and prays for the wisdom to understand what we are reading? Most of us are spiritually undisciplined and lax in our efforts to attain the characteristics of the Master, They all stem from the same core issue, unbelief. This gentleman's unbelief may seem strange to someone who understands that God does not permit us to hit "return to sender" with His mortal children - but your level of unbelief seems just as unfortunate to someone unburdened by it.
The humble attitude of "help thou mine unbelief" would do wonders here.
It’s hard to pin down liberal theology, it’s also oftentimes hard to be persuaded by it because it oftentimes does not give any sort of concreteness to work with
Randal, you keep insinuating that being a human being is what gives you equal moral worth to a newborn infant... At around 52:50 you said that a fetus in the third trimester is a human being that is equivalent to the life of an infant. But you seem to be conceding the whole argument, since at multiple points in the video you have acknowledged that the embryonic person you choose to call a "hollow ball of cells" (you're a hollow ball of cells too) is, as a matter of basic biological fact, a "human being." So which is it? It seems like when you're defending the moral worth of a fetus, you do that by pointing out that it's a human being, implying that being a human being is all that is needed for equal rights. But when the fetus is too young for your moral calculus, you seem to pivot to a utilitarian theory of moral worth, where certain morphologies (e.g. "hollow ball of cells") are somehow incompatible with moral worth. All while still acknowledging that an embryo is a living, individual human organism. If that's the case, if an embryo is a human being, then who cares about its morphology? For every other condition discussed in this video, you take an absolutist position that morphology and traits have no bearing whatsoever on the permissibility of abortion. If the fetus is old enough, you seem to agree that it would not be permissible to kill the fetus even if it's disabled or deformed. So why are the rules different for a younger embryo? Could it be, perhaps, because you want to have your cake and eat it too? Maybe I'm too suspicious, but it sounds like you want to be "pro-life" yet still leave open the option of renouncing parenthood, as long as one kills his offspring quickly enough, within a reasonable window of time roughly corresponding to the first trimester of pregnancy. Which would put your views in line with those of the average American. So many Americans can see that abortion is evil, yet can't bear the thought of losing the option for themselves or their loved ones. Gotta keep their options open. That's why they support "limits" instead of "bans." They want to narrow the window. Which, to be quite frank, saves very few lives. It just forces people to kill their children sooner before they miss their chance.
Consensus doesn't determine truth.
consensus doesn't mean voting
3:48-3:52
..did he say 'pregnant person OR woman'?? 🤔😬
uh oh... is he joking or what 😆
I think he may have been trying to define the absolutist position and so was using technical terminology, but clarified that he was speaking of women when he used the term pregnant person, sort of like a synonym or equivalent term, not a subcategory.
@@raymk Rauser is quite left-leaning, so I wouldn't assume he's joking.
possibly in regards to trans people
@@Mish844
...well Rauser needs to go watch Matt Walsh 'What is a Woman?'
Did he say "pregnant people"?
Trent, I think you botched the question on the guiltyness of the two doctors. Our position as pro lifers is completely consistent and you should not have handwaved that realistic situation away.
Both doctors participated in homicide. This is a behaviour unacceptable socially, a jury or judge will determine the degree of the murder and there will be applied measures of correction appropriate to reeducate them into never committing this act ever again. If doctor white, the one that sold the pill, was proved to be a vocal advocate for elective abortion and therefore the jury determined that reeducation is unlikely, he should be given a life sentence to prevent him from ever doing such an evil thing ever again.
But all he said was they're not equal.
If someone gets angry, pulls out a gun, and shoots a man, versus if someone gets angry, spends the next four months plotting, and then shoots the man, those are different crimes, but they're both murder.
@@soulcutterx13 Sure, first vs second degree murder is different and it's up to the judge to determine how to classify it. The stage of biological development of the victim is not at all a factor. It wasn't made clear enough.
@@tafazzi-on-discord So you don't think that a second degree murder of a child would be rated more than the second degree murder of an adult?
This is, I think, a fatal flaw in Dr Rauser's position also: that even if we were to grant that a three month old fetus is worth somehow less than a six month old fetus, and then to bite the bullet and say that a Downs Syndrome child worth less than a neurotypical child, it does not logically follow that it passes the bar to kill them at your convenience.
@@soulcutterx13 I think it is more common for attenuating circumstances to apply to the murder of adults than that of children. All things being equal though, no i do not think they have any differences.
Thoughtful is not a word I would use to describe Randal Rauser, but maybe he'll actually surprise me in this video.
Seems simple. Abortion is always wrong but that it’s more wrong as the child develops. It follows the intuition and shows that abortion should be illegal always.
THE GOSPEL
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also
ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
- 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4 KJV
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. - John 15:13 KJV
SAVALATION
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
- John 3:16 KJV
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. John 3:17
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
- John 14:6 KJV
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Romans 5:10
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
- Mark 1:15 KJV
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
- John 3:36 KJV
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. 2 Timothy 1:9
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. Luke 19:10
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22
For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:7-8
I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. John 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
- Romans 10:9-11 KJV
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
- Romans 10:13 KJV
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Romans 1:16
I’m surprised to see this rather nuanced discussion on this channel.
I’m impressed how consistent Trent defends his, in my view, absolutely immoral position.
I have never encountered the argument that denying a 10 year old rape victim an abortion is for the welfare of the child. To call this logic twisted is a dramatic understatement. This pales the statement that woman who use the morning after pill should be charged with murder.
"Forcing" a child to carry a pregnancy is a very difficult position to defend for pro-lifers. However, this problem is not intrinsic to the case of rape and abortion. The heart of the problem is actually "forcing" an innocent and powerless child to do a good thing that is dangerous.
You can easily swap the case of the rape of a child with another hideous crime which must involve a child to actively do something to prevent something evil. If there's a case where a boy must act heroically and endure some suffering to prevent a bomb from exploding, would you encourage the child to do so? Or should we let the bomb detonate to prevent the suffering of the child?
Back to the case of abortion by a child, I think it's best to strive for the best and ideal solution, that is encouraging the child that the baby in her womb can grow like her, and their future can still be bright. It's still a very sad reality, but I don't think we should think abortion is the happiest solution we can come up with in this particular case.
Use logic to solve case and don't bat an eye.
Seth Dylon from Babylon Bee laid it out for Joe Rogan:
1. Killing an innocent life is wrong
2. Abortion is killing an innocent life
3. Abortion is wrong
Apply the logic to "how difficult it is to carry to term." Is it OK to kill an innocent life caused by rape? The answer is, no.
@@namapalsu2364 Sometimes it's helpful to use your direct approach, but sometimes you must also adjust the way you convey it to a real human being who has emotions and feeling suffering.
Simply saying to your crying son who has been bullied, "It's okay, son. We're all going to heaven where there will be no more tears" is a true statement in a very wrong context.
Let us use prudence !
Your comment is very interesting. I think it reveals a very deep question:
To what extent does childhood protect a person from having to bear responsibility?
If a child cannot bear certain responsibilities due to it being a child, we have to restrict its freedom in order to prevent a situation in which that child would either have to bear responsibility or another person would have to stop existing.
Which would lead to the following rule:
Persons may only have sex if *both* can bear the consequences of this act and the following responsibilities.
If a child needs a kidney transplant, is it fine for the doctors to forcefully extract one out of the body of a compatible donor? No, because the pain of the child is compeltely irrelevant to the permissiveness of the abhorrant act that is murder.
@@tafazzi-on-discord it's illegal for adults to impregnate children, but children are allowed to impregnate other children, although they are not capable of bearing responsibility for that action.
CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE CODEX giggas....the devils bible and does it belong to the catholic church
I can’t stand the use of ontological all the time. It’s like it’s only used to try and sound smart when it doesn’t actually contribute to conversation
There is no such thing as "humanity" or a shared man. That is mythology from j wish religion.
am i really listening to 2 non-caesaresque leaders of men discussing abortion in 2022? wwwhhyyy?