An Issue of Convenience - Abortion Debate ft. TheMedsPeds
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 авг 2018
- Date Streamed: 07/27/18
Click▼
Follow Destiny
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/bigscreen
►DISCORD - discordapp.com/invite/destiny
►REDDIT - / destiny
Use Destiny's affiliate link to buy stuff! www.amazon.com/?tag=des000-20
Edited by Willo
Thumbnail by / devtwothousand
Music:
►OUTRO: / cc6-mastered-3-conflict
![Chk Chk Boom - Stray Kids ストレイキッズ 스트레이 키즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240719](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/63QPwqCRGcw/mqdefault.jpg)
Debate got aborted in this destiny
Ersand93 I think you meant to say that this Abortion got Destiny-ed in this debate.
The Gamer Who Does Life Wrong again, you mean 'debate this destiny-ed in got abortion'
"I don't want to talk about abortion." 44 minute video.
That's mostly my fault. I was chatty as fuck. That happens when I am nervous.
abortiony got aborted in this debate
I mean it's one thing to terminate really late into the pregnancy (usually when mothers have already decided they wanted the baby anyway, but can't because of complications) when the fetus is much more developed, but if you're like 14 weeks in, and you aren't in any position to take care of a child, or literally just have no intention of giving birth, and having a child whatsoever, then what's the issue with abortion? If the fetus doesn't feel pain, isn't conscious, and is barely developed, then what is the moral dilemma?
I'd rather there be more abortions than see more cases of domestic child abuse, or children being killed by their parents, or children fleeing from their families because of awful living conditions, because the parent either isn't financially or mentally prepared to take on the burden of raising a kid properly, or is literally underage themselves, and aren't mature enough to handle that kind of responsibility.
It seems disingenuous to paint people who believe in pro-choice as the same types who'd have no qualms over tossing a child out of a speeding car, or killing a 2year old, because it's not remotely alike contextually.
Both children, and adults deserve better, and if that's going to happen, then, and not to sound disgustingly cheesy and cringey on purpose, parenthood needs to be planned, and it shouldn't just happen by accident, or be forced. The long term really matters, and when it comes to that issue at least, the choice should be there. And that aside, if we just teach teens and young adults more safe sex education, than the possibility of abortion doesn't need to be that high anyway, but that can't be done when facilities like Planned Parenthood are being attacked solely because they offer abortion services in the off chance someone isn't already educated, or wasn't having safe sex.
The thing is, if u r aborting it based on not being conscious, then would u kill a man that was passed out (he doesn’t feel pain), or would u kill a man that is on a coma. Just because there is a higher chance of being abused it doesnt mean u have the right to kill it
It's been a year but I'll respond anyways, The points that you bring up about the morality of killing of a fetus are : 1 that they don't feel pain, I think that's a non argument since you can kill people painlessly and most people would agree that would still be immoral 2 that they are not conscious, I don't know how you define consciousness, but would you have the right to kill a person that is in a coma that you knew had a high probability to wake up after a year or two? And the third point is very weird to me, what does development have to do with the right of a person to be alive? Are we allowed to kill differently differently abled people if they have problems with development? The only reason why that point would be relevant is if you wanted to make a biological argument.
Again comes down to where you believe life starts then you start to care.
#FeedNathan
#DontpushNathanoutTheDoor
this girl knows how to form an argument, and understand logical inconsistencies. subbed
Abortion is not murder.
At what point is an inconvenience a threat to your life?
Having a child can possibly be the determining factor for whether one lives in an upper-middle class neighborhood with good healthcare vs a dangerous neighborhood and shit healthcare. It seems to me that inconvenience is subjective and on a scale.
But you don’t get to kill based on what’s convenient.. how can you argue in favor of that? If you concede that it’s a human life, your convenience logic can be applied to the child at any point up to the age of emancipation. And even so, you can’t kill an innocent human without the due process of law.
If you don’t concede that it’s a life, your convenience argument is irrelevant.
Destiny got murdered for convenience in this debate
Destiny got Destiny because of destiny in this friendly discussion.
She gave up her first argument way to easy and essentially lost the debate at that point. The intent argument is extremly imporant as it removes the personhood argument completly from the debate.
TheBlackdracula I would also not agree with the intent argument, it does matter.
Nice to see destiny be allowed to have a reasonable civil discussion without being screamed at/over and have to scream back to get anything across
I can see why he didnt want to get into a abortion debate because he takes the middle of the road position that theres no real reason to argue against. Hes only slightly in the pro life camp because of his morality and since that's a feels position you really cant argue against. So it's impossible to debunk that feeling. I dont think hes either full pro choice or pro life I think hes firmly in the less abortions camp.
Jesus she was so level headed compared to many other guests
Thanks, I still think I didn't do a good job because I was nervous. I rewatched it and see lots of fuck ups. One thing I wish I would have said would be that I don't think there is a magical moment of personhood. It's vague and subjective. For example, I can't seem to understand why it would be perfectly okay to take a morning after pill and flush out a fertilized egg but not have an abortion at 6 weeks. Neither beings can think or feel. Just because one technically is a human life at one point doesn't change in the eyes of my own personal morality.
AuquaFine They can't all be retarded, if they were destiny wouldn't have any credibility
TheMedsPeds It helps to have notes, that way nervousness is less debilitating
I think it's very important in this debate to to explore a potential crux of the issue: the awfulness of "murder" vs. a seeming indifference to "not creating life." Many arguments are given for why people cannot abort a child because it is "murder" for the sake of convenience. However, consider that deciding not to be pregnant is "not creating life" for the sake of convenience. "Not creating life" is the ethical antithesis of "murder" in many ways: what is the argument that it is not the proper antithesis of murder such that it matters ethically in the same way? Why is it okay to *avoid* pregnancy for the sake of convenience but not to abort it? This question needs to be explored.
allenwright89 Never heard this argument before, good point.
allenwright89 That question doesn’t really need to be explored because for the most part it’s pretty clear cut. If people have a moral obligation to have children without being able to have a decision in the matter simply because they are capable of doing doesn’t mean its ethically comparable to making faulty decisions that result in the creation of life. If you choose to have unprotected sex and get pregnant as a result it is directly your fault and negligence that put you into that situation, and taking the life of your unborn child because of that mistake is the crux of the issue. The idea that not having children and refusing to get pregnant is comparable is absurd at best because what you truly say if you defend that position is that men and women are morally obligated to have as many children as possible.
@@XxCalypsoxX616 ending life is evil as it ends life. If there isn't a life to end it's not evil. It's pass easy
@@marciaosullivan3200 but human life begins at conception
lol thanks for the shout out.
I want to make abortion double legal. DEBATE THAT!
baby killer
U were shit on this debate. LMAO got em
Lol why TF is metokur on your fetured channels.
TheMedsPeds The guy is (from what I know) a race realist.
I don’t understand how you can think abortion is murder but not wanting to outlaw it because well if you’re gonna have it, better it be in a hospital than in an alley.
Like, I’m against murder in general, but I wouldn’t legislate it because if you’re gonna kill someone anyway.
No, abortion should be illegal.
This is my true position btw.
I differentiate between "Huge Inconvenience" and "Ruined Life" (fired from job, kicked out of apartment, kids can't eat...)
If you don't want to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy, don't have sex. Why have unprotected sex, get pregnant just to abort it.
Shakeel because people have sex for reasons other than to procreate, and if they choose to do it unprotected it doesn't matter. There is literally nothing wrong with an abortion.
Shakeel oh yeah, because every contraception method is 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancies, right? Get real.
@@braxinIV Then dont have sex, dipshit.
Half-way through and this is an actual good debate. TheMedsPeds has her shit together.
apparently at week 6 or 7 the fetus has nerves, so it will feel pain after and maybe during that point but not before
im surprised anti-natalism wasnt brought up
S Marie how could anyone possibly know when sentience is formed in a human being? We can’t even definitively determine if animals are sentient. Hell, we can’t even really determine if we ourselves are sentient. Unless I missed a really important class, I don’t think sentience is even really considered scientifically because we cannot prove that it exists.
The guest failed by conceding that abortion is murder. abortion is by definition the termination of a pregnancy, which usually results in the zygote/embryo/fetus death. That does not mean, however, that it is murder.
EXACTLY !
There is a reason why it's not called a human being/newborn/baby. Comparing a 2year old to something that can't even be called a human being, is the biggest joke I have ever heard.
Killing an unwanted fetus is morally permissible because an unwanted fetus is inside the woman's body without her consent. That's a violation of her body. Women should be able to get things that violate their bodies out by any means necessary. If getting the fetus out of the woman results in fetus death, so be it. It can't feel pain up until around week 23 so as long as the abortion is done before that I do not care about the fetus. I start caring about a fetus once it can feel pain but I'm still okay with aborting it up until it's full-term because an unwanted full-term fetus is still violating the woman's body.
Very articulate Caller I enjoyed this discussion
Has there ever been an actual heated debate Destiny's been in? Because from what I've seen it's either actual morons or very politically "iffy" people who seem to sway their argumentative mojo a little more than maybe they should in a debate such as this lady person right here. Judging by the comments and my own standards I feel like especially since he does debate many people from his own audience that there should be one or two somewhere.
@26:30 I can concede that a fetus is a life destiny. Problem is, even in a life or death situation, no one can be forced to donate part of their body. Pregnancy is donating your body. At the bare minimum it's constant blood transfusions. The mother's rights to her body don't disappear when she becomes pregnant. Furthermore, forcing someone to be pregnant against their will is morally abhorrent.
fuckin omegalul. No one is forcing a woman to be pregnant.
Grayson Guinn yeah not right now because Roe v Wade still stands.If a woman becomes pregnant who did not want to be and wants to terminate but the law says she can’t, that is forcing her to be pregnant against her will. Shit isn’t rocket science.
well roe v wade was a mistake, actually make an argument you incel
I did. Do you know how to read?
Jon Magician you are completely and utterly shit at arguments.
Lol I had a pragerU ad before this. The irony.
I love your debates man but it is disappointing how irregularly you post one and how short they always seem to be
Hey Destiny, have you considere abortion from the original legal angle (roe vs wade), where people have the right to privacy, and by extention thier own views (privacy) on abortions.
Given that reasonable (legal reasonable) physicians agree that a feetus isn't a human until a certain point, because the matter is private, your views on it don't matter, you can't be correct to appose abortion for society, only for yourself.
destiny should try to get on, the rubin report, or have him on, that would be cool
Yikes. I think this is the one category of argument in which Destiny loses his "sociopathic" tendencies. I think he has been influenced by his kid and fatherhood in ways he hasn't critically thought about.
jibes with his utilitarian viewpoint pretty well. disagree.
Destiny's overarching "reason" for his policies, from what i've gathered (at least what he wants people to believe), is not utilitarian but what he wants to help guarantee his existence. Expand if I'm missing your point here.
I dont see how on a utilitarian level that suffering is increased or utiltiy is reduced by removing a non-sentient human from being alive.
you guys are all crazy
sociopathic? {citation neeeeded}
destinies positions on everything are usually thought out decent and uncontroversial
give me exceptions
I think you've found your answer. He was once a fetus, and he wouldn't have wanted to be aborted, and so he believes abortion is immoral.
Why doesnt this video start at like 2:12. The first two minutes are just them fixing technical problems wat.
She is wrong about how section 8 works, I currently live in section 8 and if you have a new child your case gets redetermination for cost of rent and rooms needed.
Wasn't destiny reeeing a few days ago about the "vegans should forgoe all tech and live in the forest of they want to reduce suffering" argument, about it being absurd to suggest someone should go to that level of inconvenience and that brushing over that is silly.
What a homesome debate
You gotta love when you go to Wikipedia to see who's right, and look at that it's seems to be both of you.
If someone breaks into your house they're probably not going to kill you so is it justified to kill them??
Good debate, I wish she'd pressed Destiny a bit harder about the convenience vs loss of life issue though. Because I think on the whole it'd be way worse even from a moral perspective to allow every person who was aborted to live in society, what a nightmare. Like wouldn't the cost be the existance of a huge amount of people without good bonding, potentially dangerous to themselves and others, like I don't think it ends with inconvenience to a parent, more like a scurge to life in general. Maybe that's harsh, but like?
So if someone breaks in to your home, and promises not to kill you, he/she (#feminism;) just beats you and steels all your stuff - causing you inconvenience - you should not be allowed to kill them?
Destiny, start selling merch, just think of all the tshirts you could be selling! Mochaccino hoppaccino poppaccino, or "I will debate you!", or posters advertising computers with lie detection software and peripheral stabbing device
No Bullshit is growing due to his south park series
wasnt it an extreme inconvinience when that kid was ddosing him? why can he justify that but not abortion?
A human life to me is a sentient being that is an independent life form not physically attached to another person.
if my 95 y/o grandad is a potato with alzheimer's, no friends/ money at all. Eating into my bank account can i just put him down -_-
Comment about Destiny getting something'd in this debate.
Nomad Music ABORTED 1!!1!1!
sex did used to have that contract part tbh, maybe that's why you used to have to get married before sex in the past.
do a debate with louder with crowder
juzzam3 I feel like he's addressed this before. I think he said that there's no way he'd be able to debate Crowder because of his show's format and the way he argues (gishgalloping and sneaking in shitty jabs).
Abortion shouldn’t be taken lightly, but should be allowed. There are many circumstances where it’s condoned but there’s still many precautions that can be made to avoid it entirely.
feeding a kid as in using your resources that could've been used on you is the same as a fetus using your nutrients
What? How?
Her early argument point, "that life requires your constant consent to use your organs; acts parasitic," is invalidated simply by the act of conception itself. That consent was in the verbal contract signed when the baby was conceived.
Why is this always overlooked?
That's a ridiculously invalid argument. Not only is she able to verbally inform that she wishes to rescind the agreement, but also clearly forcing yourself on anyone is a wrongful act. That being said, once conception has occurred then the only conceivable wrongful force occurring is spawning a life without its consent. The obvious and unspoken reconciliation for said act of force is an agreement of nurturing.
Preventing that life from coming into human being after you had an consensual engagement leading to its conception is clearly a breach of contractual obligation.
That is why I entirely agree with Destiny on how to go about abortion, though his reasons may differ.
@@MrOmgnothimagain giving consent to one thing, doesn't automatically mean consent to another thing. Like when you give consent to foreplay, that doesn't automatically mean you give consent to s*x. So when you give consent to s*x, that doesn't mean you give consent to something that can lead from that: pregnancy. Like how when you give consent to foreplay, you can still not give consent to s*x, something that lead from that because you aren't ready for that yet. Just like how you can be ready to have s*x but not ready to be pregnant.
And besides that, we still have the OBVIOUS fact that not one contraception is 100% effective. (Even vasectomy isn't 100%). So the one who used contraception but still got pregnant, explicitly didn't give their consent.
So everything you said is just so... illogical. Except if you believe that consent to one automatically goes hand in hand with consent to the other when two things go hand in hand with eachother. That would be laughable
Can’t believe you thought this nonsense discussion was worth uploading. Nothing of substance was discussed.
I like this chick
Destiny got aborted... I'm sure someone has said this by now.
I m at 26 minutes and i hope destiny just hasnt talked about this yet but what she essentially said earlier was that ' connections, family, friends, pain, consiousness is something that amounts more value to your life' so i guess if i have more friends than someone i m more valuable than him... eh
Stelios Ktenios That was like the only point she fucked up on. Otherwise I generally disagree about intent not mattering and that a fetus is living.
Not really. I think she just means that amounts more value to your life by perception, in the sense that you affect more things with your being, not that somehow you're "better". Basically, a person with a lot of friends, will make more people cry and feel sad if they die. However, if a person is magically born in the woods and it dies 3 seconds later, was that life really of any value?
if destiny was aborted he would have never had this debate
That was terrible to listen to. This woman values her cat over an unborn child. Unbelievable!
tfw youtubers don't cut out the all of the bullshit because they want to make it over 10 minutes LUL
I miss DP ☹
Oh god an actual reasonable person thank fucking lord
I don't really get it, just the label 'human' gives the zygote more value then any other somatic cell? How do you define a human zygote?
By the genome? Well, other human cells also have a 'human' genome.
How do you define the 'human' genome? Is somebody with an extra or missing a chromosome still considered human by solely its genome?
The potential to develop into a human? Well, we have the potential to clone humans just by the use of genetic material of somatic cells. Should we ascribe somatic cells the same value as a 'human' zygote?
That's what I've been thinking for so long. The label of "life" is so arbitrary for the pro-life argument. It's vague on purpose in order to suit the argument.
Vegan Komerade
One could argue that the NEW genome is what defines a NEW human being separated from you.
And, also, one could argue that is a human because is product of the reproduction of two humans.
@@manuelantuna2749 but every time you have s*x, there is a potential of a new genome. So that would also mean that every time you have s*x, there is a potential of life. Don't you see that with that kind of thought process contraception shouldn't be allowed too, because every time you use it, you take away the potential of life.
That's why I really can't see it as "killing" or a living thing. And why I don't mind taking the possibility of something becoming a human away. I think it's actually really unreasonable to not give people a choice to only give the "potential to live" to the embryo that they know that they can provide for (while simultaneously providing for themselves) when they are ready because of a thought process like that.
abortion again? you should have these talking points memorized by now
25:00 Does Destiny not realize he actually *is* a "fertilization" pro-lifer (and should therefore consider the morning-after pill murder)?
rr3dd holy cow, ur right.
25:30 he conceded that ferilization isn't conception. Therefore he doesn't consider the morning after pill murder
Yes he acknowledges that but he still goes on to describe what is really fertilization as his starting point for personhood:
26:00 "you're never a sperm and you're never an egg, it's not *until* *those* *two* *things* *come* *together* " - fertilization
34:47 "who I am, the most unique thing about me that I identify with is my genetic code, and that's formed at the moment the *zygote* forms" - also fertilization
rr3dd Yeah, someone should probably point this out to him. I'm a conception pro-lifer so the above isn't really a problem for me.
rr3dd what's the sentence he is mumbling right before 26:00? It is probably important to that statement.
Abortion is justified through bodily autonomy though so it isnt murder.
A fetus's life experience, I feel both personally and from everything we know as a society, cannot be compared to a fully-fledged human being. I know this may come off as very cringey liberal propaganda but honestly, the closest thing you could compare a fetus to conscience and experience wise is to that of a single-celled organism. Of course, you could attempt to pair the fetus's livelihood to a 2-year old's but I do feel the fact that a baby can have to an extent a memory and can express emotion and things of this sort that you couldn't really. That in conjunction with the very idea that to kill a baby would almost definitely make a difference in whether you are an actual psychopath or not in both what we know of psychology and society's definition and as a whole doesn't help that point either. Of course I would also agree that this is for the most part a means of convienence but like Destiny seemed to allude to that isn't something to scoff at in this case. The monetary and overall bodily damage that would occur from just a single child, although may vary, is still a monumentous challenge. And honestly even if it weren't, if someone doesn't want to have a kid, we probably should be ok with them not doing so.
the fact that u thought this might sound like 'cringy liberal propaganda' is cringy in & of itself
Couldn't agree more f e l l o w.
A few things here. For me personally it's the potential of that fetus to become a fully fledged human that qualifies it for human life, it doesn't start as a "human" as we define it, but regardless it's a part of the birth process. If we as a society moved the benchmark of a human to say as soon as a child can talk, it could be normal to kill anyone who doesn't meet that threshold because you aren't killing a person, you're killing something less than that.
Look at how arbitrarily we treat animals. Dogs and cats are seen as pets and in the West eating them is seen as barbaric, meanwhile animals which are in some cases smarter like pigs are seen simply as livestock, basically because they aren't as cute.
You don't even have to look at animals or even fetuses to see how easy it is to change the definition of what is considered human life. Look at history to see how easy it is to dehumanise people who are undoubtedly humans biologically and psychologically. The holocaust and the slave trades dehumanised people so much on arbitrary grounds that they were transformed into property or even animals to be slaughtered in the societies where this occurred. To me abortion is just our eras form of dehumanisation, much like these earlier examples. Rather than one of religious or ideological grounds, it's a dehumanisation of convenience.
The very word "fetus" is a dehumanising one because it separates the life of a person as if it's two different organisms, when in reality it's completely arbitrary. The fact a "fetus" becomes a "baby" as soon as it leaves the womb even though they are the exact same thing by the end of the birth process is I think a big factor in why people see abortion as something that is ok. Words have so much power, if we made no distinction between a baby and a fetus then people would look at them as the same thing and I don't see anyone defending infanticide. Why do we give a baby so many protections and why is that looked down upon when throughout history many women did it for the exact same reasons we do abortions today, convenience either due to economic or social circumstances.
I'm fully for abortion in the case of it being a choice between the child or the mother, or if there is a risk of death for both parties, and I understand the burden that having a child is to ones life is especially in the hyper-capitalist society we live in where 9 months could mark not just the end of your career but maybe your life. But I think rather than giving people the choice to kill the child we should be giving so, so much more support for pregnant mothers by allowing them to take the time to deliver the child regardless of what that means and in the cases where they genuinely do not want the child create a far more robust and expanded adoption system rather than the abysmal ones we have now.
@@croisaor2308 you're against abortion cause a fetus has potentail to become human? I'm sorry but that's one of the most ignorant things I've heard. Input the double standard of treating everything according to it's potentail and you'll realise how stupid that sounds. A braindead human being has literally no potentail, are you not against killing them? Cause then again you are treating them according to their 'potentail' aren't you?
@@anon546By reading your response, I'm not stumped. I'm just dumbfounded with how you drew your parallels.
This issue really disappoints me with you Destiny. I don't understand how you can see a fetus as the same as a 2 year old. A fetus has no mind, no personality, no will. And it is so easy for you as a man, to not give a shit about the womens perspective in this. Do you know that early pregnancy and having a kid in general, is detrimental to gaining equal opportunities through out the world within poor communities ???
Niklas yeah I think his veganism and abortion stances are his worst. There are other things I dont agree with but those 2 just seem really dumb.
Fetus is alive tho the fuck are you talking about ?
"A fetus has no mind, no personality, no will"
So just like a 2 year old?
Catcher A 2 year old has a brain, a mind and a will, wtf are you talking about?
Leon thepro leave them be. They are not even worth the effort.
I know you said that intent doesn't matter, but I feel that if the mother was raped then she has no obligation to give her body to the child. Keeping the child would be morally good, but I think it's morally neutral if the child is aborted because it had no right to the mother's body. If the sex was consensual i think it would be something that the mother and father accepted and it is their responsibility.
mrOmegamilkyman Those pregnancies are an extremely low percentage. I can't confirm but I'm pretty sure it's less than 1% of people. We should legislate for the overwhelming majority in these types of topics rather than the less than 1% of people.
So it would be morally neutral to murder an innocent person because of moderate inconvenience if one were to be raped?
Fuck_life_and_Everyone_Else _
You are not forcing anyone to “take care of a child”. Tell me where you found that in the equation.
Fuck_life_and_Everyone_Else _
Yes, but I asked you to show me where “taking care of a child” comes into play. If you’re using that as a synonym for pregnancy, then I am not interested in continuing the discussion. Extremely disingenuous arguments are not something I consider fun to read.
They are very low but they do happen. This is one of the few cases where I feel that abortion should be ethical along with the mother's life at risk
Abortion got debated in this miscarriage
4:13 KITTY
a single celled oganism that has the to have consciousness
In the abortion debate, I believe ‘experience’ creates a person. The development of the facilities ‘to experience’ defines and brings value to existence. In contemporary society, even to be a conscious, living entity doesn’t warrant rights and consideration (ex. Livestock).
…and then we return to Destiny’s lack of veganism and embrace of nihilism as two characteristics that run contrary to his appreciation of ‘life’. I wouldn’t agree a fetus or baby even ‘lives’ in a human way.
Don't debate Destiny on anything other than the definition of life, because we can all see levels of ambiguity in defining life one way or another. We can debate to what extant our definitions are consistent and superior to other definitions.
Does birth count as an experience? I feel that is kinda a big window. Some people say they remember being in the womb, I have no idea how true that is but I wouldn't just call them liars about it.
Joe Andrew i never even thought about that. That is very interesting O.O
Й Б Because Destiny fronts as being indifferent to other humans, but, also makes claims of belief that contradict that and just wants to eat meat and to justify it with an 'unbeatable' argument.
I believe the mere suggestion of subjectively defining life is evil.
This is what we know: humans start to form at fertilization, then eventually die at some point. So fertilization is the most objective point at which life starts, as there is nothing before that.
I say that defining when a human life starts with subjective criteria is evil because you’re dehumanizing a population of humans, then proceeding to legalize the murder of said population.
Destiny's use of the word "inconvenience" is very mischaracterising, he uses it to make the pregnancy and its consequences sound lighter than they are, which is not fair imo
It hasn’t developed a conscience. If you feel so strongly about this (not Destiny ofc) then you shouldn’t kill anything that has a conscience/brain capacity at the level of a fetus. Otherwise you’re a hypocrite. & don’t give me the “my own species/cannibalism” argument - we’re talking intelligence & conscience. Which a fetus at the begging stages hardly has. You also have to consider if the child is gonna end up in an orphanage or drug/alcoholism entrenched home. #edit when a dog is backed up against a wall, it bites. Women throughout history has & still do, murder their newborns because their government gives them no way out. Does it make them murderers? Yes. Could it have been prevented? Yes.
I think up until the foetus can feel pain abortion is morally fine
41:30 destiny that's one of the dumbest things i've ever heard you say lol. Lauren Southern and roaming millennial aren't married but they have "no excuse" to not have children because they might be the prime age to conceive one? They are also both not in favor for out of wedlock children to be born, so essentially you're saying for them to be consistent on one view they have to be inconsistent on another lul
Not really. These women are anti-feminist and believe in the SMV theory. Yet both are unmarried and focused on their YT careers directly contradicting their own message. If they truly believe the rhetoric they spew, they should have just gotten waitress jobs to tie them over and started looking for a husband as soon as they hit 18.
I wish we got a definition of personhood from Destiny. He didn't really explain it to well. I know he said from zygote to death, but I think there's a lot of vague sort of presumption in that statement as it doesn't explain what makes that a person compared to a donkey living zygote to death.
Someone should debate him on what is personhood rather than abortion
imo, personhood refers to capability of cognition, ergo e.g. brain dead person isn't an instance of personhood.
interesting, in what regard you claim personhood to be objective?
I've seen him state that it starts with the creation of his DNA, which makes me think "why stop at the Zygote?". Couldn't you argue that masterbation would also be wrong? As it would destroy half of his DNA.
Fuck_life_and_Everyone_Else _ except you can't make that argument about eggs. Women do not choose to flush eggs from their bodies it happens naturally without any conscious input. Masturbation, on the other hand, is done for pleasure and convenience.
I never understood Destiny's stance on abortion. Why would you be morally against something but be fine with having it legalized? Seems bit hypocritical.
Then theres the notion that whilst a fetus is human, it doesn't have to be a human (a person). Similar to how skin cells are human in nature but they aren't what constitutes a human being. I don't see why it would be morally wrong in virtually anyones moral system to kill a lump of cells. Or in the fetus case, a formed group of cells. Abortion would only start to bother me when the child can feel pain, but then again abortions to my knowledge aren't painful anyway. Or alternatively when it has most vital organs like brain, heart etc.
I kind of find this disappointing about USers who talk about abortion, its never a nuanced discussion about "at what week should be draw the line of when abortion is bad?". Its always this binary interaction of: 100% FOR vs 100% AGAINST.
If were being practical, its better for the society to have abortions readily available to the public, despite what many pro-lifers may think.
1. If illegal, abortions will STILL happen, just dirtier, in a back alley, with an unlicensed doctor, and with far more risk to the mother.
2. Many, MANY children whose mothers have confessed having thought about abortion but had second thoughts, end up being abused.
3. Someone who is raped should not in any circumstance, no matter what I or anybody thinks, have to give birth and raise a child that was forced onto them.
4. Some women sadly cant have children due to serious health issues, even fatal, that could happen if they were to attempt pregnancy/birth.
There are also stats to backup #1 and 2,, but someone whose pro-abortion should already know these.
There is nothing hypocritical in believing abortion for convenience is morally wrong, and stepping aside to let it do its thing, because you understand society as a whole the individual, benefits more from having legal abortion.
Catcher But Destiny thinks abortion is morally wrong, period. How is that not hypocritical whilst simultaneously being ok with it being legalized?
Think the simplest simplification I can think of is that, what is right isn't always practical. I am morally against people lying but am not going to want to make it illegal. Wouldn't really be practical in arresting everybody for lying in day to day cases but in certain situations like in the court of law and such would lying be illegal. Not quite the same thing but I believe it should be enough to highlight when some things can be advocated for legalization but at the same time be morally wrong?
OnTheFencer I highly doubt you're morally against lying, period. Would you say it was immoral for the jews in Nazi germany to lie about their heritage?
Khalkara It is in a case by case basis. Is it morally wrong to lie to your SO about cheating on them? Is it morally upright to lie about how much you earn for the sake of appearances? Is it moral for me to lie to you and say I am against lying to save a life? Is it morally right for you to lie on your taxes? Is it morally right for you to lie and falsely accuse someone of a crime?
Some of these you probably can actually argue for depending on which ethical school of thought you wish to adopt but I think that you would have to agree that society generally sees lying as a morally wrong thing to do.
Destiny go outside
Destiny got aborted in this debate
Hi destiny
if destiny subscribes to the life at conception meme does he consider the morning after pill murder??
mikekachowski In the video he says no, and she explains why its different. Still think he should be against it to be consistent though.
No because it's not been fertilized yet it takes a day or tow for sperm to reach the egg pro imagine my shock when pro choicers say dumb shit
Noting wrong with abortion since nobody has given an argument as to why it is immoral or should be illegal. Bodily autonomy
he did make an argument for why it is immoral, because it is murder
ww12tt except it isn't since murder isn't a default wrong nor is it relevant aince murder is a legal term
Mario mario Murder is a legal term, but we can just as easily use it in a non legal context. Murder is the unjustified killing of another. This makes it immoral by default. Since killing something is a negative and great interference on a person/living being, it must be justified. That is why killing a man for fun is wrong, while killing a man trying to rape you isn't, it is justified.
PS: it is worth noting law are in many ways a manifistation of our morals
Mario mario Murdering the innocent is is pretty immoral buddy, don't know who smashed your brains in as a child
It’s this fucking idiot again, Jesus fuck.
Literal neanderthal.
Thank you for not being an all or nothing leftist. I appreciate that you pick and choose what you do or do not agree with instead of just checking all the marks on the left side of the sheet.
DESTINY GOT REKT OMG 4:13
Listen to how ferocious this 3rd person is
True, my Shadow cat clearly is the true winner of this debate.
Destiny I have a question for you. You say 1) a foetus and one year are equivalent and as you can't abort a one year old so you can't abort a foetus. 2) If there is a 20% chance of harm to the pregnant mother then that justifies abortion of the foetus. The last statement suggests you don't think a foetus is equivalent to a one year old. As illustration: if a mother is certain to die without a kidney transplant from her compatible one year old, is it ok to force the one year old to have the transplant? Most people would say no, even if the risk to the one year is not high. Most people intuitively know the one year old should not be forced to give up even, a non essential, kidney and they instinctively agree with your point 2 above. This means they intuitively assign a one year old full rights but a foetus much less rights than a grown woman.
There is also the thought experiment of imagining yourself escaping from a fire in an clinic and have the choice to save a one year old child or a box labelled one thousand viable foetuses (you can only carry one). No one honestly chooses the box illustrating that everyone really knows that even a thousand foetuses are not worth one sentient live toddler.
So doesn't that mean that the arguments based on the equivalence of foetuses and one year olds fall away?
30 seconds and a few dislikes, gotta love'm consrvtvs.
leo danta
Or lefties who believe Steven’s a misogynist because he considers abortion to be murder.
Sally Vee
Most who are pro abortion believe that the supposed right a woman has in choosing to abort a baby or not falls under the category of bodily autonomy.
Misogynists don’t necessarily see women as an equal to themselves. If they held the belief that abortion was morally wrong, and later decided that it falls under the category of bodily autonomy - what they would probably do is not evaluate their stance on why it’s wrong, but instead continue to oppose it because of their sexist views. This all presupposes that they believe they themselves have a right to bodily autonomy.
Most people that support abortion are left leaning. Most people who support abortion believe the right for a woman to abort falls under the already established right to bodily autonomy. Therefor, if a person were to oppose a woman’s supposed right to abortion, they would be almost definitely considered a misogynist for denying the woman’s rights.
This is a logically simple procedure, and a conclusion the average person would quickly come to inside their head in just a few seconds. Looking as you’re definitely not the average person, I had to spend some time responding via text (which takes a lot longer than just a few seconds) to your fucking unbelievably retarded comment. Also, I’m not a “righty”, and it blatantly shows your pathetic virtue seeking by labeling me something without any sufficient evidence - to be the opposition.
Reconsider your existence, then take a trip down by the river and do not come back.
Dan
Just to clear this up:
Since bodily autonomy doesnt seem to be a strong argument for abortion, your entire argument falls.
KrackerUncle
I wasn't making an argument...
Assuming the person doesn't consider the baby/fetus eligible to have it’s life respected when inside the mother (which was obviously presupposed in my response), your argument is the one that falls apart.
Dan
sure...
"This is a logically simple procedure, and a conclusion the average person would quickly come to inside their head in just a few seconds. Looking as you’re definitely not the average person, I had to spend some time responding via text (which takes a lot longer than just a few seconds) to your fucking unbelievably retarded comment. Also, I’m not a “righty”, and it blatantly shows your pathetic virtue seeking by labeling me something without any sufficient evidence - to be the opposition."
Not possible to argue pro-abortion if you concede the point that its a human
It is, in the same way that you would argue self-defense against a person that can't be talked to, and who's survival would be problematic in everyone else's or it's life.
Think of this: You're in some deep jungle, and in the distance you see a tiger. You climb on a tree, but the tiger is lollygagging near, so you can't leave. The tiger hasn't seen you. The way you are on the tree is tiring and you'll have to drop sooner or later. You also have a knife. You also respect another consciousness' existence and don't wish to do harm if not necessary. So, a dilemma opportunity arises.
What do you do? A) You drop from the tree, and _if_ the tiger attacks you, you defend yourself, or B) jump on the tiger giving it a swift stab that will ensure your survival?
Do you give the tiger the benefit, simply out of respect for "life"? Or do you consider the attack much more efficient, as a tiger can't exactly be talked out of treating you any more than food?
I don´t feel we should deny a human life due to inconvenience.
ew
REEEEEEEEE
REEEEEEEEE
REEEEEE
ruclips.net/video/uVUVLvHcwF0/видео.html
When we talk about inconveniance justifying murder thats in my mind a little different. Abortion is not only an inconveniance but a violation of basic human rights like bodily autonomy and freedom.
Not having a choice in a matter of something that will affect your rights and freedoms needs a very good reason, so its rather the the other way where not allowing abortion needs more justification.
Imagine the government enacting justice by taking your kidney against your will and giving it to tge child in need.
Its a scary prospect even if most would gladly give their kidney.
I would also say intent matters and that a fetus is not alive.
Murder is a basic violation of human rights. Just because you don’t think a fetus is alive doesn’t mean it isn’t. No one knows “when life begins” so the only safe assumption is at conception. You’re choice was having unprotected sex.
@@croesuslydias6488 Right, but the reason I dont think a fetus is alive is because I dont see sufficient evidence for it and the only way you will change my mind is if you present some.
One could assume the sperm are alive as well.
Yes the choice was having sex, not to have a pregnancy, exactly my point.
Leon thepro if you concede that a baby is alive, then you have to prove when that life begins. The only logical answer is conception, when two separate bits of dna join together and create a new set of dna that begins replicating. Sperm isn’t “alive” in the same sense as a fetus because it doesn’t replicate and it’s not new dna. Where do you draw the line then? Birth? 1 year? 25 years?
REEEEEEEE
"live and let live that's what i'm about" .... said the pro abortion person
I meant let existing person's decide to do what they want to do with their life and their body. If someone wants to continue a pregnancy to term they have the right to. And that fetus will become a person and they can do what they want to do with their life. I don't believe a woman should be forced to incubate a fetus to term because I don't consider that fetus a person until they are able to sustain life on their own (which is where Destiny and I disagree.)
If you do believe a fetus is a person and want abortion to become illegal it's still not "live and let live" because the mother is being forced to remain pregnant against her will thus not allowing her to "live and let live"
I understood what you meant. To me it was a funny thing to hear in an abortion debate.
first
I cringed at the "pro-lifers should support social programs" shit that they both brought up. I don't need to advocate for theft to justify my opposition against murder.
Not all taxation is theft my ancap friend. Might want to read up on geolibertarianism.
I'm for environmental regulations and taxes for public goods like roads. Not for welfare / food stamps for poor moms, though. Destiny thinks that to oppose murder, you have to take on the financial burden of subsidizing those services.
Yeah because by your own stance, it will almost certainly require increased funding in order to ensure people don't fall into poverty which is one of the worst possible outcomes. To me it says that you're basing your opinion purely on ideology instead of actual logical thought.
Well contraceptives are obviously cheaper than abortion, but either way you wouldn't call a victim of a ransom the perpetrator if he doesn't pay up. Compensating for a poor mother's fuck ups is a virtue - not an obligation.
You can't claim to be on the moral high ground then if you refuse to support someone in the difficult situation that you are forcing them through. The person's obviously not ready to have a kid otherwise they probably wouldn't consider an abortion.
We all make mistakes and making sure people can pull themselves back up keeps people from turning to illicit measures to keep themselves (and maybe now even their new mouth to feed) alive.
okay lady who is extremely inconvenienced by the child gives it up to adoption. whoever is working at the orphanage decides the baby is too inconvenient, could they kill the baby now that there are no other alternatives? as long as you have alternatives , then murder is no longer morally okay? so if im stuck with a roomate who is extremely inconvenient for me and im financially despot, could i kill him since i have no other alternatives? isn't just not having unprotected sex a totally valid alternative?
I think most humans need to be removed regardless of maturity
Destiny has a massive hole in his logic when he gets to the "massive inconvenience" shit
Let's say someone breaks into your house and is clearly unarmed, they also make it clear to you and your family that they wish you no harm and simply want to take all of your shit. In no way do they plan or intend to cause anyone any physical harm at all. Destiny would likely still support killing this person to defend his shit. But why? Isn't it just an extreme inconvenience to have your shit stolen? You aren't going to die or anything, so isn't destiny just using convenience as an excuse to kill someone? How does he not see the hypocrisy here?
jason todd That's not equivalent, because it doesn't follow the path of least resistance. Getting an abortion, is a _simpler_ solution, which has absolutely no drawbacks other than, not doing it gives you a moral pat in the back.
In your example, there are multiple decisions to be taken, as shooting someone like that is wholly unnecessary. What about physical violence and attempting a "citizens arrest"? What about calling the cops, since he won't do any harm? In fact, killing someone like that, would be a bigger inconvenience than not.
So no, you don't know that destiny would argue this, nor is this a proper substitute argument (aka it's a strawman).
"it doesn't follow the path of least resistance"
letting someone take your stuff is absolutely the path of least resistance in this situation. What are you talking about?
jason todd That's what I'm saying. "The path of least resistance" is letting the person not hurt you, but on the abortion topic, the actual abortion is the path of least resistance. Shooting someone in your example, is _not_ the path of least resistance, it's an action that you _have_ to decide to do, and make it happen with effort and conviction, and with the thought that it will probably make your future worse amongst other things. To kill someone in your example, would be equivalent to giving birth and raising a baby. That's a big part on why your argument is a strawman.
I'm discussing the convenience of the matters. Do you disagree that killing someone over your property is killing someone over an inconvenience?
jason todd But that NOT what you're arguing... Stop trying to go with that angle, you're using a fallacy. How do you not understand that killing someone is an even bigger inconvenience?
That's like arguing that "spraying an ant colony infestation in your house, instead of physically moving them outside" is the equivalent of "blowing up a train station, because there was a reported terrorist". How does the meaning of "inconvenience" escape you? smh
I think it’s perfectly ok to terminate a fetus in the womb, because the people who would make that decision shouldn’t be raising a child. The fact that they would be comfortable aborting the child is evidence that they wouldn’t be very good parents.
It’s all about minimizing suffering. The child getting aborted is lucky to not have to experience being raised by reluctant parents who didn’t even want them in the first place; or couldn’t afford to raise the child in a comfortable environment.
Blooey So if its all about "minimizing suffering" that has to mean your fine with aborting fetuses that will have a disibility, Something as small as minor mental issues , or if the parents are poor? Becouse both of these things will lead to the kid suffering.
Glen KoKo Depends on the disability. If you know that your child is going to be born with a life-altering disability that will make their life 10x harder, then abortion is the correct option. If it’s nothing severe, and you know you will be able to raise them in a comfortable environment, then go ahead.
It really all comes down to money. If you & your spouse aren’t in a stable financial situation, you have NO BUSINESS having a child.
Blooey That's not your choice to make. If i had to choice of never living or living a bad early life than i would choose the latter. I have no data to support this but i bet you could find data on this or just use your brain but if you ask anyone else I'd think they would rather live in povery than die.
Blooey Most of your arguments just boil down to you assuming shit about people and not actually making a real argument.
Blooey I don't much like your argument here because there are people who have had abortions and are mother's as well and are probably as good as any other parent.