Abortion & Ben Shapiro | Philosophy Tube 

Indeed!

Defender of the Revolution doubt it

Philosophy Tube What?!!!??!!

I've been a champion of the idea that "refusing to debate an insufferable idiot does not mean you 'concede' to them" every time a fascist tries to debate me on twitter.

He'd never do that

Who knew an arsonist would be such a versatile character!

'i never said she survived ' hit me like a fucking truck.

Also throw in alot of 'hypothetically'

Cody Johnston makes me creamy.

Let's say, for instance, hypothetically, that Ben Shapiro was, hypothetically, let's say, trapped in, for instance, a sex dungeon, hypothetically.

Something about the government forcing you at gunpoint to feed the poor.

You didn’t remind us of your wife, who is a legit doctor 👩‍⚕️ 🤣

Christ that's pretty depressing, history repeats itself

Which country is that -- USA? Just curious for context.

@@Terra_Lopez Yes. The USA. The place where bodily autonomy has gone to die, but won't if we continue to fight for it (which I plan to do, again.)

@@nyasiamaire Good on you! I'm lucky to live in New Zealand. But my attention is on America.

​​@@nyasiamaire the body autonomy is as present as it's ever been. You're trying to take it away from the unborn baby by killing them before asking what they want to be done to their body.

They say it as an attempted "gotcha" against people in favour of abortion rights, not because they actually agree with it.

It shows the hypocrisy of pro abortion advocates ..... they don't really care about "bodily autonomy" it's just an excuse

The irony 🤣😭

​@mr.goldfish1530 oh they definitely agree with it in the context of forced vaccination, just not pregnancies

@@mr.goldfish1530 They do? I didn't know. Damn.

(2017: Frida)

What about Housing Crisis?

killmonger: strangles an old lady just in case you thought he wasn't evil The arsonist: is british just in case you thought he wasn't evil

2018: Thanos The fuck would make you think killmonger was compelling?

@@TheLANMAC none of the was wrong and at least one was not a villain. I let you decide which

@Spinach and Scenery And it's not like feeling feels is bad. We're emotional beings. Just as much as we are rational beings, religious beings, political beings etc.

@@CDexie We're more emotional than rational. Most every human belief stems from you making an emotional decision, then attempting to use reason to justify the decision you've already made.

@@CDexie rationality is based on emotions. People with high emotional intelligence will make more rational decisions in most cases.

@Spinach and Scenery Frankly, most political opinions are at some level. That doesn't mean they can't be based on facts, and should. But reason free from passion is, at best, an impossible ideal.

@Spinach and Scenery Because they use the word "emotion" to describe only those emotions they consider to be a weakness. Power and aggression are also emotions but they don't use that word for them.

I’m gonna be honest like I think that’s fine. I believe in total bodily autonomy while you’re alive but when you’re dead you don’t exist anymore. I’m not like against following someone’s wishes after they die I think it’s polite and feels good to show someone that kind of respect but like Abbi said in the video that doesn’t mean fetuses don’t have any moral value, so idk if it means someone gets to be born and a dead persons wishes are broken I care more about the fetus. Same goes for organ donation, I don’t super respect withholding your organs that could save a life. Like you’re dead, there’s no autonomy for you and your body bc you’re gone and your body is just a thing now that can save lives.

To be clear I wouldn’t hate someone or think they’re evil if they choose to not donate their organs and waste their whole body in burial or cremation or whatever. Like I get why people do it, usually for religious reasons, and I can empathize with the feeling. I just think it’s the wrong decision if you value kindness and support for other people.

.....easy, migrate out to another country then. And yes it does occur that donors are let to slide for a harvest.

Dead peoples' right to bodily autonomy weighs more than a pregnant woman's right to her own uterus.

​@@jongyaI agree, that sounds fine.

The pause between the sentences was the best part of it hahahah

“Horrible aliens who kill men for sport...and the Predator...”

I have a major issue with that, actually: Prager is *way* beyond the boundaries of taste.

the subtitles even call him the Arsonist

@@tylerd8289 He refers to the character as "the arsonist" multiple times, out loud, during the video.

Hbomb is also in this universe and that's wonderful

@@gaaalavant I wouldn't know, I have to read the subtitles, therefore I only know what the subtitles say lol

1:44 don't forget The Daily Fire. I'm loving it!

Let's picture the following scenario: You and your friend decide to take a fishing trip far from land. You use your boat. Efter a few hours of fishing you suddenly decide you wish to be left alone and thus force your friend to leave the boat. As a result the friend will drown. Did you have a moral right to act in such a way? It's after all your boat and should you not have the right to control who stays on it? Or are you morally obligated to let him stay on the boat even if it becomes an inconvenience until you're back at shore? We can expand the example. Let's say you're a watching the scene above from your ship. The person is left struggling in the water while the owner of the boat is sailing away. Do you have an obligation to help the drowning man? A moral obligation? A legal obligation? The situations are in a way rather similar, either the first boat owner brings the friend to shore or the second one does. If not the person will die. But a court would judge the situations very differently. This brings me to my conclusion: getting pregnant means becoming the only viable mean for the fetus/friend staying alive/reach shore. When you became pregnant you gave up your right to control that part of your body in a similar manner as you gave up your total right to your boat when you invited your friend over. The example with the violinist are more akin to the expanded example. It's a good deed to help the drowning person, but you're not legally obligated to do so if it means a substantial inconvenience or risk to your life or your plans.

@@SweBeach2023 forcing someone to keep people on their boat is not a violation of bodily autonomy, It doesn't require the state to seize your controll over own body. And "shopping" someone to shore is not as demanding of you as having a pregnancy. It doesn't even endanger your health. "A court would judge the situation differently" It depends. In some places this kind of failure to rescue is basically as bad as murder. "When you became pregnant" What if someone didn't want to be pregnant then? What if they didn't even want to have sex? "You're not legally obbligated to do so if it means a substantial inconvenience or risk to your life or plans" I completely agree. But a pregnancy does mean a substantial inconvenience or risk to your life or plans. That's why i'm pro choice.

@@SweBeach2023 but this video never made a case for absolutism in regards to bodily autonomy now did it?

​@@SweBeach2023 Firstly, thank you for spending the time to respectfully defend your viewpoint. (I mean that sincerely.) Secondly, to the scenario: "Did you have a moral right to act in such a way?" Not enough information yet for me to determine. "It's after all your boat and should you not have the right to control who stays on it?" Yes, I would argue that legally you should have the right to control who stays on it. "Or are you morally obligated to let him stay on the boat even if it becomes an inconvenience until you're back at shore? " Are you arguing the /morality/ of the situation or the /legality/? Morality and legality are two different concepts. They can overlap and intertwine, but they are fundamentally different. I will answer both. Morally, I'd give you should seek to prevent the loss of life. But to what end? If the friend absolutely refuses to leave the boat, are you morally obligated to stay? If so, for how long? Should the friend be allowed to manipulate you into staying on the boat by holding their potential death over you? Legally, it is your boat. If the friend refuses to exit it, are you not then able to call the police and obtain their assistance in removing them from the boat? If they die as a result, should you be held legally accountable for murder? "It's a good deed to help the drowning person, but you're not legally obligated to do so if it means a substantial inconvenience or risk to your life or your plans." Exactly. Pregnancy can be "a substantial inconvenience or risk to your life or your plans". So, if you are not legally obligated to save them in the second scenario, why would you be legally obligated in the first? (If the answer is because you initially chose to be on the boat with your friend and the captain who happens upon the friend didn't, I'd be interested in hearing your take on that.)

So murder an innocent child?

Just watched it for the first time. Knew all the arguments already, but never seen them presented so... vividly. Though with this video and a couple of others, part of me is always distracted thinking 'tee hee, I know that venue'. :D

Vitanera propongo un video in italiano sul tema! Alcuni poor bastards della PENISola italica non conoscono la lingua inglese e un pó di informazioni e prospettive esterne aiuterebbero gli italiani a capire meglio la questione sull'aborto

Sadly.

Whitedeath, is that you?

AYOOOOOOO MORTE BIANCAAAAAAA WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW * suoni animaleschi da persona che vede il proprio idolo *

Zach Dauman Kinda like the “I’m not racist, I have a black friend” haha

She might had the pressure of being perfect

@@arthurmorgan3260 I prefer, "You're racist," because, "You don't have have a black partner" You may be thinking, NOT a single person has ever said that. I've heard it over 10 times, don't know why I'm told this so much

when you hate women so much you marry a man but that's gay so you marry yourself but you're technically still marrying a man so you just give up and stay single

Arthur Morgan beat me to it

This comment is highly underrated.

I love how everyone collectively stopped liking after we reached a funny number

what was the number?

It got me so deep too. I feel that she's channeling her own emotion. In the UK, trans people need doctors permission to transition. You need to convince the doctors you're really trans; that you have a "good reason" for wanting to transition.

Being fair to him, Ben Shapiro does not base his opinions on abortion on his Jewish beliefs

Look religion is outdated and its not good to base any moral beliefs from it

@@elda7153 I think he does base it at least partly on his jewish beliefs, but doesn't use them as arguments to justify his viewpoint.

But how exactly are all abortions necessary to save one's life? Those are just rare cases in which we all agree that abortion is in fact necessary. This seems to be a full fledged strawman argument to me. Not only because you only focused on one specific scenario, but also because you chose for Ben what his reasoning is. He explicitly said, multiple times, that he bases his opinions on this subject on science. His reasoning is more or less: "science proved that fetuses are in fact already living human beings in the making, just like a teenager is an adult in the making. The right of a human being at any stage of his/her life is more important than any need of (in my opinion delusional) perception of freedom of its parents in the best case scenario. And the need to defend and maintain unhealthy sexual habits that correspond to have frequent unprotected sex with strangers in the worst case scenario. Many others simply see this as a political statement. Not really engaging in the morals and ethics of this topic. He then says that since science proved that fetuses are human beings, and one of the commandments is "Thou shall not kill" he sees religion as part of his moral reasoning, but it's not the foundation of it. And, as a final clarification, this overturning of Roe V Wade doesn't state that abortion is now illegal. It simply states that it's not a constitutional right of US citizens, but in the constitution there isn't written that it's prohibited either. People will still be able to choose if they want an abortion or not. Therefore making all the noise about this case a quite simple case of "leftist psychotic tantrum". And just to clarify, I'm not American, I'm not Christian (I'm a Jewish agnostic), and I'm against making abortion illegal for everyone (which again, it's not what actually happened), but I'm also against how abortion has became a political statement, how the science and morality of it is discounted by leftists and feminists, and by how some people normalized it so much that they act as if it was a natural, normal and positive thing. An abortion is a traumatic event, whether they are able to admit it or whether they prefer to hyper-compensate with crazy tantrums of all sorts.

@@magnumopus1628 look hear me out aint no such things as jewish as in religion and agnostic also

Fuck

asgubyhdcashjkdbTHE LORE RUNS DEEP

You what the fffffuuuuuuuu

It should be obvious, Olly is untethered in time

He’s even reading the same newspaper at the beginning when the guy wakes up.

87eargasm no he’s a child in a trench coat isn’t he

Bah...you and your ethics.

Is he really? He barely looks 18.

anything earlier than 150 trimesters is fine

Laws exist to be changed. Clearly Ben Shapiro is the result of a legal oversight and the mistake has to be rectified.

Adult edgelord.

Complete nonsense, which he proves by not being able to address a single his arguments without making a logical fallacy.

SAME!

Bro doubled up on the agitprop

This comment is even more relevant now

Given the very recent events, indeed.

Yup. I spent the day of the ruling getting blitzed doing shots, and watching this video and the Fundie Fridays one.

"I'm not racist, my dog is black!"

I don't hate slaves, I own several...

Rocco Anders 😆 Haven’t heard that one. I’m stealing it. Yonk!!!

Ben "my wife is a doctor" Shapiro

"I don't hate Jews, I own several" -Adolf Hitler

Except there is no need for anyone to die when dealing with abortion. You are also saying that objects that have less value than other objects have no value.

@@JohnJohn-yp5vp But you see, don't you, that a live, born, breathing baby is very different from an embryo.

@@kirklarson4536 1#, this completely fails to address my points made above. Are you admitting that your analogy was useless? 2#, Your entire point right now is that since two things are different one must have less value than the other. This is a false-dichotomy, and nothing more.

@@JohnJohn-yp5vp so what would you choose in that situation? kill 10 "human" or 1?

@@JohnJohn-yp5vp The analogy is not useless. Are you admitting you'd leave the baby to burn?

haha also almost checked the settings for 2x speed

Charlize Lilly yup, same lol. He did that waaay too well.

Yeah I had to slow down the video to understand what he was saying.

i watch videos at 1.25x speed by default so his ben shapiro stuff made me feel like i was having a stroke

I swear I thought the same thing

💀

I would say his poor wife but she don’t know what she missin 😂😂😭

I don't know if i'm glad that i don't know the context, or if i'm sad. Because Ben Shapiro being sexually incompetent is... obvious. But i feel like i might feel pity for the poor sod if i knew just how sad that was. And... eh, screw it, knowledge is always good, time to DuckDuckGo it... what a ride this will be... ...Oh. Oh my. Poor Ben. I feel so bad for his wife.

@@Loki-pz1uk eh, she probably gets it from someone else on the side anyway. Can you imagine anything more horrific than being in a permanent monogamous relationship with that guy?

Moikle I certainly hope not. I advocate for people to communicate and separate if they don’t feel like they can’t peacefully be polyamorous. No point in lying to significant others.

That's hard. I see you. I wish that hadn't happened and I wish your family and health system were better. Take care.

✊✌️💛🖖

Really, this video is just bad faith arguing, and strawmans, he misrepresents his positions multiple times he’s prostate force pregnancy, which is just absolute nonsense and that’s not his position he’s never implied that’s his position, that’s just a flat out lie, The production quality in the video is amazing, but the analogy and the argumentation is awful.

@@pleaseenteraname1103 Shabibo wants state forced pregnancy, that’s what being pro-life is. Not very libertarian of him.

@@marajade9573 Again another regurgitated pro-choice talking point, if you believe in limited government how come you are against abortion, because governments fundament Job is to protect people, it’s a perfectly consistent position, that’s like sayingIf you’re for limited government and how come you’re against human trafficking.

@@pleaseenteraname1103 Women government? Wtf are you even talking about? And I don’t consider embryos or fetuses to be people. Even if they were, they don’t have any right to infringe on a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. And before you say that the woman is infringing on their right to life, she isn’t. She’s removing it from her body. The fact that it can’t survive outside is not her problem.

@@marajade9573 again another regurgitated pro-choice talking point, it absolutely is a human that’s undeniable, in order to think that you have to disconnect yourself from reality, and the fetus or embryo whatever you wanna call it I didn’t ask to be born, it didn’t choose to be born, it’s not infringing on the woman’s right, A woman has the right to do whatever she wants her own body as long as it doesn’t harm others, and I know you’re gonna say well it’s a parasite, or make a comparison like that well it’s not a parasite, because a parasite chooses to attach itself to somebody, A baby does not and having a baby that’s not physically hurt a woman, unless you could talk about extreme cases or you could read miscarriages but beyond that it doesn’t, that’s just life I didn’t choose to be born you didn’t choose to be born. One Ben Shapiro is not a libertarian he’s probably said that a few times meaning he believes in limited government, but ultimately he’s not, and to my point about government was your saying he claims to be from the government then how come he’s against abortion, that’s a perfectly consistent position the government’s fundamental job is to protect life. And I want you to know something I know this is gonna sound insane like you’re not gonna believe it but the reason why I’m against abortion now I know this is gonna be insane it’s not because I hate Women, i’m not saying you think this but a lot of pro-choice people think this and if you think that the only reason somebody’s against abortion is because they hate women you’re delusional you need to get a reality check.

UltimateBurstLP any remotely sexual theme and ben shapiro should be kept far, far apart in my mind

I would like to second this sentiment

@@thefelicits In my (limited) experience leftist men are more likely to be the ones to want to be controlled, not the ones doing the controlling

@@thefelicits That's a very heteronormative thing to say. I'm a man, my boyfriend is a man, I'm a dom, he's a sub. You wanna know something fun? He's the kinky one. I'd have never gotten into that space if he hadn't expressed interest in it. And, another thing that's often missed when viewed from the outside: In these relationships, it's most often the sub who's in control.

@@thefelicits Haha wait, you mean Olly Thorn, the bi-est of bisexual RU-vidrs? Also, doesn't matter, you made a general statement about people in kink spaces.

Literally.... same...

Wait wtf is up with this guy above me

mike bob sorry sir, but what the fuck?

Christine Uh I’m guess it’s “that’s unbelievable for and also women are barely human and lie all the time” Which is weird in a whole lot of gross ways, but also I likewise got a Ben Shapiro ad before this so it’s not even a little bit implausible that you were telling the truth?

I also got one for one of his friend's Chanel being demonized.

All philosophical objections aside, the autonomy argument has its limits, if true it shows that abortion should not be illegal, but it doesn’t show that it’s moral. I’ll use a similar but more accurate version of the argument: ‘you shouldn’t be forced to give blood to your child, even if doing so is the only way to save their life’. While true that you can’t be forced to save your child’s life most people would accept that letting your child die when you have the sole ability to save them is highly immoral. And wouldn’t those around them do their best to persuade that person to save their child? You wouldn’t just praise their ability to choose to let them die.

@@swihun8930 It seems as though you just made a pro-choice argument and agreed with it? I, personally, have a severe phobia of surgery beyond belief. Why would I be forced, by law, to forgo my individual bodily rights? Surgery terrifies me beyond belief.

@@TheLegendOfRandy I’m not making a legalistic point. For the sake of argument that I concede that you cannot make abortion illegal just as you cannot force someone to donate blood to save their child’s life. I’m saying that abortion would still be immoral, autonomy is what you should be allowed to do, it doesn’t make something right. If you can save your child and choose not to this is an immoral action. In your case, imagine you were a bone marrow match for a close family member. You wouldn’t be legally obliged to donate bone marrow to save their life but I think we’d both agree it would be the right thing to do. And that others around you should encourage you to do the right thing and work around your fear of surgery in any way possible. If you’re pro-choice because of the autonomy argument but don’t object to the point that a foetus is an innocent human being (and your own child at that) then you should oppose abortion morally just as much as any pro-lifer. You should seek to reduce abortion in any way that you can, not get one yourself, and encourage others around you not to get one either.

@@swihun8930 This argument only works up until the point when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb. People who support late term abortion would be actively murdering the child who might have survived without its mother, and therefore under your argument that should be illegal

@@swihun8930Your argument brings up some interesting questions. If the only moral option is that the mother donates bone marrow to her child, then does this moral obligation apply only to one's children? One's relatives? Does it matter whether you know the person or not? If donating your bone marrow could save the life of someone you'll never meet, are you morally obligated to make that donation? After all, what makes your genetic lineage more important, more deserving than someone else's? Additionally, if we're considering a person's innocence (or perhaps "worthiness" would be a better word, since my understanding is that what makes a fetus innocent is that they've done nothing wrong?), who's decision should it be to determine whether someone is deserving enough or not, and what criteria should be used? Must they have a clean criminal history? Be without parking tickets? Sufficiently contribute to society? Believe in the right religion? Follow the right sports teams? What makes one person more worthy of life than another? And what if it's not bone marrow, but a kidney, or a portion of your liver? All medical and surgical interventions carry risks - up to and including death. The same is true for pregnancy. Are you morally obligated to risk you life (or die) for someone else? What does that say about the worth of your life compared to theirs? Lastly - and not so much a question as an observation - you imply that if a person is pro-choice, then it must also be true they do not seek to reduce the frequency of abortions, as if the two are mutually exclusive. Looking at the data, banning or restricting abortions isn't a particularly effective way to decrease the rate at which they occur (they simply go underground at that point and you end up with a lot more dead pregnant women). Much more effective methods include ensuring high-quality age-appropriate sex education (i.e. younger kids learn about things like consent, and older kids learn about their changing bodies, how sex works, etc), access to effective birth control, access quality healthcare, and access to services such as childcare, paid maternity and paternity leave, food assistance, etc. Most of the pro-choice people I know are for many, if not all, of those things - and bodily autonomy. Supporting one does not preclude the other.

Problem is, everyone automatically breathes. You only have an abortion if *you choose* to have one.

Sometimes to prove a point to someone you have to do 1 of 2 things. Either make it extreme and exaggerated......... or make it personal. Its easy to stand on the outside and say what should happen to a criminal. But when my daughter is that criminal? What how my condemnation and judgement changes. Making the argument extreme forces you to deal with the underlying question rather than focus on all the other pitty pat things about the topic. Do you like ICE CREAM!? (You go into it being high in sugar and fat and being lactose intolerant..... and all that other crap) (So I go extreme or personal about it.) DO YOU LIKE ICE CREAM!? YES OR NO!?! IF you dont give me a straight up answer Im going to XYZ you!!! Yes. I like Ice Cream. Thank You! I didnt ask you if you about all that other nonsense. All that other stuff added to it draws people away from the main question. YES. or NO. Were talking about TASTE not CONSEQUENCE.

​@@RacingSnails64 That's not what they were arguing you know that right, you only need basic reading comprehension to understand that. Also not all abortions are by choice, so that's just wrong too. By definition a miscarriage is an abortion and obviously those rarely occur by choice.

Shapiro uses a ridiculous amount of strawman arguments. It's almost caricatural, for instance when he's making arguments against abortion : he first compares an embryon to a sleeping guy (he says a sleeping guy isn't sentient, yet his life is valuable and therefore you shouldn't abort because the embryon, although not sentient, is comparable to a sleeping person), but that example doesn't work because you may consider a sleeping person as sentient (since he's dreaming, was concious a few hours ago and will wake up in a few hours as well). Since his previous comparison doesn't work very well, he compares an embryon to a guy in the coma. But then his argument doesn't work that well either, because unplugging someone who won't ever find his sentience back is a thing and it's not that uncommon. Since his previous comparison doesn't work either, he then compares it to a guy who's in the coma but will awaken in 9 month. But again, the examples he states can't quite match the reality of an embryon or a fœtus : a guy who's in the coma for 9 month had a life before the coma, and will find his memories back afterwards. Since again his arguments don't work, he compares it to a guy who's in the coma for 9 month but won't ever find his past memories back because he'll a a blackout. How caricatural can he be ? He's always talking about the fact that an embryon is potential life and potential sentience, but what else it potential sentience ? Sperm... yet no one seems to care when you just... wank

The slippery slope fallacy. One of ben’s faves 😂

What are you talking about? There is evidence of him starting a fire in this very video. You watch him do it.

@@spunkmckunkle5604 it's a joke

I'm not an arsonist, I'm a fire realist.

@@icee711 as was mine, since the "fire" in the video was a match.

@@spunkmckunkle5604 oh shi-

Thank you! I thought I was the only one. I choked up pretty bad.

@@xaviercosme1284 My mind went flat out ohhhh damn

Honestly was really glad I saw this comment early on and was expecting it might have been about that so it was... Less shocking. That seriously sucks though.

Admittedly, it's a damn good example to make the point about body autonomy... In some ways it seems irrelevant to this discussion, but yet it shows the flip side of how much having a choice about our own bodies and treatment options matters, not only in terms of who lives but also in terms of having the right to choose risks in our lives... There's that song by I think Janis Joplin sings it... I was never a big fan of it, yet it tends to pop in my mind at various moments in life, the noteworthy words being, "freedom's just another word for 'nothing left to lose'". I used to mull those words around in my head as a child, trying to understand them. They didn't seem logical to me. Until one day, I suddenly realized the meaning and the truth behind it, and throughout my life, I've had many moments of loss when the words have come back to me, ringing with truth. I'm not sure why I felt like sharing that, as I'm thinking logically now that it doesn't seem to cover the topic at hand, yet it seems like in a way it's still relevant, though admittedly I'm not entirely sure how to explain why. That tends to be true when the words come to mind, but eventually it's like my logical mind will get caught up with whatever part of my mind is responsible for determining the appropriate mental sound track for a moment. I've always taken stock and been thankful that I do still have plenty to lose. As much as I've lost... There's still always been significantly more that I still have, and I'm thankful for that. When I originally sought to understand the lyrics, I thought it was referring to possessions or finances, which is why I didn't get it... It seemed like one could potentially be freer if you were loaded with money than broke and starving... Not that wealth is at all the same as happiness, and arguably happiness and freedom are entirely different, though ideally they would co exist... It seems like they seem equal when we think about about them, as if freedom equals happiness, though if truely being free means you've got nothing left to lose, I'd argue that joy and freedom are very different... I still wouldn't argue that they aren't related, as I don't think one can generally be but so happy if they aren't free, in the sense of being free from captivity, and I guess to tie back into the topic at hand, free to have a certain level of personal bodily autonomy. That's not to say people can't experience moments of happiness in whatever their situation... It's said that Anne Frank found some moments of joy in being able to be outdoors when she was at the camp she ended up dying in, and I've seen many situations which are not happy, but people still manage to find some ways to find a way to experience some joyful moments still. Though it's not really the same as being happy in that situation. My sis would be cracking jokes and we'd find any way we could to be goofy and find ways to have happiness during her extensive time in the hospital, many many times, in the last two years she was alive, she spent around half of it in hospital, and she wasn't even treated very well by many doctors and that's not the point I'm trying to make, it's been a little over a year since I lost her and it seems like she's not really gone and yet... She definately is, and it doesn't matter that she was treated horribly by many people and she... Honestly I think if doctors had met her even halfway and even somewhat managed her pain, she would still be here and she'd be ok, but there's nowhere to fine an appeal, and as young as 24 is to die, I know there's young children who die... There was the 16 year old girl who got the lung transplant, and that certainly seems worthy of appeal. Yet, I can understand why she would have chosen the surgery. While I obviously don't know anything beyond what was stated in this video, it seems likely that she could have had CF, though I guess it isn't relevant... I can understand why someone would choose to risk the surgery, though. I know that only the most urgent needy cases are offered the limited organs avalible, so it's likely she was dying regardless, just at a slower rate than I gather occurred as result of the surgery. She was likely afraid of the risk of dying (not to mention, I'd have to be pretty damn despairate even if not for the other risks, to sign up to have my chest and ribs... Yeah. That can't feel good or be an easy recovery). But it seems like she was choosing to take the risk in order to get to *live*... Not just in the literal sense, but in the sense of being able to live life rather than constantly fight to manage to barely keep surviving. Yet I also know that often the able bodied population assumes it would be miserable to have a severe chronic condition or disability... There's definately the idea among many that if they reached a certain level of impairment, they'd rather die, and that's clearly another topic (though also not really), but I realize I'm rambling and I've got migraine moving in so idk what my overall point is, I'm fairly sure I didn't say it, haha... I guess it's just interesting to think about these things. The more I learn, the more I know I don't know, and maybe if I have a point, it's just that everything exists along a spectrum, and we are each individuals, so everything really is much more in a gray area than the binary way of thinking that tends to be much more emotionally comfortable. And often it seems we assume that laws should be moral, and I suppose I'd agree with that, or rather at least that laws should not be immoral. There's plenty of instances where I feel like the ethical choice should not be legally required, though, and I think that's where people often butt heads on those that seem like the big ticket items morally speaking. Laws and ethics shouldn't be entirely separate of course, but I think it's easy to see things more straightforward than they are. Even with the topic of abortion, I think too often it's assumed that laws are able to dictate behavior, yet when looked at objectively, making abortion illegal does not equate with it not still occurring. Heck, most of us see ourselves as never breaking laws, but that's not objectively true if you've ever ignoring speed limit while driving. I mean, heck, I suppose to a point that's not really a relevant argument since murder is also illegal, yet people still do it, and the vast majority of people would agree that murder is wrong and should be illegal. Maybe it's worth thinking about *why* murder is widely accepted as not just wrong and immoral but also illegal. I guess because we would not want people to be able to murder, and since it's a severe crime, when someone murders and is caught, they are sent to jail hopefully long enough that the public is safe from future murders from them. I know murder seems like an obvious thing to make illegal, and I agree, I guess I'm just wondering what qualities make it so clearly accepted as something that should be illegal, since it seems like it would help to consider those reasons in other contexts. Even if we think about why murder is such a widely accepted horrible crime, it seems worth thinking about it independent of other crimes, and then questioning if the same logic can be applied in other behaviors that some think should be crimes. It would be interesting to consider if abortion would be seen as the same level of crime as murder to those who believe it is the same action... I'd imagine that most the reasons we generally lock up murderers wouldn't be the same reasoning if applied to abortions. Even if it seems like the same crime to someone morally, I think most people would not be afraid to have someone who's had an abortion walking around as a free person vs if someone had murdered a person in the traditional sense. The person who's had an abortion doesn't seem to pose a likely risk to the public, vs murderer... I would be concerned about, haha.

Especially after the sperm machine joke

As a recovered catholic (raised in the church and left as a teengaer but with all my family still in it) I was like... hang on I recognise this argument as a bad thing.

Yes.

Wow turns out catholics are twice as stupid lmao

Yes catholics are against fertility clinics

Certainly, that's not a bad thing, that's because life is sacred and the act of conception is a sacred act. You should stop slandering us, we are good people just with a very different metaphysical framework from you.

to be fair, i don't think she devised it. it's from the paper cited.

Yes! I always turn captions on because english isn't my first language and I miss some things without captions, and it's always great!

lilla ivanich I had no idea! Definitely watching w/captions from now on.

Absolutely added some extra fun to this video

"Mlg sad violins" :D

Omg

What is your mum was a mobile?

My favorite episode is the current reality

I was thinking the same thing.😆

It's actually better than any episode of Black Mirror.

LMFAOOO

Yes they do dumba$$

actually that’s an exception right there, if the pregnancy is endangering the life of the mother then she can get an abortion

@@clapped-cheeks In states where abortion is illegal, hospitals may refuse to terminate a pregnancy that risks the mother's life, because they might then have to prove the procedure was not _probably_ necessary, but _absolutely_ necessary. Abortion might be delayed until the mother is literally dying, bleeding out or in shock from sepsis or whatever they think will satisfy a conservative judge. It's not a matter of medical judgement anymore but legal ass-covering by the hospital's lawyers, to keep the surgical team from being arrested, and in some cases sued by third parties.

@@clapped-cheeks if you actually follow what's happening in the US, you can stumble upon MULTIPLE cases where abortion was denied even when the mother's life was in danger. In texas, the abortion law means a woman has to continue her pregnancy even when the fetus has a fatal anomaly, meaning it won't survive outside of the womb.

Really the production value in this video is really good, but the argumentation was absolutely awful, and the analogy with the violinist was terrible.

@@pleaseenteraname1103 the production value is good. I found the argument, when made abstract, very good. Kinda odd set up with the characters but it seems to fit the situation really well.

@@Bellg peace✌️

What did you find compelling about his argumentation, at times he doesn’t even address his actual points he just makes up points for him, an example he said his prostate for some pregnancy, which is absolutely not true, and I’m not gonna get into all the reasons but his violinist analogy fails on so many levels.

@@antheaempson8735 if you valued peace you wouldn't kill

To me at least, I find a stark beauty in human anotomy and medicine. Seeing how a heart beats have an odd yet intriuging draw to me. Though to have to ait through ben shaperio was one of the most challenging events intellectually for me. I swear every moment he speaks it causes more braincells to shut down their synapses.

accurate. medicine is a fascinating subject, Ben Shapiro is disgusting.

@starvingartistmc It very much depends on the person. Quite a many people cannot help but internalize the deforming of the functioning body that renders them deeply uncomfortable to see a surgery cutting into people or potentially animals. For myself, I cannot avoid getting into the hypothetical headspace of suffering or dying animals, so I've had to ask my vet tech girlfriend to not tell me stories of animal trauma or tragedy at work.

@starvingartistmc I agree it is a perspective thing. It is not something everyone has trouble with. It is also not a deliberative response, but an immediate visceral one. And, for most people, something that can be overcome with repeated exposure if their interest is to treat animals in that fashion. And there are times when a dog's stitches break as they're leaving the hospital and their guts pour out and the only thing to do is to scoop'm up and take the dog back into surgery. And plenty of antibiotics in the followup treatment. :\

@starvingartistmc Yeah, It is specifically those stories that I ask my girlfriend not to share. We actually have a cat that we fostered, then adopted, that died while being rescued from a hoarder because of severe malnutrition and anemia due to flea infestation. (She arrested during transport.) Fortunately she got better and was successfully resuscitated at the intake facility. I call her Zombie and she is the most aggressively cuddly cat in the world. All she wants to do is curl up with you and purr in your face. I joke that she died for our sins and is my personal lord and savior.

It’s so close that if he shaved and got and cut his hair for the bit I would have called the police

Pretty dead on...

DisasterMIDI he’d also have to shrink about a foot and a half

I know!! Its scary. I was almost shouting counter arguments at my phone. I had to stop myself and remind myself its not actually ben

It really helped me realize Ben’s style is far greater than the content of his arguments.

I know right? I'm going to re-watch it

...but enough about how Ben spends his weekends, let's talk about the video instead.

Ben Shapiro DESTROYED by Philosopher in a Sex Dungeon

Philosopher? I think you mean ARSONIST!

Jack Akimbo 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾

I don't know about this stuff would you please explain it to me why it's funny

A. Dola MgMk “Evangelicals” refers to a certain type of Christian, specifically part of certain sects in the Southern United States. Baptists fit perfectly into the category of Evangelicals, so saying “I’m not Evangelical, I was raised Baptist” is absurd on multiple levels.

As someone raised baptist: most Baptists don't see themselves as evangelical. We also all learned the Roman Road, an evangelical technique, in Sunday school at my church.

@@travdump209 thank you so much!

@@eterlinblue99 i totally agree! i almost mentioned how i've never met a Baptist who didn't think mission work was important (because "spreading god's word"/evangelis, is a huge part of baptism), but I figured the Roman Road comment would get my point across! In case you aren't aware, the Roman Road is a series of verses that's sort of the first line a lot of Christians use when trying to convert someone. I was just making a joke about how we all didn't think we were evangelical, but we were teaching kids (and learning as kids) how to proselytize and, yeah, evangelize.

Yuppp

Same

The arsonists have been out of the woodwork since 2014-2016.

I did, literally, groan at that one. The puns in this one are torturous and delicious.

That totally went over my head.

I mean, him butchering that Haydn was pretty graphic

This one went over my head

@@ramywiles *"him butchering that Haydn"* - Are you talking about Shapiro? I'll have to go back and re-watch/re-listen; I think I zoned out for a bit at that point.

LOL, that is way too funny.

You dummy, he probably just took a picture of himself

Be great if at the end he exclaimed "Thanks for watching!" in a bright Scouse accent

omg hahahaha

Lmao I saw this comment before I actually got to the end and then spat.

Good luck 👍🏻

Hope it went well and your mother was receptive.

I am God’s messiah! I support women’s rights

it's been a year, I hope things are going well for you.

(27:55)

He even got the annoying camera angles down

He’s alright but he needs to be louder and his voice needs to be more nasal and high pitched.

@@edienandy theres only so far you can go before it starts making the video unenjoyable.

Yup

and, considering how shitty some of the other cinematic universes are, all fund money should be pulled from those and given to the Philosophy Tube Cinematic Universe.

He's using the "generic american accent"

Nice. How'd I miss that?!

hehe load

"Loaded"

*loaded*

Goddamn this comment is on fire

Erik Amundson damn right. Even down to his stupid head tilting forward while frowning in an attempt to look menacing. He nailed it.

It looks Sooo uncanny how much he nails down Shitpiro

Erik Amundson ha!

Watching too much Ben Shapiro ruins a man's suave

@@Scroteydada 💯💯💯

seeing your enemies routed and defeated before you is just so very satisfying

wont be. cry

@@greyghost2492 you aren't alright in the head

@@atheistmando4976 "insane in the membrane"

You do have the freedom to choose not to. It's called don't put sperm in your vagina while ovulating if you don't want to. But yeah pregnancy is nuts. It sucks hard. 100% with you there. Just think your "the choice to have a child" is just you looking through your silly rose-tinted goggles. Everybody has the choice to not have a child. Some people are just "pro-choice" which means they think that choice extends well into when you already have a child.

Very ‘The Arsonist’

he meant he couldn't bear to smoke another cigarette for the rest of the day

A Mint cigarette and a good actor goes quite a long way in terms of illusions. I think that's all the mystery going on here.

also, the lighting of the cigarrette there? it was just made just to make it a lot of smoke, but doesnt light up.

I think it was an allusion to our right to bodily autonomy and that we have the right to do things to our bodies even when they are utterly harmful to us

Needs more "lets say, lets say" in there when straw manning

It never fails to make me laugh how his ads so clearly demonstrate the age of his audience.

What about ads for caffeine pills?

Don't forget about the ad for food stocks for natural disasters. in the land of Ben Shapiro even disaster relief is privatised

He has more ad breaks then a telemarketing channel!

And here I am, back again, since Roe v Wade was overturned. 😮‍💨

I had no idea it was fully compliant with Alabama Code Title 16 on Sexual Education. I love learning little details and trivia like that. Can't wait to sneak it into conversation at work tomorrow!

The Predators mouth would be censored in an Alabama sex ed book.

"I'll consent to a robust gameplay but I must ask you to stop trying to sell me Skyrim, Todd"

Omg its todd howard

Or just get fucking slapped

Gave me really kinky vibes :D :3

?

Okay this made me chuckle

Especially with the line, "can have babby"

*sensible chuckle*

@@Snow-sx5ev Well, I chortled at this (and that's fancier, and louder, than chuckling.)

@@carolyntalbot947 oh yeah, well I exhaled slightly faster out of my nose, the peak of sophistication

A real world historical example of what happens when you ban abortion is Romania under Ceaușescu. Lots of abandoned children languishing neglected in orphanages.

Have you checked how many lives have been cost in the last year alone due to abortion. Saying it costs more lives that it saves... No

@Dru Smith @Baguette Gott you are both right btw

@@Savevade Your body, your choice regardless of the situation

Miscarriage is not the same as an abortion you dumbfuck.

I know what you mean...if ot gets to weird for me i just imagine the guy in the videos is abbys cute little brother ;)

It's uncanny how interchangeable these conservative pundits are.

Lmao holy shit you're right

@@Arrakiz666 not really, no. JBP is more demure and talks about random mythology bullshit

It was already hard on 1.25 😄

LMFAO

jeova0sanctus0unus **starts crying**

🤣😭

🤣😂🤣

one of his best lines imo

Hi, just trying to rationalize an opinion here, the gene analogy is great food for thought, even if the parent was aware of the gene and had 9 children all to die I dont think we could justify making a Monty Python organ donor skit on him, I agree However, not eviscerating him is an non action, abortion is very much an action, might be a difference there. How would you justify that a conjoined twin killing their sibling as a way to uphold his own body autonomy should be legally punishable, but a woman killing his child for the same reasons (and considering the two as human just like the video) should not Just curious for your opinion, have a good day

He'd either implode or fall madly in love.

Val Far please, please let it be the second one

@@pholkos But spontaneous combustion is fun too.

Shapiro would destroy him

@@joshconnell8797 daddy Benjamin can't hear you down here

my personal favorite is [violins playing like "Oh shiiiiiiiiiiiit"]

my personal favorite is [violins playing like "Oh shiiiiiiiiiiiit"]

I fired up my bowl at that moment ;-)

that’s what the edibles are for

Watching this video high seems likely to cause a bad trip though.

@@ScorpionViper1001 Can verify that weed doesnt really cause "trips". Are you sure youre not confusing drugs like a sober person?

Tayl Fyfe i have def tripped on weed before if you have a low enough tolerance or fuck w edibles or potent shit you can trip. especially after fucking w cid and shrooms and others it changes the way weed affects you afterwards more trippy at least for a bit.

unironically better written than most film villains. he's like a regular dr. lecter

@@saintbeau2779 he wouldnt feel out of place in a film noir

DAMN

i thought of this as soon as the arsonist mentioned a 'fire', reckon he put his wife into that very scenario

Sometimes, after you point that out, they say things like "um wait the embryos! I don't care if its not my kid!" Or "the kid might be able to get out on his own!" So they really just dont care about people

Kelvin Caraballo That's not really equivalent. However, I will agree that the reason people pick the child isn't because of reason or logic. It's because people have an innate instinct to protect children. Which is why most people would pick saving an eight year old over a sixteen year old.

trashbabytrash bad argument. I would save a 5 year old over an eighty year old

I'm just wondering how he knows what domming feels like.

@@Sackofbooks clearly he's into some BDSM/other kinky shit

@@Sackofbooks I would be shocked if Olly wasn't into BDSM, lol.

Sackobooks ‘Cause Olly F U C K S .

@@Sackofbooks She dommed before. Maybe in a sex dungeon not dissimilar from the one in the scene.

And even if we had all those amazing policies, there would still be many arguments for providing abortions.

@@danielemazzali9810So true. So very very true... Ironically if there were such a world where Republicans were equally just as oppressive with "sharing"their socially conservative values as they are in our world yet somehow are anti capital punishment and so big on social safety nets they would make Bernie blush. Even if they were somehow completely and totally that ideologically consistent they still loose the argument they make themselves repeatedly. There's NO justifiable argument for taking away the Rights of citizens due to the personal beliefs of others. The flawed logic behind this is similarly as flawed an idea as some on the left have with thinking that policing all comments by bad actors on the internet is actually sustainable.

💯👏

I mean that it's what he is here for I guess, Philosophy, he would try to tackle the issue from that angle

lol this vid is absolutely illogical, here's quickly why: You mentioned fertilized eggs that don't make it because of natural means (7:00 ish). This does not relate to abortion because it is not active killing rather it is a natural death. Abortion is active killing of what would otherwise grow to be a birthed baby. The difference is intention. For example, intention has a lot of weight in the court of law. Look at 1st degree vs 2nd and 3rd-degree murder and the difference of punishment therein. If a woman falls down a staircase by accident it is not intended and therefore you could morally say it is a tragic mistake. If someone beats a woman's stomach to kill her baby, you would deduce this is morally detestable. As far as I know, the medical protocol is to choose the mother over the baby in a high-risk pregnancy. Unless the parties involved sign an AMA (against medical advice) on the decision. The scenario in 8:40 does not parallel abortion either because when a person consents to sex they are consenting to the potential and actual results of sex, that's the nature of sex and all people that engage in sex are aware of it. The man tied to Paulo did not consent to give blood to another... It doesn't match the reality of abortion. Your whole argument collapses with the realization of consent to sex yields consent to the potential and actual results of sex. 17:13 again, like you said "deliberately" which is intent to murder her child. This is clearly not "morally okay." Here's an argument that is at the core of it, I'll flip it on you: Let's say a fetus is not a baby (which it isn't yet). The fetus has potential and a will to live on through natural development (that is consent to live according to its own ability). Which we have already concluded is consented to because of sex. What abortion is doing is actively ending that natural progression of a potentially born baby that is BOTH a separate human AND a being with his/her own unique and separate DNA. That is a fact. I would say that constitutes as morally reprehensible. Thanks for listening to my TEDtalk.

@@user-yn2ct2ie9m Well you make quite interesting points, I'll try and answer them using my interpretation of what Oliver is saying as best I can since I'd rather not weigh in on this issue with my own opinion for reasons. I believe what Oliver was saying on the matter of fertilised eggs was more on the matter of them causing millions of, according to Ben Shapiro, full human lives- not the motive behind it. Saying that death is massively different because it's natural doesn't really work, since it implies that if I decided to avoid helping my Grandfather get up after he fell down that would be fine- since he starved to death naturally. The point was that if fertilised eggs are considered full people then millions of full people dying in fertility clinics should be abhorrent, just as millions of people dying from a natural disaster is- to the extent where we take measures to prevent those natural deaths from occurring. The scenario in 8:40 is not meant to parallel all abortion, it is meant to parallel abortion in which a person had no choice. For example a rape victim which Ben Shapiro believes should not be allowed to terminate the pregnancy, in this regard it succeeds as a rape victim does not consent to sex, nor the possible results of sex. The point made at 17:13 is something I disagree with the phrasing of, but I think the idea was that just because something happens naturally does not make it any better than if it happens due to human intervention. I don't think a woman starving herself is a natural extension of this, but you could also say that refusing to allow a child treatment for a terminal illness would be completely fine according to the nature vs human action argument, which is just as murderous as Ben Shapiro claims abortion is. The argument of a fetus does not have the will to live, it does not have a brain or any major degree of sentience that can be compared to a grown human. In addition it cannot live on by itself outside of the womb (there are cases of aborted fetuses surviving the procedure, in which case there is a completely different argument to be made which a lot less left-wing people support the killing of). But by that same natural death vs unnatural death argument, choosing to remove a fetus from the womb and allowing it to perish naturally would be acceptable since it's happening due to nature and inaction. And of course you could say that that is indeed different, since it's human action that causes it to be removed. But remember that it's also human action causing those embryos mentioned in the beginning to be fertilised in the first place, putting them into a situation in which they will doubtlessly perish. I'm not sure how accurate this response is, but I hope it's something you can enjoy thinking through and rebutting, I certainly found yours interesting to read.

@@user-yn2ct2ie9m *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap*

@@pissedoffturtle7333 If you're genuinely looking for a response then I feel honored and I'll give you one. Let's leave Ben Shapiro out of this dialogue for the sake of logical consistency without distractions. The situation with the grandpa does not correlate to the situation of abortion simply because sex potentially yields pregnancy. Engaging in consensual sex is consent to the actual and potential results of sex. In this hypothetical, what you do does not yield the situation with your grandpa. This is one reason why they don't match up and why Oliver's reasoning does not make sense. The choice is made when a couple engages in consensual sex. Both parties consenting to sex are consenting to the potential and actual results of sex. Sex has natural results such as pregnancy. Therefore, both parties who consent to sex consent to the potential and actual results of sex such as pregnancy. Regarding rape pregnancies (which are a very low minority of cases), these situations should be taken on a case by case basis regarding abortion. HOWEVER, why should the minority of cases dictate national law? Saying that all abortion should be legal because of a small minority commits a fallacy known as "hasty generalization." Regarding this, I think we should refer to the 1-3rd-degree murder example. Would you say it is morally the same for someone to accidentally push someone over a bridge or for someone to purposely push someone over a bridge? Also, refusing to treat a child for a terminal illness is still deliberate. The intention is found in not treating a treatable illness (and the child has a will to live in the case of the fetus-- also, again, abortion is active not passive). Pregnancy is not a terminal illness nor an illness at all. It is the most natural aspect of human life; reproduction. To deny that is to agree all pregnancies must be terminated effective immediately or it is a moral dilemma to not treat the "illness" of pregnancy. Finally, a fetus DOES have a will to live because, if it is not ended by abortion (human intervention), the fetus will naturally develop to become a born baby. So, according to its capability, it very clearly shows a will to live. Gestation is the natural course of human development, abortion is to end that without consent, this constitutes as murder. Also, yes you're right, I would say that human action (intent) is taking the fetus out of the womb in your hypoethetical. It is unnatural to remove a fetus from the womb so that argument collapses. So in the hypothetical, it was never a natural death to begin with because there is human action. You rebutted this by saying, "it's also human action causing those embryos mentioned in the beginning to be fertilised in the first place, putting them into a situation in which they will doubtlessly perish." I'll rebut by saying it is not the conception that causes them to be in that situation. It is not a causal relationship from sex to pregnancy to abortion. That's not the natural cycle. The natural cycle is sex, pregnancy, birth. To change the last step is human intervention (in this case murder). Hope this helps!

Not enough Shakey breaths.

Don't you think that this analogy is wrong in the sense that Tom is not responsible for the kidney failure? Tom did not caused it nor was responsible for it. Maybe the kidney failure was because of irresponsible health habits or just genetics, but how is Tom responsible for that? I don't know any pregnant woman who does not know that unprotected sex can lead to pregnancies, so responsibility is definitely a factor there (assuming the pregnancy was not caused by rape). Dragging Tom into that situation is not analogous to "forcing" a woman to have a baby, because the fetus got there in the first place by a decision of the woman (again assuming it was not rape). I'm not saying that abortion is right or wrong, I'm just saying that it is a faulty analogy.

@@fluffy_tail4365 "And in that case the male partner is as responsible as the woman" I agree, but what that has to do with assuming that the value of the woman's decision is higher than the value of human life? Also, the man gets weight in the form of financial responsibility because of now we can't make the man pregnant.

@@carlosfdz7807 " I agree, but what that has to do with assuming that the value of the woman's decision is higher than the value of human life? " Well, that's the topic of the video??? Why anyone should be forced to give away their bodily autonomy at any time to sustain someone else without their consent, especially if you never agreed? People are not forced to give up kidneys if they want to and can pull out from the agreement up until the last minute

@@fluffy_tail4365 "People are not forced to give up kidneys if they want to and can pull out from the agreement up until the last minute" Of course, but that why I mentioned that dialysis exists. That particular decision will not cost the violinist life because he can be in dialysis until someone volunteers with a kidney. That way the violinist life is preserved and Tom's rights are not violated.

He’s a heartbreaker...

It's actually a Theater trick he held the match on top of the cigarette and only charred the top a bit didn't actually light it

As a recently ex-smoker I was irrationally angry with that entire sequence of first missing the cigarette altogether, then just barely lighting the edge lol

and a callback to the line at the beginning about "no smoking in the theatre"

@@dwc1964 To be fair he failed pretty hard at lighting that smoke ;)

He could have just got a mint cigarette like they do in movies