Another Bad Argument Against Abortion | Gohan (he/him) - TX | Skeptic Generation E1S16 

"Rapes don't agree to have sex"... It's not sex, dude, it's RAPE. Rape is the verb, not the noun.

This should not be a debate at all. Well said Vi. These people are about control, not life.

“Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.” Vi, this is a perfect retort to the “pregnancy is a risk to having sex and you have to live with your choices” argument. Thank you!!

in the case of the violinist argument, if i'm hooked up to ANYONE against my will, and if i decide to disconnect from them, they die--then THEY ARE GOING TO DIE. no other arguments or scenarios, tough stuff for them. i have ZERO obligation to act as a lifeline for anyone against my will.

You go Vi! I'm old now,but I protested and marched and wrote letters and called congresspersons about Roe back in the day. We worked very hard for our rights to control our lives and our futures and for our daughters and granddaughters to have these rights. I'm so angry about this and tired of these same old arguments. I thought we left the Taliban in Afghanistan, but they came to Texas. It's all about controlling a woman's body. Period.

When I was MUCH younger and believed I was a christian, I was at a church camp. One lecture we had featured a person speaking about abortion. Many of us questioned their position, and it became clear to me the life of the fetus was NOT the main concern, and I asked an accusatory question, seeking clarification. We had wandered into an unmarried woman having a child, and the speaker confirmed that a big part of his (her?....it was a long time ago, over 50 years) stance was that the pregnancy and bearing the child was PUNISHMENT for the woman having sex out of wedlock. I wondered what those children's lives would be like, being raised by a parent who viewed them as a punishment.

Regardless of how each conversation goes, I effing love the fact that you're constantly getting calls from other shows. It speaks to the honest discourse, civility and willingness to have a conversation across the table that you all have. Take that as the compliment it is!

"the original violinist argument isn't analogous. So let me give you another reverse argument thats even less analogous by adding stupid conditions that don't happen in the actual subject"

I really feel Vi's frustration. I agree completely with her assertion about bodily autonomy. The day I see the anti-abortion people work towards having informed sex education in schools and universal access to contraceptives to reduce chances of unwanted pregnancies, when they set up pre-natal and postpartum care systems for the women and their babies without linking it all to religious instruction or evangelizing, then and only then will I believe their argument that it's about saving the babies. Because as it stands right now, it sure looks like it's about controlling women and their bodies.

Vi & Eric... I FOUND YOU! :D I haven't seen you 2 for ages and I had no idea where you went, so I'm very happy to have found you again and I look forward to watching all the vids ;)

Who plans a pregnancy and then has an abortion? If that is the case, that would be really rare, and I bet the reasons would be really strong, like sudden extreme poverty or a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mom. And it would be so heartbreaking to make that decision.

This was an excellent conversation. Well done. Thanks for posting.

Eric's initial comments were on point. "should we call in on our neighbors to some secret police?" Funny how some people in this country like that idea. Or want an almighty overlord of some stripe 🤷

Gohan's entire argument is about making a woman completely dependent of a man.

There is difference between fetus as organism and human being! Fetus isn't consious self aware being like humans are.

Wow the reverse violinist analogy sounds like a episode of general hospital.

I will never ever ever understand the concept of a 12 year old girl getting raped by her own father, getting pregnant...and pro-life advocates demanding that little girl raise her own sibling, as a mother.

I absolutely how fucking done with this Vi is. Their whole demeanor on this call is absolute fire.

If a hand is not an organism then neither is a clump of cells.

So what about the idea that a father would legally have to give up organs to his children if they need them. Would he think that was fair. Especially if the child needs a heart, both lungs, or both kidneys and it would cost the father his life.

The way to frame the question is, Do you want the government to force all pregnant women to give birth, and how does that benefit society?

this guy's examples are so bad.

The person is forced against their will, has less rights than every or else. Back to Gohan initial statement, equal.rights for all.

Anyone else horrified that Gohan has children? I can only imagine how much it would suck to be raised by someone like him.

Vi, you go girl! Love it when you get so forceful. So, cute. Of course, I agree with all your arguments in this clip. Keep up the good work.

Hahaha - oh my fucking gods…. Vi’s expression at (21:52)… She’s like - ohhhhh my god…..(siiiigghhhhh)…..how are you not getting this by now!

No one can be made to keep anyone alive. Period.

So, Gohan is not in favor of exceptions for rape and incest. Which one of those turns him on the most: forcing an assault victim to carry a rapist's fetus to term, or forcing a victim of incst to carry a fetus to term?

Another question, why does it have to be a violinist?

Every time I ask a forced birther if the fetus should have the same rights as a born child. They always say yes, and I laugh.

Y'all are awesome :O I've never understood pro-life arguments, and as I am a cis man, the idea of anyone having any say in the matter other than those who are in the position to bear the consequences of carrying a pregnancy is beyond insane. Bodily autonomy is paramount. Period.

The Soviet Union was the FIRST nation to legalize all abortions, Eric.

If you guys can turn up the volume just a tad, that would be great. Mostly for your older listeners like me. Thx.

"A hand is an organ" A hand is an appendage. It can play an organ. 🎹 - Abortion is the right thing to do if raped. I'm assuming the incest brought up here is also rape; I don't judge, not my business what you do to who in your bedroom. What makes this situation even worse is that the "pro-lifers" also refuse policies like funding orphanages or monetary assistance for single mothers. If you want me to believe being pro-life is a good thing, you need to carry that Pro-life stance from the moment of conception to the moment of death from old age, not the moment of birth.

"You said duty" I really think we don't need to be minimizing these issues with jokes.

He just keeps moving the goalpost and making the story more convoluted in order to not admit he realizes he is wrong.

More engagement. Great work really slick without the bad connotations of slick. You're gonna be fun to watch.

You can't be forced to donate a kidney or a lung, even when doing so would save the recipient's life.

You can't take Gohan's blood with out consent. Gohan does not believe in equal.rights

Get a partner who looks at you like Eric looks as Vi when Vi is going full guns blazing.

How's this for pro-life? Hosea 13:16 "They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”

Thank you for saying consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. You can’t give permission to someone for anything if they don’t exist. Since a fetus doesn’t exist until AFTER a couple has sex. There’s no consent to pregnancy.

Even if I voluntarily hooked myself up to the violinist to sustain his life, I have the right to unhook myself at any point, for any reason.

V’s brain can’t comprehend basic logic principles

Okay, here's my take on this "reverse violinist" argument: It's exceedingly mixed up!!!! First of all, it puts "you" in the position of a woman (against her will, but we'll leave that aside for now) that is needed to give up freedoms to keep another person (supposedly like a fetus) alive for 9 months. The "you" initially had a chance to uncouple despite knowing that neither of you can survive now but since you did your choice has been taken away by now keeping you unconscious for 9 months. This is not even close to synonymous with pregnancies. Mother's aren't dependent on fetuses for survival. At any rate, it is immoral to use another in such fashion without express consent. Second, when reversed I'm sure Gohan meant to say that the violinist, after 9 months, is now free to survive without being connected or the situation hasn't changed any. So now, is it immoral for the violinist to separate from you although you can not survive but it can? This is like asking if a baby, once born, is obligated to keep the mother alive. I think most people would likely agree that a baby, or child (even as an adult) is under no obligation to keep their parents alive by giving up their bodily autonomy. So Horn's argument misses the point. It would work better as an argument for whether one should be obligated to reciprocate favor.

We should never legislate morality. Even if you can make some sort of convoluted hypothetical moral argument it doesn’t justify empowering a government to enforce that “moral choice” at gunpoint (which is the reality of all laws).

An acorn will never turn into a human being. Is a fertilized egg a human? At minimum it is a potential human. The answers aren't as cut and dry as both extremes want it to be. I'm an atheist, so for me it's about empathy for our own. The unborn is a innocent party, but I can't say I would make a 12 year old have a child.

Gohan strikes again. Feel like I've seen the name like twice or three times before.

one question why is it always men calling in opposing abortion. Why don't they have women callers complaining about the morality of using vaagra or penis extender drugs? I mean why isn't the reverse issue a moral question. I know it's not about abortion it's about men telling women what to do when to have sex with whom and forcing them against their will to have babies even if they are raped or impregnated by their uncle. it's also biblical

The embryo can have equal rights to me. I don’t get to use someone else’s body without their consent to sustain myself and neither can the embryo.

Wow so good! I love you two!

If pro life values life over bodily autonomy why not make blood donation mandatory? Donating blood is a lot less risky then delivering a baby. Heck why not take the box off drivers license forms and make organ domation mandatory cor🎉pses dont need organs. Yet these folks dont denand either even though they would save lives. Keep abortion legal and minimize the need for abortions with proper sex ed, free contraceptives and universal Healthcare

Vi is an absolute beast! Eric is definitely great as well!

Vi you are brilliant! In your argument you show absolutely the difference between someone who has done the very hard, honest work of examining their moral code and the basis for it. Gohan showed what it is to accept comfortable memes from his chosen social group and NEVER examine the underpinnings of those memes and what logically they lead to. Well done, Vi and Eric!

Vi 👏Vi👏Vi👏Vi👏Vi👏Vi👏Vi👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

WTF? He just keeps digging deeper into derp! Every stage of his argument gets further from rationality

Bodily autonomy trumps all. The mother had bodily autonomy first, therefore this should not be usurped.

In the USA - wether u like it or not - we have a right to life enshrined in our founding doc the Declaration of Independence. I’m still for abortion with a 4-5 month limit and a 2 per person limit, along with ofc the mother’s physical safety being primary along with r a p e exceptions.

So butt-hurt over Matt being mentioned? Wow.

Hitchens wasn't really prolife, he took a middle position. He defended a woman's right to choose and roe v wade. He also saw a fetus as an "unborn child" and didn't want abortions to happen. He didn't like abortion, but he did support the right to chose. Thats not prolife, thats a moderate prochoice position.

Let´s make it law that all men have vasectomy at 18yrs old. It would not prevent people being raped but it would stop women being punished twice. Being raped and having to carry a pregnancy to full term.

Saying that you're pro life because you believe in equal rights means you should be pro choice since no human has the right to inhabit another's body without ongoing consent. That's an EQUAL application of rights.

How is that reverse violinist at all what... What the fark. The violinist kidnapped me and made me dependent on them? What? Why? How? WTAF?

Wet flour with eggs and sugar is a cake.

As a twice married 69yr old now, l concidered an abortion. I decided to go ahead,out of fear of op. It was harder to bring up 2 with little help and no money from him. Both now healthy 40 something clones of us. I would give teens a temp. sterilization on demand after councilling. Adults accidently getting pregnant is irresponsible to the max l was as stupid in the moment as millions of others.

It's not an analogy when it's framed as something that is logically unsound. If it's very difficult to frame it as being sound, there's no analogy. Analogy means equal.

Clumps of cells, sure, they can go.

Eric, you're a drummer ? do you know why a bass player would keep a copy of Bass Player magazine on the dashboard of his car ? so he can park....... oh you've heard this one.... my bad. (sorry to all the folks really into this chat for the aside)

Constitutionally, a person has no rights until they are BORN in America, so Mom has rights and a fetus does not.

Go, Vi, go!

Is there any bad blood between matt and these guys or are they simply understably trying to create their own content independent from Matt's brand?

Vi knows her shit.

I paused the vid @ 4:50 I love you, Vi, but your severed hand "analogy".....? Also, squirrels do not eat trees. I'm going to unpause the vid now..... @ 6:08 Thanks, Vi. This caller is off topic. Unpausing the vid again..... I knew you would get him back on topic. Good vid. Please post any follow-up calls from Gohan.

Caller may not understand, as most of his opinion don't understand, that women want to spend 3 months purifying their bodies and expect men to do the same. That's why 99.9% of abortions are from unplanned pregnancies. Planned pregnancies being stopped late are usually extreme circumstances.

Vi seems a little annoyed for no reason(before the guy really got into it). The guy isn't being a jackass.

So a planned pregnancy on which the decision to abort arises. It is not an ethical issue. It is a fiscal issue, a health issue, a PERSONAL CHOICE based on the issues that have made themselves apparent during the pregnancy. And by the way, for those who are pushing the religious angle. I have a friend who along with his brother was separated at birth from his brother and single biological mother on the say so of a priest who felt the mother had neither the financial means nor the moral right to raise the twins herself. She was told the kids had died. That is real, not a hypothetical. That is your religious stand point.

the only person who has the right to decide wether a woman has an abortion or not is the woman herself, or maybe the medical expert she has asked, not the fatherm, not a preist and certainly not evangelical bigots

Did you guys have a fall out with Matt?

People who back women's reproductive rights know people have equal rights! That's why they agree with abortion! The infant doesn't have more rights than the women, so since the infant is in the women's body and the women has body autonomy, the women's rights supersede the infants rights! This argument isn't difficult!

Drummers are animals (Source; The Muppet Show, 197X)

I would remove the kidnapping aspect of the violinist example altogether. Let's say you voluntarily hooked yourself up to the violinist, and then changed your mind. Should we legislate laws to force you to stay hooked up to the violinist? Consent to be hooked up is not consent to stay hooked up.

Gohan is just dishonest, he is just pro-punishment.

Do the hosts have some beef with Matt?

A fetus is not a human, nor a child. It becomes a child after birth and all rights belong to the mother. We grant fetus special rights, from state to state different and depending on the stage of the fetus. If you kill a pregnant woman you don't get two punishments, for the murder of the woman and one for the death of the fetus. The law depends always on the wellbeing of the woman not so on the of the fetus. No mother gets punishment if she drinks or takes drugs during the pregnancy when the born child has serious health issues! AND philosophical contemplations do not change existing laws, which often depend on science rather than philosophy! All that philosophical approaches that "pro lifer" use are sense and useless.

Wasn't he on the atheist experience with Forrest Valkai?

Oh YEAGH VI. what is a BEING MY Gramma would Be like "Boom, say that truth".....

Drummers are human. Bassists on the other hand....

ugh...why do people even argue a topic like this using made-up shit that simply doesn't happen. Is it possible? Sure...but there are plenty of arguments to really effectively get to the bottom of it without resorting to "analogies" that aren't realistic, and aren't even analogies in the first place? It's simple: should the government be able to force you to donate an organ that you can live without, if it's the only compatible organ with a person who will definitely die without it? That's something that DOES happen in reality. Should you have the right to say "no", even if it means someone else will die? We can even take it a step further. Say you are NOT an organ donor, and you die. Should the government have the right to use your organs anyway, if it means a life will be saved...one that would surely die without your organ(s)? Neither of those things are currently allowed by law, and no one is fighting to change that. Why? If it's so immoral to deny life to a fetus that hasn't yet even developed a brain ot nervous system, and there's no guarantee that the fetus will survive the pregnancy, and certainly no guarantee that if the baby is born, it won't grow up to be a horribly awful person...but it IS guaranteed that forcing that unwanted pregnancy will cause mental and physical issues for the person carrying the child...but it's not AT LEAST equally immoral for a healthy person to choose NOT to save a life by donating an organ they don't need? Or for a person to choose NOT to be an organ donor for any reason...but let's say their religious beliefs require that their body be laid to rest fully intact?? That choice could guarantee others may lose their lives as a direct result...but no one is fighting for laws requiring all people must donate their organs upon their death. And we're talking about the deaths of already living people...usually adults...often very good people (though the bad ones certainly aren't excluded). It may not be guaranteed that both parties will survive an organ transplant surgery (if both are alive in the first place), or that the person receiving an organ from a deceased person will survive the transplant...but we CAN determine pretty accurately what the chances of the outcome are, and in many cases, they are VERY HIGH that all involved (living) parties will survive, and the healthy person donating the organ will live a full life without any complications after recovery, and the person receiving the organ will at least live significantly longer than they would WITHOUT the organ transplant. We can also KNOW what sort of person we're saving (usually). We can't determine the outcome of a pregnancy so accurately. Especially a first-time pregnancy. And we DEFINITELY can't know what will result from a child entering the world. We can know that, statistically, unwanted children born into the world do not have the best childhoods, or even lives in general. Myself among them. I was a result of a woman having a drunken one-night fling with a random dude she didn't know while briefly separated from her husband, and then not wanting to keep a child that was a reminder of her infidelity...so she wanted an abortion, but was too far along in the pregnancy to get one, and I was put up for adoption instead. I was lucky in many ways to be adopted at birth by good people...but my life hasn't been easy. Knowing nothing about the medical history of my biological parents, I wasn't prepared for many things. For example: my teeth always had issues, despite that I took very good care of them...and I had to get dentures at 30-years-old, even after my parents put thousands of dollars in to my teeth. I also started losing my hair in HIGH SCHOOL. I was 17 when it started thinning, and looked like Patrick Stewart by my mid-20's. I have asthma; hypothyroidism; hypertension; I could go on and on. Oh, and I had a completely unexpected heart attack at 38-years-old...a double bypass surgery a year later...and I'm now 41, and living with my parents, because my severe depression and multiple anxiety disorders have left me unable to work or function normally for almost a decade now, and have resisted every medication and treatment. My parents are good people, and did their best when raising me...but I have literally NOTHING in common with my family. I'm estranged from most of my relatives as a result of that. The feeling of being "unwanted" has been a recurring theme throughout my life. Many adoptees are luckier than I am...but MOST are far less lucky, statistically speaking. My brain knows I'm lucky to have not been aborted, but adopted instead...but more often than not...I don't FEEL lucky. Knowing I AM luckier than most...I can't imagine what it must be like for them. My point is...you can't KNOW what an unwanted child being born will lead to for that child; the mother; father; or anyone close to any of them. You CAN KNOW these things when it comes to a person old enough to have a personality, who is in need of an organ transplant. So how is it IMMORAL for a woman to terminate a pregnancy, denying a potential new life, but also avoiding a significant amount really terrible shit...but NOT IMMORAL to refuse to donate an organ to someone who will die without it, even if the donor is DEAD...knowing that there will likely be minimal terrible shit involved if they DO donate an organ (or several, if they're a deceased organ donor)?? Personally, I WOULD donate an organ to someone in need, regardless of how well I knew them or what I thought about them, if I knew it was their only chance to survive, and I AM an official organ donor upon my death. I don't even care if my body is donated to science, and only plays a tiny role in indirectly saving lives in the future. I also feel like anyone who ISN'T an organ donor, or who would refuse to donate an organ they don't need in order to save a life is a very selfish person. Does that mean I think the government should have the authority to force them to, even IF the reasons they don't want to are selfish ones? NO. Not even a little. I'm an atheist, but DO believe people should have the right to believe what they believe, and if part of that involves NOT being an organ donor upon their death, so be it. My opinions regarding that person or their choices are irrelevant. Selfish or not...your body is YOURS, and no one should have the authority to force you to use your body in a way that you didn't consent to...even after you die. Consent for sex is not consent for pregnancy. Consent for pregnancy is not consent for continued pregnancy. Consent to give birth and raise a child, is not consent to continuous consent to raise that child. Kids are put up for adoption for all sorts of reasons, including a parent or parents deciding while their child is young to give up that child via legal means for ANY REASON (though that's irrelevant to the argument, given that bodily autonomy isn't a factor after birth). Consent CAN be revoked at any time. Consent to one act is not consent to everything that could possibly occur as a result of that act. To support an abortion ban for cases when the sex was consented to, or the pregnancy was consented to originally, but that consent is withdrawn later, is like saying it's not rape if the sex was consentual when it began, but the consent was revoked in the middle of it, and forced after that. That's nonsensical reasoning. Rape is just as bad whether consent isn't given in the first place, OR is given when it begins, but withdrawn later. Both are equally immoral AND equally illegal. I find it immoral for a person to not register as an organ donor. I find it equally immoral if they DO ...but then change their mind later. To choose to do something moral, but later choose an immoral path, is no less immoral than choosing the immoral path from the beginning. When it comes to our choices involving our bodies, tho...those choices should ALWAYS be ours, no matter how immoral others may find those choices...no exceptions. How a person became pregnant, or why they choose to terminate that pregnancy are completely irrelevant...just like a person's reasons for their refusal to donate organs are irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Our bodies are ours. Period. Moral arguments have no place in legislation regarding bodily autonomy.

Adding the element in the reverse of the person then being dependent on the violinist breaks down that argument for me. A pregnant person is not then dependent on the fetus, the fetus who once alive then gets to decide if the mother lives as they are still dependent on them. Adding all of the other layers on top clearly shows the argument is breaking down so you need to add extra factors to make it fit. To me the violinist argument is not about the choice, it’s about the person being able to make the choice and not be forced to stay in the situation where their body is used by someone else against their will.

Analogy, metaphor, allegory, metaphorical analogy, parable, fable etc and etc.... Words are descriptive not prescriptive and are weaponized when used prescriptively in order to fit the intents and purposes of the individual wielder holding others hostage to unintelligible propositions.... An idea must be distinct before reason can act upon it, and no person has ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere abracadabra of those claiming to be the priests of Jesus. If it could be understood it would not serve their purposes.... Thomas Jefferson 1816 (paraphrase)

Every human organism should be equal, except women, who do not have equal rights. We still don’t have the equal rights amendment, and the government gets to decide what we do and don’t do with our own bodies.

Why do I feel like Gohan would be squealing "my body, my rights" against mask mandates? Freedom for he but not for she? 🤔🤔🤔

Buying dinner for a homeless person today doesn't obligate you to feed them for, oh lets say, the next 18 years.

Now if we're talking about someone who plays the accordion, all bets are off.

I found this a really interesting call, really bad argument. I guess when Vi pushes her mic forward and leans in……someone’s about to be schooled. Great show!

"If I became an atheist today, I'd be pro- life tomorrow." Yeah, I said the same thing, but that's not how it happened.

I love Vi😻🖖🏽

Vi, perfect response.

The reverse violinist analogy makes no sense.

Would Gohan be pro forced vasectomies? Think of it like the government kicking out violinists so they can't get hooked up to people