Answering The Best Pro Choice Argument 

🔴If you like this video, please consider subscribing and then hitting 🔔so RU-vid will be FORCED to let you know when we put out a new video. 😉

I really like how humble she is and that she admits she’s been stumped before. A lot of people don’t do that, and it makes her a lot friendlier than the typical activist.

I absolutely love the concept of “steelmanning”. Taking your opponents strongest argument, worded as well as possible and responding to that. I’ve always thought straw manning was such a weak and pathetic debating technique.

I've never heard my thoughts formulated to an argument so well before. Thank you Stephanie and Matt

I’d never heard that uterus argument before. But it is truly eye-opening. Not just in the context of the debate on abortion, but in the context of life and the “preordained” role of a woman.

does it piss anybody else off when pro-choice is referred to as pro-abortion? as if people WANT abortions to happen

It’s a difficult subject. However I can’t begin to imagine how traumatic carrying the child of rape would be. I don’t think I’d be able to and I don’t think women in general should be forced to do so.

This woman has been given an unusually gifted and intelligent mind. I love when God’s servants use their gifts for their God-given intended purposes. God bless her ministry.

Wow! This woman is very intelligent. This is by far the best argument against abortion I have ever heard.

She’s the most articulate and patient pro-lifer I’ve ever seen

I disagree with much of the arguments in this video, but as someone on the left it is extremely refreshing to see those i disagree with lay out their arguments in a way that actually makes sense and isn’t completely psychotic. It allows an actual discussion, instead of two groups of people screaming at each other.

If that professor was actually up all night trying to counter her uterus argument, then he has no business teaching philosophy. Carrying a baby requires much more than a uterus. A full term pregnancy has consequences for your ENTIRE body. For instance, I went into heart failure my first pregnancy. My son needed an emergency c section and almost didn't make it. I've had to have 2 open heart surgeries and I now live with a pace maker and subcutaneous defibrillator.

When she talked about the argument that the uterus was made for another purpose and how the Holy Spirit spoke to her I started tearing down!! As a soon to be mother, I see no other greater honor to carry A LIFE inside of me. It’s just an overwhelming feeling and I wish every woman would feel that . Praise Jesus!!

The problem I have with this argument is the fact that in terms of law a woman can consent to sex without consenting to getting pregnant, an example of reproductive coercion is birth control sabotage, for example poking holes in condoms, this is still classed as sexual assault, so in the laws eyes you can consent to sex without consenting to pregnancy

In regards to the altered violinist argument, it’s also important to remark that NOT donating a kidney or any organ its passive (and almost no passiveness is illegal), while aborting is active. It’s actively pursuing to end a life, instead of not doing enough to save a life. There’s a very clear and very big difference.

There is a difference between responsibility and fault I had a very messed up childhood which caused me to become the messed up adult which was not my fault that was my parent's fault but as soon as I realized that I was messed up it became my responsibility to heal and become a better person especially now that I'm a parent I can't just screw my child up and say oh well it's not my fault

Really nice arguments. The professor could have refuted to that in a pregnancy you're not only lending the child the uterus but also your blood, it pumps you full of hormones and, in a lot of cases, changes your body forever.

always interesting to hear actual points of argument rather then overly emotional people scream at one another. Some more than others.

To quote Monsoon from MGR "How easy it is to ignore the loss of life, when it suits your own convience."

This is the most thought out anti-abortion argument I've heard. Although I disagree, it's so refreshing to see people willing to examine their beliefs and hear out the other side

I don't like philosophical debates about real life because they turn something that will actually effect some people's lives into cute, little, nicely packaged ideas and then the philosophizers convince themselves that because they can think of a counter or an argument to a scenario, then that's what other people should adhere to or believe as well. As if they have found an answer for all based off of their safe, imaginary testing of their own morality. Why is that problematic? Two reasons: 1.) It leads them to portray anyone who doesn't agree with them as selfish for being concerned about their own life because they have already convinced themselves that they have the morally superior answer and 2.) They belittle the reality of the situation for someone who does actually have to go through it. I personally think that if you aren't in a position to have to walk the walk, then stop all the talk, especially when you are talking to people who may actually have to walk the walk and you are just trying to convince others of what they should or shouldn't be doing, knowing that you are sitting in a place where you'll never actually have to follow through with your own sense of morality. It's really easy to tell yourself what you will or will not do, if you know you'll never have to follow through and that your decision on the subject will never really cost you anything. In real life, pregnancy effects real women. Real pregnancy doesn't exist within the luxury of 15 minute spans of time, at the end of which you can put all the concerns away and tell yourself that you know what's best. Real pregnancy effects real people's outcomes. These types of debates can have a place when it comes to your own life. They offer little to no value to anyone elses. Instead of imagining fanciful situations to support your ideologies, how about you find a way to apply them to real life? How about we focus on better child welfare for the children that are born and placed into foster homes or given up for adoption, or how to help the poverty rates of single parent households, or how to better prevent accidental pregnancies from occurring, etc? These types of debates pretty much just focus on telling you what is or isn't moral and then the participants wash their hands of all the realities that surround the subject. Maybe time and effort could be better focused elsewhere. Maybe we should collectively raise the bar for calling ourselves pro-life? Maybe it should be less about people's thoughts on morality and more about the actions taken to actually support the stance that life matters? Maybe force yourself to put your money where your mouth is and not simply stop at deciding yes or no to a question.

Wouldn’t her argument sort of fall apart when we consider that the uterus is not the only organ keeping the baby alive? Pregnancy doesn’t just utilize the uterus; it’s a phenomenon which affects the entirety of a woman’s body. Does that mean that the baby has a right to all of your organs, so long as it has a right to one of them?

Some counterpoints: Autonomy: Even if you are the perfect match for your child's needs, you are not required to donate blood, marrow, or organs to save your child. Your parental relationship and "duties" don't supercede your own autonomy. Why should the foetus be granted extraordinary rights to the parent's uterus for life saving purposes on that alone? "It's your fault." : Apart from admitting you want to punish people for having sex, we still agreed, as a society, that autonomy supercedes any obligation. If you drive drunk and get into a car crash and cause the violinist to be in his predicament, you are still not required to provide the violinist a nine month period of using your body. "Consent to sex is consent to consequences" : Leaving my window open to let in the air is not consent for you to enter through my window. Neither is it consent for you to throw things into my house. Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy any more than it is consent to an STD. If a person capable of providing semen does not disclose that he has not had the vasectomy they promised, is the childbearer still required to carry to term? Because I'm pretty sure there are consequences for lying about your HIV status. Should be the same. "The uterus is designed for childbearing" : And? The appendix was designed to have food matter pass through it. Doesn't mean I consent to appendicitis when I decide to eat. "Well the difference is, appendicitis isa consequence of something going wrong! Pregnancy is a consequence of something going right!": Firstly, "going right" is subjective and I'm sure many pregnant people classify that as something going wrong. Secondly, fertilized eggs fail to implant remarkably frequently. Losing the food lottery and getting appendicitis is no different from losing the sex lottery and getting pregnant. If a little homunculus came about as a product of appendicitis, would you force people to suffer through it and die? Because a living obstruction is dependent on your appendix to live? What does this mean for ectopic pregnancies? "Adoption is an option!" : Adoption is an alternative to parenting, not an alternative to pregnancy. "Abstinence is the only 100% effective method to prevent pregnancy!" : So is gay sex. Are you saying you just want to punish straight people by requiring them to deal with pregnancy? Seems exclusionary to me! Discrimination! "Abortion should be the last resort!" : Pregnancy is always, ALWAYS a health risk. You are asking living women to risk their life on a potential life. People who can get pregnant should have the right to decide if they want to take that risk, especially in cases where they did not consent to the sex. "You shouldn't be able to murder a living being that depends on you!": Enjoy your tapeworms and also enjoy watching your pet die slowly because euthenasia is not legal anymore. Oh, you didn't consent to the tapeworm when eating that new food? Tough luck. You decided to eat and the risk of tapeworms is low, but never zero! "But humans are different from animals!": And? A fetus is different from an adult. "Fine, you can have abortion, but only when the mom's life is in danger!" : And when is that, exactly? When the pregnant person is suicidal because they're carrying the child of their serial rapist? When the pregnancy is progressing abnormally and the risk of infant and parental mortality increases? When the parent comes in bleeding profusely, but the fetus still has a heartbeat? When the risk of sepsis rises? When the parent starts going septic? When the parent falls into a coma? People have died like this, because doctors were too afraid to remove a child that couldn't be saved. There is no hard line when someone goes from fine to struggling or from struggling to dying. There is only a hard line where someone goes from dying to dead. Who gets to be the judge?

I've watched this video before and just watched it over. I really appreciate the conversations dynamic. Easy to listen to!

I really like you and your guest having these discussions. I would love to see more videos with you and your guest. Thanks so much!

Watching this made me realize I'd never actually heard an arguement about abortion before now that really went past 'my body my choice' or 'you're killing babies.' There's so much negatively charged energy around this whole thing from either side that it totally drowned out any actual conversation for me. I've always been pretty ambivalent about the topic and at the moment I still am, but this gave me a lot to think about.

I just wish most pro-lifers were as dedicated to antiabortion as they are to adoption and helping poor families.... But that's none of my business...

The greatest flaw of the violinist argument to me is that it removes the causual element of the issue. Had the subject of the inquiry been responsible for the violinist's peril, I would find it more accurate.

I heard the nine months for the first time. If I found myself in that situation, sure, I will endure it for 9 month knowing I save someone's life that way. The parent that does not give it's kidney to it's child and let's it die, is guilty of murder. A parent should even give the second kidney to it's child, even if it means the parent dies.

And as for men paying child support, you nailed it dead on the head. Women should have a right to their body to choose whether or not they continue to carry a baby, and men should 100-percent have the right to opt out of fatherhood. Having a child together should be a contractual issue, not the sole decision of a single party

I saw her at SEEK 2019! Went from ProChoice to Pro Life after her talk. She answered all the questions I had.

Superb conversation! Excellent points that you shared. I feel more prepared for these conversations.

“The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts--a child--as a competitor, an intrusion and an inconvenience.” Mother Terressa.

Although my own views don’t align with hers on the matter, I found it refreshing to hear from Ms. Gray’s perspective in a thoughtfully-presented, coherent manner.

At around the 20 minute mark she says when deciding to save your child’s life by donating your kidney you have to factor in how it might harm your health or jeopardize your ability to care for your family. How is this different than when a pregnant woman’s health or ability to care for her family is in danger from pregnancy? Honestly interested in how that could be discussed. Even if my life were at risk equally in both situations, I would struggle far more to end the life of a child who may be experiencing pain and fear than the life of a fetus that cannot feel or comprehend the experience as a fully developed child could. Really I don’t think this analogy holds up because every pregnancy is unique and complex. Generalizations made by either side will never be as valuable as careful consideration by medical professionals on a case by case basis.

1. It is a person in the womb and that person is entitled to life. 2. That person, due to the nature of fetal development, is entitled to the organs and biological processes of the mother that exist for the purpose of supporting fetal life and development. 3. Parents have special obligations to their offspring.

I'm no genius, but first problem that strikes out to me is the driving analogy. You're consenting to driving, you're not consenting to a car accident. You may get in an accident and then get medical treatment to restore your body to as close to what it was before the car accident as possible. Right? We all would go to the doctor to fix problems that happen after a car accident so we can be back to normal. We wouldn't say "well, I consented to driving, therefore I'll just have to deal with whatever injuries that I got even though a doctor could fix them." No, we wouldn't. You can consent to sex and not consent to pregnancy and if you get pregnant, you can go to the doctor to have it taken care of. Also, the violinist argument does not say the fetus is a person, it's "for the sake of argument, let's say it is". That is FAR from saying it is, because a fetus is not a person legally or physically. -If you were in a burning building and you could save a crying baby or a petri dish full of viable cells, let's even 'for the sake of argument' that it's 10 viable eggs with 10 viable sperm, you would save that baby without question. The cool thing about pro-choice is that you can CHOOSE to have the baby if you want, that's YOUR choice. That's the weird part of this, it's as if pro-choice is pro-abortion (which is what she says in the video), it's totally not, it's pro-letting women have a choice over their own bodily autonomy and the government shouldn't have a say in what you do with your own body. Can the government force you to donate your kidney? No. But it would save a life. If you don't go donate your kidneys right now, you are a hypocrite as you think you have a right to your own body even at the cost of a living breathing human being. If you do not go donate a kidney and whatever else could be donated while you're still alive, then you care more about bodily autonomy than you do about someone else's life. That's ok, I respect your decision, but that's my point, you are CHOOSING to keep your own body the way it is even at the cost of someone's life. Hence why everyone is actually pro-birth and not pro-life (not to mention that pro-birth people tend to care little about food stamps, subsidized housing, universal healthcare, or anything else that would save lives). Just now got the later on the video, man that's a way to do some mental gymnastics. She realized that yeah you can donate a kidney, then uses his religion to justify something. FYI, there's no holy spirit, it's just you thinking up something, 2nd no, it's the freaken same. Maybe it's god's purpose for you to have an abortion. Oh look at that, you can use faith and god to justify anything can't you? Geez you guys need to learn some epistemology and critical thinking skills and actually read the bible with a 'this was written by people, not by a god, oh look there's contradictions that can't both be true, maybe it's just a myth like greek gods and all the other gods you don't believe it." Trust me, you'll be much better off.

A lot of her arguments are based on the idea that going down to one kidney has absolutely zero risks for the one donating a kidney, when in fact, it alters your life expectancy quite a bit and health risks become more likely.

I don’t like how they’re calling this idea “the best pro choice” argument as if answering this is proving the idea of pro choice to be bad. There also isn’t any pro choice person here to rebuttal. If a 15 year old was raped and she was forced to keep the baby, the effects of that could ruin her life due to the physical side of it and the mental side too. Choosing to abort the baby isn’t destroying a life in the same way that you’re destroying the 15 year olds life is. As a former foetus, I can confirm that I would not have noticed if I was aborted.

Thank you for bringing it back to accountability. Most arguments I hear (on either side) only address the symptoms and don't want to get to the source of the problem

I can't believe we don't know more about this activist. She's great!

The dissonance here lies in the assumption that a human life is equal to a fetus, some people might concede to that but I assure you the vast majority of pro choice advocates will not. So unfortunately you will fail to convince the vast majority of pro choice people even if you derail this particular analogy, because most people never found it equivalent to begin with.

I remember this violinist argument from my ethics class in college. Even while discussing it in class I started to come to the right answer, though I didn’t flesh it out as well. I was already thinking, your child in your womb is way different than a stranger artificially attached to you.

The last point it important but often overlooked. The violinist is in a state of dying until you intervene. The child is growing and thriving in her natural environment unless an action is taken to stop that from happening

Brilliant - just BRILLIANT - particularly from about 13:50 onwards! Thank you both. (Advice to potential veiwers "Watch it ALL".... so many great perspectives!)

the video lowkey lost me the moment they started talkinga bout how the victim of sexual assault that got pregnant is now obligated because it's your blood. like there's not enough legislation or support to tell the woman to carry it to term and change her entire lifestyle due to someone's misgreavances.

The analogy of the kidney's purpose not to sustain the life of another individual, but a womb is, feels like a weak rebuttal. The womb produces a potentially life giving egg each month, does that mean that if the woman "neglects" to get the egg inseminated she is essentially inducing an abortion? Just because something has a purpose, does not mean that purpose has to be utilised at every opportunity.

I'm going to watch this 20 times and commit this to memory. Great guest. Thank you!

Also, the uterus doesn't get disconnected as in the example with a kidney. A woman doesn't lose her uterus as it would be with a kidney. Also, removing uterus would probably be less dangerous for the body than a kidney removal. Can't be even compaired.

If America had to treat every religious belief, people will be upset. You don't have abortions, that's your right, but don't you dare put your beliefs on others.

The uterus argument falls apart when you think about all the other ways pregnancy affects your body, if only your uterus was affected by pregnancy the argument might hold weight but that obviously isn't the case, you're giving your entire body up for 9 months, likely longer, when carrying a child. That isn't even to mention the long term complications often associated with pregnancy and giving birth.

15:45 This counter-counter argument stumped me for years, but now I would argue that it's the definition of sexism. The nature and purpose of an organ has no bearing on a person's ownership of that organ. If we accept that the uterus is exempt from considerations of bodily autonomy, then we're accepting a world in which men have autonomy over their entire body, and women have autonomy over less than their entire body. That's an inherently unequal world, and it opens up a dangerous door.

The very fact that they use precautions (birth control), shows that they are aware that the act bears a risk of pregnancy. They know it's a risk. They prepare against it. They take the risk anyways. Then get pregnant and claim that they have no responsibility towards the child that was placed in their womb.

From my perspective, I have always thought that the power of the violinist argument is not that it cannot be countered, it is that in countering it, you almost always have to argue how an unborn baby is uniquely different than a born human. Thus, it weakens the initial pro-life presupposition presented here. All her arguments seem to point to the fact that an unborn baby in the uterus is a unique and unrecreatable situation. it seems that would just strengthen those who argue that as the situation is unique...our laws can also be unique in how they govern that situation.

She's the most wellspoken pro-life activist I've listened to. Great listen even if I dont agree.

Here’s what really, really bothers me about this argument of hers: she says the woman, whether she wants to be a mother or not, in every conceivable situation, is morally obligated and should even be legally obligated to carry out a pregnancy no matter what the consequences to her are, because it’s inside her uterus which is an organ biologically made for reproduction, and it’s her child. But when the man asks her, “What if it turns out that adult she’s hooked up to is her child that she gave away at birth? Is she morally obligated to remain hooked up to them or give them her organs or blood?” And her response is essentially “Oh no that’s *different.*” She dismantled her own logic to prove its not about the life of the child outside the womb that pro-lifers are primarily concerned with, but the act of pregnancy and the grand “what if’s” surrounding the unborn. And all tied to religious belief, which is something meant to be personal and not enforced upon an entire population.

Here from Philosophy Tube's envisioning of this story. A classic, really :)

I feel you were so close to the point when talking about the kidney analogy when you mentioned having to consider whether giving your kidney would cause you health complications or impact your ability to provide for your family. Pregnancy can and often does have severe medical consequences that last well beyond the duration of the pregnancy and can potentially be life-threatening. In many cases, the pregnant person is unable to work for much of their pregnancy, thereby putting their family through undue financial hardship. In the worst cases, the pregnant person may actually die as a direct result of pregnancy or childbirth. So by requiring people to continue with unwanted pregnancies, you are requiring them to take on the same or even greater level of risk as compared to donating a kidney.

I think the words "natural" and "normal" are somewhat misleading in terms of the argument, but I nonetheless greatly respect the willingness to engage with such strong arguments without resorting to strawmen

Wow. I am impressed, and so late to this. Great testimony, great arguments, God bless, Ave Maria! Thank you very much.

One point they forgot to mention: The violinist argument makes one other assumption besides the fact that the subject was kidnapped and forced to meet the needs of a stranger. In this argument, the world-famous violinist is in critical condition as a result of his biological traits, choices, and cirsumstances. In fact, one might say that the violinist's time of natural death has arrived, and while it is kind for someone to facilitate his continued existence, it is not the individual's duty to do so, for the same reason that doctors are allowed to cease all attempts to resuscitate after a certain amount of time has elapsed with no vital signs present. Likewise, even though many patients die every day because hospitals sometimes run out of O- blood, it is not the duty of every person with O- blood to constantly donate in order to meet these demands. In the case of a pregnancy, the child's natural life has only just begun, and barring unfortunate circumstances such as miscarriage, the baby will continue to live for many years after birth. For a healthy mother whose viological needs are met, it is therefore an intentional slaughter, not natural events, that will cause a healthy fetus to die. Additionally, the use of one adult human body to support the life of another adult human is unnatural, and utilizes the body in a way in which it was not intended to function. There is no natural condition under which a human would heal another human by attaching their bodies together. In the context of a pregnancy, however, facilitating the growth of an infant is the natural condition of a developed uterus, which sheds its lining every month in preparation for such an event.

Stephanie Gray is one of the smartest and best pro-lifers out there. She is awesome. Thanks for having her on the show. You're doing great work sir and helping me out a lot.

I really like how she speaks and how she explains things. But for the example of playing baseball and breaking windows, you don't make yourself or your neighbour live with the broken window forever. You fix it. An action you consented to had an undesired consequence but that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to live with the consequence. For example, you go skating and fall and break your leg despite being very careful and wearing pads. No one expects you to continue living with a broken leg.

On the first point, I'll "hold that ground." Just don't make it a kidnapping. Say, "So there's this person you really like who keeps asking you to get in their car so they can take you somewhere, and you say, "ok, but just a short ride, don't take me anywhere risky" and then you get in the car and they drive you to the hospital where a violinist is attached to you." Consent to sex is not consent to get pregnant just as consent to getting in a car is not consent to having the violinist attached. We can argue that, but my answer is that sex builds relationships, its about making another person feel good, it has purpose other than baby making. In the end, the argument always boils down to 'when?'. When does a human life become a human life? Some say it's at conception. There's an argument addressing that, that I think is the true "steelman". If you were in a burning building, and there's a small child and a large container of thousands of human embryos, and you can only carry one to get them out, which do you grab? Everyone I know says the child, even if they're pro-life. You can say you believe life begins at conception, but only if you stretch your definition of human life. It's not quite the same as a fully-formed functional human. Here's my solution. Legally, life should be protected when a human can live outside the womb, which is after 18 weeks. Also, a woman should be able to abort or prematurely deliver the baby at any time during the pregnancy. Using the Violinist argument (revised as I wrote above), a woman shouldn't be legally obligated so support another life. That means abortion up to 18 weeks or so, and then after that if the woman wants to end the pregnancy she can have the hospital induce labor and then they'll care for the premature baby as an orphan. I should add that I don't believe parents should have to pay child support if they don't want the child, men or women. If someone is willing to give their kid to the state, or to just leave the child to only have one parent, then they obviously aren't in a place mentally or whatever to care for and raise a child. Why would we ever want to force bad parents to raise a kid? The solution to all of this is give everyone their right to their body and for us to have better programs to help single parents and to help orphaned and abandoned children. Think of all the money wasted on this stupid argument for the last half century. This woman's career is literally debating the same tired arguments around and around. All that time and money could have been spent actually helping children and single parents, decades of foolishness.

Well, the Violin argument is kinda weird for me. There's no way I can even remotely treat an adult equal to a fetus. Like, how? There's just no comparison beside DNA makeup, the fetus lacks many essential cognitive functions that an adult has, or a late-term fetus or born baby has. Until that point I see it mostly as killing a rodent feeding on your lifestock, it's not the best solution but you gotta do what you gotta do, because that's gonna cause you more issues later on, and is already causing issues. You're more important than the rodent, and likewise the woman is more important than the fetus. That's my perspective on this. I value a woman's bodily anatomy and well being more than a fetus' life.

"When terrible things happen, it doesn't give the victim license to do just anything they want in response." Thank you. Absolutely. Failure to understand this point is what allows criminals to be set free to commit more crime and riots to be permitted without consequence to the rioters.

*Poor Ling Ling* Some people would pull the plug on such a great Musician.

i honestly don't understand how it it immoral to abort, but absolutely ok to give birth and then abandon them? In this society, knowing what we know about the children who end up in the system? there are very, very few cases of happy situations. i think the US is suffering from a deep moral disconnect at this point: if life meant so much for you, you wouldn't find issues with more "social" measures in form of universal healthcare, unemployment support, birth and child care, gun control, etc. You'd even find that women in general do not reach for abortion as first resort, but rather last resort: when they don't have financial support, when they know they'll lose a job or won't afford to pay someone to take care of the child, when they need to save their own life, when the pregnancy was forced upon them, etc. Abortion should always be a choice women have, because it is OUR body. But if you were really pro-life, you'd work on encouraging the already existing one, that is in need of care and protection.

For that being the Pro-choice crowd's "best argument" it can be dismantled pretty easily right off the bat...

She uses the story of the man and baby in a remote cabin in the woods with all the recourses and facilities to take care of the baby as a way of analogising the idea of a pregnant woman hosting a foetus in the womb to provide its basic needs. Then she says that pro-choicers will say "Well if you have to help the unrelated baby in the cabin, shouldn't you have to help the violinist too because they're also unrelated" She then states that it comes down to basic/ordinary needs vs extraordinary needs with the violinist having extraordinary needs. But how are they comparable when the story about the baby in the cabin was just an analogy in the first place. In the analogy the baby had basic needs (formula, etc) but in reality it would need to be attached to a person just like the violinist.... Someone shed some light on this or tell me if I'm wrong because that point of the debate totally confused me... sorry for the ramblings

Pregnancy isn’t a passive act that doesn’t affect you in any way. The woman does it at her own risk.

Consider: if a pregnant woman is assaulted to the point of losing her "fetus-embryo", what would the pro-choicer charge the assailant with? what crime? Assault or homicide?

I’m still pro-choice but I appreciate the comprehensive and intelligent argument she makes.

I'm not leftist, but I am pro-choice for personal reasons and I really liked this video. The points miss Gray made were logical and made sense nad her whole demeanor overall was very put-together and pleasant. However, I don't think that this is the strongest argument for pro-choice. I think the best one is the fact, that if abortions are banned, women will get them nonetheless. Better scenario, they travel abroad, but that is pretty expensive, so the majority of women who for one reason or the other feel the need to get abortion will have them performed in awful conditions by untrained people looking for "easy cash". Now by banning abortions, you may save some children, but those kids saved will be paid by increased death rate of women dying because of those illegal abortions. Is that the price you are willing to pay?

I love the argument of brining up the double standard of how no one bats an eye at men who have to pay child support after having a quickie. And of course, parents have a far greater duty of care to your child than to a random other person.

I think this was an amazing discussion and I really enjoyed hearing each side of the argument. I argue that the premise of “responsibility of ordinary needs” with the cabin example, which the core of her argument is predicated upon, fails to fully analogize with pregnancy, giving birth, and abortion. I believe it is distinctly different because what is required to feed and care for a child, with resources readily available, is fundamentally different then carrying a child to term. The cabin example lacks a real risk to health or births extended factors, such as losing ones life to childbirth, the hormonal changes that are induced, or the physiological change to the body after birth, and thus fails to fully encapsulated the significance of the intrusive and painful nature of actually giving birth. I argue that while giving birth may be ordinary, its demands on a individual are extraordinary when it comes to providing care. Therefore the responsibility to carry to term becomes again analogous to the professors altered violinist example (with kidneys) Furthermore, just because an organs design is to provide for another, there is no level of entitlement from a foreign body to that organ. An example of this would be breast feeding. The purpose of breasts is to produce milk for the child, to provide for another, yet there is no recognized entitlement to that organ and it is up to the owner of the organ to decide who gets to use it. This again legitimizes the professors altered violinist example where showing the intention of the organ to be irrelevant. P.S. im very disappointed she didn’t share the response he stayed up all night thinking of P.S.S this reply is 2 months later after over 70 comments on here. If you guys actually want the strongest two forms of this argument, not only did I find the person she her argument came from, but it’s followed by, by far the strongest string of counter arguments I’ve ever seen. This chapter of this book blows this video out of the water! If you are truly interested in the best form of this and its counter argument, please read “Ethics, Left and Right” by Bob Fischer, Chapter 10 on abortion. Its phenomenal.

Whilst the arguments in this video cause me to raise a few questions, I do appreciate their tone and attitude.

This is not the best pro choice argument. It's predecated on conceding a premise that most people do not accept.

13:20 Another twist: You want to give your kid the kidney but you find out you're pregnant and you donating the kidney would end that pregnancy (I'm no doctor so idk if that's completely realistic but for argument's sake let's assume it is). It essentially boils down to choosing which one of your kids gets to live but if you're legally obligated to keep the baby that means you're not even allowed to make the choice, is that fair? edit: By the way, assuming the fetus is person with all the same rights as you at any point in the pregnancy is huge concession, that's usually the main point of the argument as many people think abortion should be legal early on but it's really difficult to decide where exactly you wanna draw the line.

This woman is a powerhouse. The way she talks is so clear, concise and articulate. Godspeed! Appreciate learning about steelmanning. I never heard the violinist argument before, but it strikes me as gaslighting at its finest. It sounds intelligent but can be broken down in many different ways. When I was listening to it, immediately I was like, "she made the choice to have sex! The woman in the analogy did not have a choice, she was kidnapped! Not the same!"

Ive paused the video at the end of the argument for abortion and one glaring issue I find myself with is responsibility. It would take incredible circumstance to wind up with a child that you simply dont know about. In the analogy the doctor wakes you up and you have no idea. It was a kidnapping. A child results from decisions, poor or otherwise, or from a heinous crime. At the bare minimum this cedes convenience abortions but it doesn't hand over the security to make sure convenience abortions do not continue.

Good God.. am I the only one that would stay plugged in to the violinist? I would be destroyed by that situation if I unplugged him. I would just charge him an exorbitant amount of money for the privilege lol.

Here's a couple more approaches to the kidney comparison that I came up with: 1) Since the child is already using the uterus, it's less akin to the question of "should the law compel you to donate a kidney?" and more something like "after donating your kidney, should you have the right to forcibly take it back?" 2) There's a significant difference between action and inaction - it's unreasonable to demand action from an individual to save someone's life, but it isn't unreasonable to demand that they don't take action which would end someone's life.

Hi. Doctor here with some interest in moral philosophy. Stephanie's arguments have a few issues: 1. There is general disregard for scale of obligations or "punishments". In arguments made here, Stephanie appears to use various examples - paying for a broken window, feeding a helpless infant in a cabin, etc. - as analogues to demonstrate her moral position as (self-)evident. I'd argue this is conveniently ignoring the reality of scale in the issue discussed. Pregnancy, even beyond the substantial initial obligation of 9 months of time, health conditions, etc., causes lifelong changes to a woman's body and has demonstrated ties to lifelong decrease in income and socioeconomic status, inflicting lifelong harms to both the woman and any other children she may have. Since she references our current legal body as evidence, it is worth noting that this is already baked into that framework. If you break a window playing baseball, you may be required to pay some amount towards replacement, but you are certainly not expected to wash a new window as long as it’s in place or otherwise have an obligation without clear finite end. We don’t give a life sentence to acts which do not deserve one. There are clearly competing interests and moral values in this debate, and in discussion, it is if anything MORE important to consider duties/obligations on balance. 2. Her base assumption that women hold some culpability because they engage in acts they KNOW to cause pregnancy is inherently flawed. Leaving aside the already-presented point that sex and pregnancy is generally divorced in modern culture, I would argue that the state of sexual education in the US especially is such that there exist a great many people, men and women, who are not adequately informed of potential consequences to make a rational decision they can be held culpable for, especially in a lifelong way. In the thought experiment of the violinist, even if the kidnapped victim had expressed themselves as a great music lover/member of the society and therefore had some theoretical increased risk of abduction, it would not change that person’s moral right to disconnect themselves from the violinist. The person surely might have greater internal conflict/consideration about the decision, but it is far from a moral absolute as would be necessary to justifiably legislate around this. 3. There are a few references to referring to “basic or ordinary” vs “extraordinary” needs around 12:30 and 20:00. This is entirely arbitrary and poor ground for a moral framework. It is easily argued that carrying a baby to term is extraordinary in itself and that doing this is an extraordinary act/commitment - one which, as referenced in (1) has lifelong implications for both the mother and any other children she cares for. I’ve personally seen/cared for women who would unfortunately be unable to feed their other kids if they were to have another. By Stephanie’s reasoning at the end of the video, this ought to identify carrying a child to term as an extraordinary act which ought not to have a moral/legal duty attached. 4. The uterus as a dedicated organ for fertility and therefore owed to an unborn child is an interesting argument. I’d argue the problem with this is that the uterus itself can only be regarded as part of a moral entity, not an independent one. It does not function outside a the mother’s body and its use necessitates obligation from the mother and every part of the mother (including her kidneys). The uterus’s status/purpose is also insufficient reason for this to be taken automatically as an obligation. Consider that food itself is meant to be eaten and to sustain the body, yet we do not consider it a moral duty to give our excess food away to be eaten by another, regardless of whether they require it to survive. It is considered our belonging (and therefore a part of us as a moral entity, if you will) and therefore its use can only be with the assent of the person who has it to begin with. Some of how this is read is obviously going to hit/miss based on the reader's fundamental assumptions and honestly most people engaged in this debate aren't going to come at it from an angle of logical reasoning. I'd generally argue that, in face of moral uncertainty and in light of our tradition of valuing personal liberty/autonomy, it seems exceptionally heavy-handed to legislate a requirement to carry to term. Overall though, I trust myself and mothers I speak with/care for to make a moral judgment without the interference of men I've never met at some state house.

Another, fairly simple rebuttal to the kidney transplant part; You can only donate a kidney once, assuming you have 2 that are healthy, to save the child. But you can have several children with the same uterus. You don't lose your uterus.

I would like to hear her address two rare, but real, scenarios: 1. Where the pregnancy threatens the life of the expectant mother. Pre-eclampsia, hemorrhage from placental abruption and ectopic pregnancy are three conditions that come to mind. 2. Where the fetus has a lethal anomaly, like renal agenesis, thanatophoric dwarfism, anencephaly, etc. I have seen all of these conditions, having spent over 20 years performing sonography in high-risk pregnancies. It is a forgone conclusion in these cases, that death is inevitable, usually immediately after delivery. Does a woman have an obligation to sustain a fetus that is destined to succumb to its condition essentially as soon as it is born. Last, her point of view, obviously, is that human life begins at conception. There are many others who have different definitions of the beginning of human life: at birth, or at the point when fetal viability can occur outside the uterus (whatever that means). These are philosophical and religious tenets, and as strongly held by some as she holds to hers. We, as a society, will never come to a consensus, let alone a unanimous understanding, of when human life begins. Because one’s definition is based, to a large degree, on that individual’s religious belief system, then, I think it is fair to ask, does the state have the right to ban abortion based on the religious belief system held by a majority of legislators. That is to say, can the state impose the religious belief system on to society, as a whole? In the U.S., does that violate the 1st amendment?

The consent part of this is nonsense. Even if somebody consented to being connected to the violinist in order to save their life instead of being kidnapped, I don't believe it is unreasonable for that person to change their mind and decide they don't want to be connected to the violinist anymore at a later point. It's a difficult decision to make but the violinist is still not entitled to their body.

This solidified my new opinion. I’m opened minded to change any opinion I have. Thankful someone made it easy for me to get

The violinist argument is insanely childish and the comparison doesn't make any sense.

She looks like a mixture of Pam from The Office and Gina from Brooklyn 99.

I would like to know her response to special cases where the pregnancy is confirmed or has a high % of placing the mother at risk of health problems and even worse, death. Otherwise I appreciate all her responses and I feel that they stand firm in response to pro choice.

One thing I find it to be a bit odd here is that she is using other laws to try to explain a new law. Just because one law exist doesn’t mean there can’t be exceptions to that law.

It's kind-of weird how these counter-arguments and examples keep coming back to just nine months. Being a mother carries on for the entire remainder of your existence; it's not just about the nine months of pregnancy and pain of childbirth. Like, if we had the technology to safely teleport a fetus out of one uterus and implant into a surrogate, would everyone there suddenly turn around? Would all these people be willing to raise a child and forever be their mother if we could magically skip past the childbirth and pregnancy? I'd honestly like to see how people react to that idea.

The argument fails at stating the fact that at the end of the nine months, the procedure could end up costing one of both of their lives, or could permanently traumatise them for their life afterwards, this doesn’t feel like a sound argument

Interesting angle on the topic. What I rarely hear discussed is how sex is almost always necessary for a healthy relationship. If you want to be in a (heterosexual) relationship and yet not have children, it's as if you're not allowed. I believe this is a fairly extreme stance to have. It is unrealistic to think that people who don't want children should never have sex. Also the argument that you have an obligation to the fetus as its mother to give birth to it would mean that the father would have an obligation to support the woman while she is pregnant. As well as if you have an obligation before birth, why should this stop after the child is born. If the child is given up for adoption in the USA likely the child will suffer abuse in the foster care system, and if you are able to give them a better life should you be obligated to do so? When I think about it, it doesn't seem like the argument that the parents have an obligation to the unborn child holds up very well. This topic is extremely complex and the implications of either sides of the argument are a hard pill to swallow.

This was a very interesting and different discussion. Stephanie really impressed me. She is a very wise woman. I have liked and subscribed.

16:50 so if a fetus can claim the "right" of your uterus exclusively because it happened to fill the bioloical function of carrying a fetus, does that also mean that a potential mate has the right to use someones vaginal canal, against their will, as sex/birthing is its biological function? I honestly cannot understand how such an objectifying argument can stump anyone.

This is well argued however, I have an issue with a couple of things here. First there is a link between procaution and responsibility for consequences, wherever the line is, one would usually argue that there is a certain level of procaution one might take such that a baseball going through a window is such a freak accindent one can not hold the people playing responsible. Second, the way rape is Charachterised. Rape is not just a stronger person attacking a weaker person, it is the invasion of the most intimate part of someones body, to allow start a process which then continues a take over of their body has a cruelty which while acknowledged (glibly) is not properly dealt with. Thirdly, the imposition of a "purpose" to a part of my body which I do not agree with. My uterus may have that particular capacity, it also has others such as hormone regulation. Your belief that your uterus exists for your potential offspring is absolutely fine, it is not sufficient to impose a legal obligation regarding mine. The physical toll and inherent risks of pregnancy are all grosly underplayed here, especially in regards to equating it to bottle feeding. Something is also happening here with the notions of parental and community care. You argue that the rape victim has a perental responsibility to the child. However you then compare it to being in a cabin with a baby who is a stranger, where you therefore have a comunity obligation to care for the child. You also suggest that the rape victim does not continue to have a tie to the child, her obligation comes from her sole ability to provide care. A few questions arise if a baby concieved as a chld of rape is essentially being regarded as the responsibility of the comunity (which i would tend to agree with), if one consideres ensuring the child is born is a part of that responsibility (which I tend to disagree with). if another person could be chosen at random to carry the baby to term would it be acceptable to force them to do so? Why or why not. should the community be paying the rape victim the going rate of a surrogate, since she is acting as a surrogate on behalf of the community? If so is their faliure to do so reason enough that she can abort the pregnancy?

If you think gestating and then birthing a child for 9 months is ordinary care and minor, then you have not had a child. Some people would prefer giving a kidney than gestating and birthing a baby. You can change it to donating a pint of blood instead of donating a kidney. Are you legally obligated to donate a pint of blood to your child? No. How may people would rather donate a pint of blood than gestating and birthing a baby you don't want?

I really appreciate her perspective. I find myself agreeing with her on most points, except for cases in which the mother didn't consent. I just don't feel like there is an argument that can make me okay with the idea of forcing a victim to carry the offspring of her attacker.