Defeating Pro-Life Arguments 

Sorry to hear this my friend, but you had a dilemma, that many do not have to face. You made what you say was probably the wrong choice, so at least you are dwelling in the realm of repentance, I am sure God hears your heart cry. Bless you, and your family. Xx

Thank you for sharing. Hugs I can't imagine how hard it was - the good thing is that your story can teach us and honor your baby at the same time. Bless you!

While I’m strongly Pro life, I don’t vilify you I am sorry you have had to live with this pain. If you’re Catholic there is a event called Rachel’s Vineyard that can help your partner (not sure if men can go) go and heal and work through some of the mental trauma. You are not alone and God bless

That's an intensely difficult situation and probably the worst situation a couple could face. No one should place judgement on you. When people have experienced horrible situations beyond their control, then fellow Christians must provide genuine mercy, empathy, compassion, and healing support.

Mrs Q Men CAN go to Rachel’s Vineyard. I saw a wonderful testimony by a man whose wife aborted their 3rd child (they both agreed to it), and was torn apart by it, and found healing through Rachel’s Vineyard. Check out Queen of Peace Media here on youtube.

He was subtle with his video title. It's not arguments against pro-life, it's just his debating tactics to try and win the semantics war and dismantle how pro-life arguments are formed.

That's cause there isn't a good argument against pro life.

@@pclare7477 The argument is simple life begins when you take your first breath. That is a very easily marked time. When we die we also stop breathing. They PRO LIFERS always want to interfere with what a women wants to do with her body. They are essentially a GIVE BIRTH OR DIE movement.

@@kimobrien. #Soyboyalert

Kim O'Brien what happens when people have a iron lung? Also what happens to babies that are fully capable of surviving outside the womb? Also some people in the ER can’t breath on their own? Their lives don’t have value?

Yeeesss

How can I be pro life when I wish I had been aborted as well....

😊

@@josef2739 Life doesn't begin until you take your first breath and start crying.

Read Judith Thomson's essay.

@@RPKD88 Yes, I have in its entirety. And if comparing an intentional killing to letting someone die, and an adult using your kidney to a fetus using your uterus is the best argument prochoicers have, I will always be strongly prolife.

@@isabellabello5919 it's two words. Pro-life not prolife lol. There are many arguments in there and if that's all you picked up from it you need to re-read it.

@@isabellabello5919 There are more arguments for pro choice than there are for pro life btw. Pro life has only 1 argument, which is that killing a fetus is wrong. That's it.

Omg yeah LOL

Scum bag leftist with the fake titles

Clutch Spartan7 pro life are usually on the right

Lil T0eS not necessarily , I believe in Social Democracy . But fundamentally I believe the core of human rights , is the right to live .

Omg I can't comprehend pro-life people... why do you espouse pro life but you don't care about animal rights? I think its obvious there's no consequence to a fetus dying. Is there no consequence to a cow dying? What about cows being brutally abused constantly on large scale?

I think you just have an emotional bias to think there's something magical about the fetus being a "human baby". Do you believe that mountains and rivers and clouds have spirits, like the animists? Do you believe that fetuses have spirits?

Couldn't of said it better myself

It's just like Dr suess said, "a person's a person, no matter how small"

Enjoy Scott as well.

@@christianweber7435Good one. Even a child can understand that.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are *LIFE* ...” -Thomas Jefferson Life begins at conception; the science is very clear on that. If we are all created equally and we all have the right to life and that life begins at conception, then abortion is wrong.

@Danijel Mornarić half of all women are pro-life. And about a slight majority of men are pro-life. Based on us data. If gallop and pew are anything to go by

gang gang

That's what you got out of the video ? There can't be a civil discourse with that type of stance :/

Sergio Gutierrez I think she’s just bringing up her own struggle as a pro-life woman

madelyn sullivan apparently I’m a self-hating woman because I’m Christian 😂

The thing inside me is.

@@ruranrin2197 It is a seperate entity which you put "inside you" yourself.

@@MikeOck88 No, it's part of me, I can get rid of me---it would not survive without my body on its own, also, it's sometimes could be something that was "put" inside.

@@ruranrin2197 You put it inside though. The baby is a seperate being, not you. If you have a child in you, you do not have 20 fingers and 20 toes, even though the baby does. You do not get to exterminate it when you're the one who put it there. The only excuse for abortion is rape or if the mothers life is under threat, both of which are extremely rare cases in which abortion occurs. The baby is an individual regardless of who it's dependant on. It has it's own genes and dna. Fingers toes brainwaves and the capacity for sentience. The potential for viability given some time. If murder is wrong, then abortion is wrong.

@@MikeOck88 No, the fetus is not a person fam, it's developing cells that wouldn't be here if they were outside my body---it's not a separate being, it's part of my body, whether or not it lives is up to me. And, yes, I can exterminate it(what if it was unplanned?), the choice is still mine and up to me because it's still inside and undeveloped, growing cells that are part of me, they cannot survive outside of my body, they're a great risk to me if they keep developing---the foetus has been described before as acting in a parasitic way: it avoids rejection by the mother and exerts considerable influence over her metabolism for its own benefit, in particular diverting blood and nutrients. Also you'll allow abortion to happen when a woman was raped, what of the ones that were forced to have the child? The ones that don't have financial means to raise one, the physically ill ones, the ones that have mental and psychological disease, the ones that aren't ready to raise a child. You say that it's a life, but it isn't, it's a potential life, when you force a girl/women to have a baby, you're somewhat literally putting her life at risk, pregnancy is a risky thing that comes with complications and permanent injuries to your body. Sounds like you just want to control women's body and have a 'moral' superiority, also, why should you use children as punishment or a consequence when it can be prevented? Abortion is also not murder since you're getting rid of underdeveloped cells. Why would you risk a woman's physical health and well-being over a potential, developing life?

@@savrockismyname3859 Haha, no. I was just genuinely curious about what arguments could "defeat" pro life arguments.

@@savrockismyname3859 Yeah, "my body, my choice" no longer works when it's demonstrably obvious that the baby is its own separate human life. And I don't think some pro choicers want to acknowledge that.

Haha yea I think the title is basically saying "(the problem with) defeating pro life arguments"

@@noahjames6633 Where does the "unborn" child get the right to live off the mothers body? If I need a kidney and want to live can I take one of yours? You're "Pro Life" right? Give up one of your kidneys.

@@kimobrien. because the mother chose to perform an act that results in a baby. So it's her responsibility to carry it to term. It is not my responsibility to give you a kidney, but nice try.

@Boredpersons55 Well then I have no response for the likes of you, former parasite.

@@BenChuk61 Life doesn't begin until you take your first breath. An obviously well defined time.

Kim O'Brien nope I responded to you on another comment... read it

@@he.walks.among.us_ You don't really respond you just raise red herrings that are irrelevant because they only refer to medical care. Any Medical Examiner after doing an autopsy can tell the difference between a baby that has inflated its lungs and a fetus which has not.

@@kimobrien. Why do you think life doesn't begin until the first breath?

Let's try the math and science approach: (Mother's Body) + (Baby's Body) = (2 Bodies)

You read the title wrong, he's telling you how to defeat pro-life arguments (by telling you the basics of the stance.)

As a society we actually don’t seem to have a problem with killing. We do it all the time. We kill for fun, food, defense, resources, freedom, rage, revenge, suicide, sacrifice and mercy. You may try to argue that killing is wrong under all circumstances, or simply relabel the death as “noble or justifiable” but in the end someone is still dead. Even if that death is part of a sacrifice or deemed defensible. So we should be honest with ourselves and admit that killing isn’t the problem per se. It’s whether the kill is morally justifiable. In order to that make that determination though one must identify the antecedents by which that choice is to be evaluated. What makes it good or bad? It requires a moral framework. That framework need not be religiously derived, but it should be definable and objective. In this context it’s “freedom of choice / body autonomy” and the “sanctity of new life”. Both values are labeled as “good” in our society. Life is good and freedom is good. So how does one logically determine which value holds sway over the other? How’s the weighting process conducted? The “viability outside the womb” argument is one of the most compelling at this point. It is measurable and scientific. Fetus viability outside the womb is 0% up to 19 weeks. It is as this point that the “freedom of choice” argument holds the most sway, simply because other positions like “God’s will” or even “the will of the fetus” can’t be properly measured. This is not to say that other factors don’t exist, they just can’t be objectively evaluated. After 20 weeks the probability of survival increases exponentially. So at this point the “freedom to choose” value is encroached upon and eventually surpassed by another value we prize - the value of life. This is why late stage abortion laws are also seen as repugnant by most people, because they recognize that choice is no longer sufficient enough to outweigh the value of life. Or rather life potential. Remember... our society has no problem with killing if it can be logically justified. The challenge you’re going to bump up against convincing a “pro-choice” individual to change their position is convincing them that their freedom doesn’t stack rank higher on the morally defensible list when the continued life of the fetus depends 100% on the host. Don’t shoot the messenger. I just know that this is the argument.

@@spencerarnot Not much point in talking to someone who equates animal life with human life. Someone who can't distinguish the right of self defense and the state's authority to protect the common good by capital punishment, and wanton murder as in homicide and abortion. The first 2 are acts of justice, the last 2 acts are murder - a gross injustice. Executing Ted Bundy is the same a murdering an innocent baby? What planet are you on?

Thank you. I get it. I still think the title should be different. Like Useless Pro-choice argument against Pro-life.

Just click bait. Like those fake Pregnancy Crisis Centers seeking to get women to go in so they can go crazy about how she needs to continue her pregnancy at all costs. Life begins when you take your first breath.

@@kimobrien. as stated in the video that's arbitrary. does life end when you take your last unassisted breath? what about those on life support? are they dead because they cannot breathe on their own?

@Dez Parker Basically you invent crazy situations as examples to bolster your support for the police and government to enter into the Doctor Patient relationship. Doctors get their license from state medical boards who supervise them when it comes to ethics and malpractice. The only education a policeman gets is how to beat or torture people without making a mark and the government is under control of the wealthy. Laws never apply in the same way to the poor and working class compared to the wealthy. The wealthy will have no problem carrying out your made up situations if they so choose with or without laws to the contrary. They can buy all the legal aid they need and hide behind a skyscraper full of lawyers.

Many people believe that life begins when you take your first breath including many Jews. Christian's themselves are divided on the abortion issue. Even bio ethicists for the Catholics in the US have said that abortions are OK in some instances like ectopic pregnancies. They have to go though a bunch of ethical gymnastics to approve an abortion where the fetus dies outside the mother in a portion of the Fallopian tube and not as a direct killing with a medical abortion or just removing the pregnancy. This of course raises further ethical challenges for the Church since sterilization is also a NO NO and removing half of one Fallopian tube means you interfering with "GOD's plan" which is why you had two Fallopian tubes.

(This is directed towards all reading and I’m sorry if I seem rude 😔)Now, unless you’re saying fake crisis pregnancy centers as in jerks who just say “oh look, you’re pregnant, keep it” and provide no assistance and are disguised as a facility to help pregnant women, then I do agree with you that they are disgusting. Now, if you’re just generalizing a pregnancy crisis center, they often provide actual help to women and don’t treat black women as imbeciles and invalids. They treat each person equally and are never supposed to be rude and judgemental (saying it’s within your best interest in physical and mental health to carry to term isn’t being judgmental). And they will absolutely fire a worker for judgemental, rude, aggressive attitudes..

Petya Rizova 👏🏻👏🏻🙌🏻🤞🏼

I know right! I don’t see how anyone thinks he can persuade someone into believing that killing a baby is ok. You can’t get more innocent than a baby.

I thought I'd hear some good points but I was disappointed 😅

@@petyarizova2906 Nothing but click bait and preaching to the choir.

Petya Rizova goOd!

Kaz Kasozi, me too, me too.

@@JWestie85 Good we will be expecting you at the lords kidney donation center.

@@kimobrien. Well I am an organ donor already, but I'd rather sell my kidney for 100k than give it to a waste of space like you. I've seen you talk, and I'd pick babies over you any day tbh

@@bruhlaro5416 I don't want or need your damn kidney. Go ahead and donate one now because if your like most of us you don't need two. I've seen how dialysis works for the poor. If the med cab is delayed for any reason they don't get their treatment for that day and must wait one or two days. The patients are in tears because they know this may mean they don't wake up the second or third day later. In America medicine is a business something to suck out profits from with government intervention to protect investors first.

@@kimobrien. tf you tell me to keep my damn kidney, then suddenly blow a gasket and start talking about the medical system? You doing ok buddy?

Haha same

you watched a video from a pro-lifer representing a position they don't hold so I doubt your open minded

Me too! See what I did there?

@@jaelynmcmurray8745 I didn't know he was Pro-life at all I just searched for pro choice arguments and this came up.

@@jamesBFC1887 In your profile pic I can see you have the same vieuws as Ben Shapiro.

What I don’t understand is in animals that we share a common ancestor with the development of the embryo is extremely similar yet nobody talks about murdering them. In fact we actually wait for these animals to grow up and then eat them. I feel like if people are going to be pro life, they should be pro all life; including pro animal life and pro non-American life. They should be vegan, they should be running a foster home, they should be donating and helping starving and dying children in Third World countries, they need to be buying ethical brands of clothing that doesn’t use sweatshop labor, using less plastic etc.

@Gretel Devendorf "At least I'm not a cannibal." (personally, I try to eat as little meat as possible anyway) Also, there will never be a profit motive for me to kill other people. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The difference is that a zygote straight after conception isn't sentient whereas a fully formed human being is.

@ I.B. the Composer Unscientific Dehumanization ≠ Justification for Inhumane Treatment _Will those insights be tested, or simply used to justify the status quo and reinforce prejudices? ... Phrenology was a model that relied on pseudoscientific nonsense to make authoritative pronouncements, and for decades it went untested._ ―Cathy O'Neil P.S. - (5:39) Did you even manage to watch the video. This is embarrassing. Brian literally addressed how to effectively counter your point, in another way, in the video a couple of centimeters above.

dragonhold14, I have watched the whole video. Brian's arguments still have the same problem because the definition of life he gave is just his opinion that it starts from conception. It is just as arbitrary to say that life begins at conception as well as any other ''earlier'' places in pregnancy. Also it is not really an unscientific demonization because right after the pregnancy, all that happens is just mitosis and meiosis and these are processes happen in plants as well. Just because Brian asserts that it is objective that life starts at conception, it doesn't make it objective. So no, my point still stands. The beginning of human life can be argued that it is a social construct. Trying to say where human life begins is like pointing out when something objectively red turning into blue. To say that scientists have a consensus in where human life begins is not true.

Great logic

Condoms and other contraception stop the natural process too, should we stop using those?

@@JACKKiXi yes

Jack Nixon There’s one method that is 100 % effective and one I’ve been using for a while now: abstinence.

@@ziyalane and that's something you expect the whole population to abide by? Abstinence is a personal choice. There is nothing wrong with contraception.

indeed! so confused if i should click like? is this a Onion video?

@@biffhasle5083 A click bait video. No serous argument against the "Pro Birth" view. Much like the phony pregnancy crisis centers.

Kim O'Brien lmao well Kim why don’t you explain what would be convincing, hypothetically

😂😂

@@spuilloh2637 My existence as a pro-life atheist disproves your point.

It’s true. Once they realize reason, logic, and science aren’t on their side, they go to their feelings and hold those as the ultimate authority. But that of course is a slippery slope, because if our feelings tell us what is right and everything is just subjective, then what ground are THEY standing on to argue their points? None!😂

Green Icon I’m no expert, but logic is dealing with information and reasoning. It looks at patterns, data, history, etc to make truth statements. Emotion generally deals in feelings/the heart. It is not informed by logic but by emotion. Which, of course, is subject to change quickly and can be vastly different from person to person. Both are important- I don’t think emotion should be absent from conversations, but in my opinion it should not be held above logic & reasoning because of the subjective & changing nature of it. To use logic & reasoning acknowledges that there are objective truths in the world. But as we live in a culture that increasingly rejects objective truth, you see the diminishing of logical, rational reasoning. Hope that helps a little, I definitely don’t know how to explain it very well!

I had 5 abortions. its safest method of birth control for woman Im not gone take hormones so some religious zealous can feel good about themselves American tax payers paid for wars that killed million of pregnant women. its not about the fetus its about controlling women's body

My logic is if you're pro choice then you'd be fine if you were aborted saying no against that means you're against an abortion because it would be a life that never happened and if they say that would have been okay because at the time the were just cells then well if you were aborted you'd never be able to argue therefore I win and if you're pro choice you're okay with abortion and say it's fine okay it's the choice to kill you support not a choice to kill or live because well I sure hope they'd not murder a baby

@@miaa7097 I can't for the life of me understand where people get the idea from that it's about controlling women's bodies. WHO CARES about that? It's about objective morality.

He is. He labels his videos in a way that "tricks" the other side into watching them and hearing logical arguments. Call or clickbait, call it dishonest, call it whatever you want. It's a legitimate tactic and it can be effective If the RU-vidr sees this comment, I hope I'm right!

You didnt see the uCatholic at the start of the video? If you dont have a logical argument for abortion other than my body my choice, a sound bite argument for human life, maybe you should examine if you believe in humanity or not.

Eva Fifer because he is

@eva fifer - Dude you must be some sort of a detective or something how did you riddle out the subtlties of it all?

@@heroicaknight4735 that is quite clever he tries to make it look like he is arguing for the other side so that pro choicers are more receptive to the message.

Just because you feel it's wrong, doesn't mean that you should force your beliefs on to women's bodies. I believe that abortion is the wrong thing to do in a lot of situations however by banning abortions you only increases infant mortality and mother mortality rates. States pushing abortion bans such as Alabama have the highest infant mortality rates. By banning abortion it only leads to women getting abortions in terrible unsafe places, it makes me so sad that women have used wire coat hangers to give themselves an abortion instead of getting support which may even change their mind. To reduce abortion rates we must educate people on sex, make that mandatory, provide contraception and give aid in funds, someone to talk to for struggling parents who have conceived a child which they weren't ready for or didn't want. I disagree with a lot of the points in this video and hope you never have to vote for what I and many other women do with our bodies, what I do with my own body is my human right and you have no right to take that away from me or any other women.

There are certain moral standards that are enforced by law whether you like it or not. The law is not infringing on the "rights" of gang bangers to commit murder when murder is prohibited. The only question that is relevant is whether this thing growing inside the womb is a human life or not. If it is, then abortion would be murder. It is not a woman's "choice" nor constitutional "right" to commit murder.

Same. I used to be blindly pro-choice as well.

Kelly Crutchfield Same!

@@CutieMillion are you stupid? Infant mortality rate is a just a number. The reason is it higher in places where abortion is prohibited is because in the places where it's allowed, ALL THE BABIES DYING DON'T COUNT TOWARDS THE STATISTIC...

"Life is sacred" is probably one of the most bluepilled, naive, and idealistic statements I've ever heard. It's up there with "communism could work"

Logan Van Liempt Learn English then

Logan Van Liempt Ironic. I'm guessing you're talking about your own response

@@Proxya, you're right we should kill everyone with an IQ below 130, everyone in prison, people with physical anomalies, leftards, pro-choice people, ... Excellent idea, I'm eager to put it in action.

@Cherry Ribbion What's wrong with the youth in Asia?

I'm pro-choice You can't change my mind.

Yet your user name is pimp. You both messed up. You and the SJW

Since abortion is an adult topic, best not to drag kids into it at all.

You’re being manipulated by images… You won’t see this group arguing with reasonable pro choicers to make solid arguments…

They kill an entire class of human beings. People who support that _knowingly_ that will fall to the lowest of the low to get what they want. Nothing to be surprised.

That's the far left for you. Lol

Ohh my god, you are so woke !!! You feel more for the baby than its own mother , you must be an angel. I guess you won't be using any condoms or contraceptives while having sex, you should not prevent possible conception of an innocent human life, that'd be so cruel 😭

@@the_reality_of_the_virtual3212 preventing a pregnancy from occurring isn't the same as ending a pregnancy by abortion. Conflating the issues isn't helpful to your cause. That would be like me saying to you, "Since you believe abortion is okay you would be happy to be killed by your mother today." If people don't want kids but want to have sex recreationally, use contraception like condoms instead of relying on abortions.

Danijel Mornarić it’s scary how you think a woman only gets pregnant because they just wanted to have unprotected sex, what about rape victims? What about the cases in which the birth controls fail?

No they are not, until 24 weeks the fetus does not feel anything and before they are just a bunch of cells. If you don’t want to abort, good for you, but you shouldn’t determine whether another woman can or can’t have an abortion. If you can’t understand other people’s thoughts you can not understand the truth, that is basic philosophy.

@@melanycastillo8275 you are a clump of cells just like all living organisms. Why do you deserve to live, please justify that? Also, women aren't inherently valuable just for being women. So if they have an abortion, there is no reason to care for their health and wellbeing. They are about as evil as murderers. That fact dosen't change regardless of how many rationalizations you come up with. As for the pain argument, based on its logic, technically it would be morally justified to murder people with CIPA. Lastly, the case of rape. Considering less than 1% of abortions are because of rape, know this, bringing it up means you have already conceded. Stop with the whataboutisms! It's a very low IQ way to argue.

@N Mil Not one? Not even if the woman and the baby will end up dying if she doesnt have an abortion?

Also to me it sounds like he is pro life and made the title, and the begining of the video to sound like he is arguing for pro choice, when he really isnt.

@@tis.i.the.fly8933, 1. Nobody is arguing whether abortion is bad if the mother is in danger of death. 2. He even said he's pro life, he just showed the irrationality of pro choice noobs.

@N Mil What if the women is giving birth to the Antichrist? Ooooo now what? I know that wouldn't wash well particularly with you guys.

@N Mil Not if you abort him/her first! You'd be a hero! Let's say you KNEW... I don't know, you check the ultrasound and see the fetus is covered in inverted pentagrams, inverted crosses, 666 on it's forehead, spiked tail, and little devil horns. Would you do the abortion then?

most of them aren't pro-life, just anti women.

@@loop6224 cool. What's your address? I'm betting some of these RU-vidrs (not me, I view human life as sacred) wouldn't mind offing you just for the fun of it. You guys could set up one of those deals where somebody wants to be a cannibal and the other person wants to be cannibalized.

John Buckner Huh? I’m still pro-life. I literally agreed with you that a fetus in the womb and a fully grown adult are both clumps of cells.

@@loop6224 Sorry bread, I read your post real quick before I went to bed and thought you were saying that no life at all was Precious on Earth. I've heard folks say that to me before too, which is ridiculous. Forgive my Hasty response.

The ''clump of cells'' argument has to be one of their dumbest arguments yet. They literally contradict themselves with this argument, they say it's not a living thing yet they call it a clump of cells, and cells are in fact the basic building blocks of all living things obviously including a human life. I just can't help but laugh at their stupidity and how they love to deny basic biology.

@@ecstasy5022 lol get over yourself and your stupidity. it is called zygote - embryo- fetus for a reason. also IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT IS A HUMAN OR NOT . no one has the right to use my body to survive. now mind ur damn business you worthless shit

You got me to giggle with that

Prissy Lovejoy Same here lol

So good

Well it sounds like you want to hear the other side of the argument so here it is, escape that echo chamber haha. I am pro choice. This is my counter argument to this video, which I made in a previous comment. I have chosen to address this video systemically. Starting with the first premise: homicide is wrong. Yes, we can agree on this. Not going to elaborate on that, seems self explanatory. Second premise: homicide is defined as the deliberate killing of an innocent human life, however, self defense is okay. I suppose I can agree on this, though would it kill you to use sources? I will be using this one, it’s similar enough, but I find it more credible to use sources. According to Cornell Law School, “homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense.” I’ll be using this because it makes much more sense to use this than something some person I don’t know said on the internet. Third Premise: abortion always involves the killing of an innocent human life, and therefore it is homicide. Here is where we disagree. The issue is, you haven’t actually proven that it is human. There were two reasons you gave for why it is human, however I disagree with the very premise. The issue is not whether it is human or not, the issue is whether it is sentient or not, because that is what makes someone human. First, you say that it has its own DNA so therefore it is human. The issue is, human DNA does not make it sentient nor does it make it its own person. Identical twins have the same DNA, but they aren’t the same person. A drop of my blood has human DNA, so what? That does not mean that it feels pain or has hopes and aspirations. If it is not sentient it cannot be human. Again, you don’t need to prove that it is human, you need to prove that it is sentient. Second, you say that it has a heartbeat at 6 weeks. This is only half true. When you say this you are implying that there is a little heart beating inside the embryo, however this is simply not true. There is a tiny flutter, however the beat isn’t audible, if a doctor put a stethoscope up to your stomach at this point they would not hear a thing.* It’s only been in the past few decades that doctors have been able to detect this using more sophisticated machinery. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has said in a statement, “What is interpreted as a heartbeat in these bills is actually electrically-induced flickering of a portion of the fetal tissue that will become the heart as the embryo develops.” Thus, ACOG does not use the term ‘heartbeat’ to describe these legislative bans on abortion because it is misleading language, out of step with the anatomical and clinical realities of that stage of pregnancy.”** Plus, a heartbeat does not equal sentience. Just because it has a heartbeat does not mean it is alive. If it is not human, then it is not homicide. Now I would like to make another point. Even if it was sentient, abortion is still morally acceptable due to self defense. You say that homicide is acceptable if used as self defense. Approximately 808 women die every day from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth.*** That would total out to 294,920 women who die each year due to pregnancy and childbirth. Compared to the 68,000 women who die from unsafe abortion annually****, abortion is far safer. Thus it is completely morally acceptable as self defense. After all, if it is taking advantage of your organs without your consent then removing it would be self defense. Finally, due to bodily autonomy, it would be morally acceptable even if it was sentient. I am sure you have heard of the violinist analogy, however I find it important so I will describe it to you on the chance that you have not heard it before. It comes from Judith Jarvis Thomson, first published in Philosophy & Public Affairs. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. In this situation you have the right to unplug yourself, I hope we can agree on that. My point is, there are limits on the right to life, which does not include the right to use another person’s body. This clearly applies to abortion as well. Abortions does not violate the fetus’ right to life, but merely deprives the fetus of the non-consensual use of the pregnant woman’s body and life-supporting functions - to which it has no right. Thus, abortion merely withdraws its use of the pregnant person’s own body. Due to bodily autonomy, it is my belief that even if the zygote/embryo/fetus could feel pain, it would still be moral to abort because it is using someone else’s body without their consent. Would anyone be able to refute these points? Please cite sources and do not use any religious texts as evidence. *www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html **www.factcheck.org/2019/07/when-are-heartbeats-audible-during-pregnancy/ ***** www.unfpa.org/maternal-health ****** www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/

​@@isabaglin3384 Sure we will argue on grounds we both accept. The issue is you have not proven that you are human (in a moral sense) usually termed person. You say the issue is sentience the elk I hunt are sentient do you have the same right to life as them or they as you? I don't think sentience grants the right to life naturally I think it is just an is statement no moral or ought attached to it. Of course a country can pass any law it could punish one more for killing an elk than a 2 year old human (factual term species) holding the elk is a person and the 2 year old is not. If the issue is sentience then which animals have it and do you eat them? If your premise is true are you ready to fight to end the slaughter and consumption of pigs? "First, you say that it has its own DNA so therefore it is human. The issue is, human DNA does not make it sentient nor does it make it its own person. Identical twins have the same DNA, but they aren’t the same person. A drop of my blood has human DNA, so what? That does not mean that it feels pain or has hopes and aspirations. If it is not sentient it cannot be human. Again, you don’t need to prove that it is human, you need to prove that it is sentient.' Ok a lot of problems here. A drop of your blood has DNA but not it's own DNA. Dogs feel pain a day old baby probably doesn't have hopes and aspirations. Are you saying all sentient animal are members of the human species? That members of our species that are not sentient say in a coma are not human? "The issue is, you haven’t actually proven that it is human. There were two reasons you gave for why it is human, however I disagree with the very premise. The issue is not whether it is human or not, the issue is whether it is sentient or not, because that is what makes someone human." Let's tackle this part 1st are you saying every animal that is sentient is human and so if a pig is sentient they are human (morally speaking.) So killing a pig that is sentient is just as wrong as killing you? Also when you use human in two ways it can get confusing. "The issue is not whether it is human or not" ok so maybe the issue is if the human is a person my stance is that all humans are persons. " the issue is whether it is sentient or not, because that is what makes someone human" here is the issue you just said it didn't matter if a being was human so then that a human is sentient doesn't matter. So perhaps person would be a better term and sentient beings are persons. So have moral worth or just sentience has a moral and factual meaning. In which case all sentience has the same moral value which other animal are sentience? Either we treat them properly and humans should be treated the same. Or they should be treated like humans and there is a ton of evil. You eat meat? Or alternatively there is something else about humans that makes us matter. I would take the position that sentience doesn't grant us a natural right to life. Deer are sentient I have no reason to think deer have a natural right to life. "Finally, due to bodily autonomy" 1st were does the right to bodily autonomy come from the nature of being human? The organ the fetus is in is meant by nature for the fetus removing the use would be like removing an adult heart. Can a Siamese twin kill their sibling because of bodily autonomy? The violin argument has limited application except in the case of rape the woman is the one who acts to place the fetus within her. In a state that requires this environment. SO the male and female that made the child are more like the society and they beat the man half to death and in the beating he is attached to one of them. Can that person who caused the need now sever it on grounds of autonomy. Does not your right to autonomy stop at hurting another? Does the violinist analogy capture all the particulars or is it a false analogy. What about needing to provide the necessities of life to a child after birth? Would not autonomy suggest you can abandon or starve your child whenever. Or is the birth canal magical. That on one side you have no duty to love your offspring that does not violate autonomy and on the other one does. Why not child exposure of abandonment at any age because they have no natural right to be cared for because of autonomy. Is the draft wrong because of autonomy or some how can you send a young man to die to protect you but a mother has to duty to protect her offspring. Why does he have to protect your life? "Thus it is completely morally acceptable as self defense. After all, if it is taking advantage of your organs without your consent then removing it would be self defense" So if you kidnap a child attach them too you they grab a knife you then are worried they might kill you and you shoot them are you a good person? After all except in the case of rape the woman chose the action that put the child there. So except in the case of rape it seems to be like the kidnapping in the case of rape it's like if someone else kidnapped the child. Can you kill the child with the knife if you were not the kidnapper and someone else attaches the child to you? Would not the 700 deaths a year in the US be the better number to go off with pregnancy? Not all pregnancies are alike either do you just want the risky ones to be able to have an abortion? "Plus, a heartbeat does not equal sentience. Just because it has a heartbeat does not mean it is alive." One celled organisms are living what being has a heart beat but is not alive? Many living things are not sentient. Explain why sentience gives you the right to life? Why does the ability to feel pain make you worth what we accord to humans. That seems too little to mean you matter as much as we hold humans do. Seems we need to remove the myth of human worth and be more rational about it if that is what gives you value. Also as before how many other beings are sentient? I suppose that's a start though I find flaws thanks for the articulate post.

Tessil I’m sorry that you feel that way! I’ve heard more logical arguments come from pro-life advocates than any of the emotional appeals given by pro-abortion advocates who diminish the value of human life in and (as a result) outside of the womb.

anonymous guy "I'm against killing babies" "SO you must be vegan then"???? No correlation there pal

nobody is required to give up their bodily autonomy for another person

Maybe I can help a little? There are a lot of cases where rape victims have children and their lives change for the better, but that isn’t the case for all women. Sometimes women aren’t financially or mentally prepared for a child, and the child will end up worse off. You’re setting the mother up for a lifetime of slander and abuse from conservative religious people, and the child will be an added burden. I don’t really know if certain statistics are reliable or not, but giving women a choice and an option for a safe abortion has a correlation with lower abortion rates in that area. It’s much better than back alley abortions, or sticking a hanger up there. Besides, most pro-lifers are pro-birth at best. Pro-life entails the belief that all lives are worth it, but pro-lifers stand in front of abortion clinics and publicly shame the women who go in. They slander them and reprimand them without a thought for their mental state. And a lot of them aren’t willing to take care of unwanted children- they aren’t willing to provide a loving home for the unwanted child, they just want the child to be born, and then leave it there. It’s this kind of pro-life mindset that turned me away from their point of view. If they believed in the sanctity of human life, they would’ve respected women and provided homes for orphans.

Ahhh sorry for that rather large ramble! I recognise that I’m really biased. But I know that I would rather be aborted. I caused my mother a lifetime of suffering, and I know I and my sisters damaged her mental health beyond repair. It honestly would’ve been better for her if I was never born at all... What about your views? I’d really love to get your opinion as we’re doing this as a topic for religious studies

Same here

Please research Margaret Sanger I think that would help basically this woman was the eugenicsShe had ties to the Nazi party and the Ku Klux Klan

Ragitsu I’m against death penalty, and I’m against Terri Schiavo. I’m against anything that I consider to be ending a human life.

Ragitsu thanks for 3 paragraphs of assumptions. FO

I'm Pro Choice.

Literally the exact same story.

anonymous guy and that has to do with pro life vs pro choice? It sounds like your attempting to make the debate about bees and environmental stuff. What kind of Bull is that?

anonymous guy Ok so we gonna avoid the topic and not address the points this video made 😂😂

@@ryancoleman4151 I raise and slaughter meat, not for nourishment, but for fun.

DarkHair that sounds a lil freaky homie

Kim Wilson TV woo hoo!

Sadly when you make an argument regarding a law you can’t use God because not everyone believes in a God or worships the same God. But then again these pro choice looneys don’t want to deal in facts, logic or applying the law equally so disregard

@@ckhawk00 What facts and logic can you use to prove your god?

Robert Saulnier how about you reread my comment before posting something unrelated to what I wrote.

@@ckhawk00 Kim stated god is on pro-life side and you state that pro-choice don't deal in facts. Believing in a god is as far as you can get from facts.

happened the same 2 me, LOL

You got this! Fight for the truth and for the weak 💪🏻 the Lord will give you strength

@@katien3022 yes, and also you need to keep in mind that you don t need the opnions or aproving of others to do good, our Lord healed a man o the sabath inspite of pharisaic presure, He ate with sinners and prostitutes inspite of the criticism of others, but no because he approved their behavior, but indeed to give them mercy and for they to leave a life of sins behind, and what is so valueble than to fight for the defense of inocent children ?

Be fierce in defence of the innocent.

I realize your comment is from 3 years ago, but I want to reply anyhow for anyone still reading through the comments. Here's another formal philosophical syllogism in defense of life. Premise 1: All humans have intrinsic moral value whether or not they're wanted. Premise 2: All humans begin at conception. Conclusions: It is morally wrong to kill humans in the womb because they're unwanted. The skeptic has to attack premise 1 or premise 2 to defeat this argument. Premise 2 is about as scientifically factual as it can be. Any credible embryological textbook will tell you a human begins at conception when the sperm of the man unites with the oocyte of the woman. So most people attack premise 1. They will have to show how a baby in the womb does not have intrinsic moral value. Intrinsic is compared to extrinsic. If we only have extrinsic value when we are like rags - to be used and thrown a way. But we don't see humans that way. Humans are valuable as an end in themselves. This is why many states will prosecute someone who causes the death of a woman's child in utero that she wanted. But why does that same child suddenly lose it's value simply because the mother decided she doesn't want it? The pro-choice arguments are simply empty and bereft of good reasoning and thinking.

when “explaining” your part of an argument don’t say “period” please lmao

Dear Pro Lifers, look at the body of a 12 year girl who killed herself because she was forced to carry out a pregnancy after her father raped her, and tell me that she shouldn't have been allowed to get an abortion. I dare you.

I see your 12 week miscarrage. Recognize their personhood. Don't see what the issue with killing them is.

I mean its sad sure. Sucks too. But theres no reason to hold a dependant life over the life of another.

@@RT-vw6yw if I look at that body I won't feel bad that abortion wasnt allowed I will feel awful that her father was a disgusting excuse for a human being. And how many abortions and murders are allowed because of this very very very rare sort of instance?

If you aren't mature enough to understand other people's view points then that's a you problem

matthedges1464 LOL so because your girlfriends family adopted children, the person your quoting can’t use that argument against you?? Bahaha. My black friend says you’re dumb.

@@Toxic0788 yes because the argument is that why don't you adopt kids. If they have been involved with adopted kids then they are doing their part.

Evolve Axsym Dating someone who's parents have adopted is not "doing your part." STFU

@@evolveaxsym9422 I'm 17 and currently using the foster homes community computer to type this. Adopting a few kids doesn't help much. I'm surrounded by friends with no families or homes. And every day another kid gets thrown in here and our resources become slimmer and slimmer. Do you guys realize the amount of homeless children? If every child that was conceived was born I couldn't imagine the amount of kids that would be in the foster system. It would be flooded. The majority of us are on all types of depression medications for our childhood trauma of being left behind. Kids raised by the government do not do well, by banning abortion you'd create a whole generation of orphans. No one is adopting us, no one is giving us good education, no one is supporting the unwanted. Food for thought.

@White Wild only if you don't come out the door screaming misogyny

I’m pro-choice but I very often discuss the issue with pro-life people. If you never look at other arguments you will begin to follow it blindly.

And that is why you’re wrong. You can’t have the best answer when you don’t search all answers.

graham cockroach then why the hell are you still pro choice? what could you possibly contribute to the issue that would justify your view? just curious i find your claim suspicious

@@kato4792 I'm still pro-choice because I firmly believe that if the carrier does not wish to go through with birth than abortion should be an option. It is better for everybody involved, including the fetus. Prolifers will often talk of pregnancy support centers, I wish I could support those, but I can't anymore. I volunteered at one a couple months ago and it was terrible. Half of the women I saw there ended up getting abortions anyway. The staff were quite hostile, the conditions were dirty, and the atmosphere depressed me. I left after 2 days, I couldn't stand it. Another thing that contributes to my pro-choice stance is my negative connotation of birth and bringing another sentient being into existence. Life is unbalanced, suffering always prevails. We are slowly dying from the day we are born. It's better to not exist. To me, abortion in some cases can be salvation from a life of suffering. I'm still pro-choice because of the traumas pregnancy causes on the body and mind. My sister, who planned her pregnancy and wanted a child, became so traumatized she couldn't even have sex for quite a long time. She was so traumatized from it she got medically sterelized. She miscarried at 7 months and had to get an 'abortion' (the quotes because it wasn't a traditional abortion but the process was used) to remove her fetus so she wouldn't have to give birth to a corpse. During her pregnancy, although wanted she was miserable. She says herself that she wouldn't wish it upon anybody who didn't want a child. That only strengthened my stance. Many prolifers have said that it's only 9 months and to deal with it, but it extends past that. The mental and physical scars are longlasting. Many prolifers will also call people who get abortions irresponsible. Would you want an irresponsible person raising a child? I believe abortion is best for the fetus and the carrier. It minimizes the suffering. Although I am firmly pro-choice I only condone abortion before 12 weeks or in emergencies. A fetus cannot feel pain before 12 weeks. I talk with prolifers and others of whom I disagree to understand them.

This video convinced me that American president Truman was a murderer, since he ordered two atomic bombs to be dropped on Japan. The guy in the video said "murder is deliberate killing of innocent human life". Was dropping an atomic bomb on Japan deliberate? Yes. Did it kill innocent people, including children? Yes. Therefore, Truman was a mass murderer.

Really? His argument is not very good

Here's my critique of his argument 1. Murder is wrong. I agree. 2. Murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This premise is entirely where the argument is lost or won, I disagree with this, Murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent being that is capable of being in a wakeful state and during which has a degree of consciousness. How conscious the being is determines how wrong murdering that being would be. 3. A fetus is an innocent, biological human being. I agree. 4. Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being (the fetus). I agree, but it is not murder because the fetus is not conscious, nor capable of being in a wakeful state during which it would be conscious.

@@xXCoolBoyGamerAwesome23Xx is the fetus (pre-abortion) living tho?

​@@xXCoolBoyGamerAwesome23Xx Murder has nothing to do with whether the victim is conscious or not though. You just added "consciousness" into the equation as if that makes a difference. Consciousness or the capacity for consciousness is not even unique to humans. Your definition of murder would include killing non-human beings including bugs, rats, etc. Obviously it's absurd to suggest that killing a human being is equivalent to killing a rat. Not to mention, you have to demonstrate that consciousness is value-giving. What is it about consciousness/capacity for consciousness that makes any being morally considerable?

I really liked the guy who looks like the young Jesus. if they wanted fewer abortions they'd favor more use of birth control and early sex education. Priests would adopt children. The do none of those things because the concern isn't with life but your "immortal soul." Pro Lifers are really crazy people who think they are more moral than the rest of us. Most of them have some kind of sexual problem they can't talk about.

@@kimobrien. at what age do you think that children can have their lives ended?

@@sharoncoyle7888 A fetus is not an independent being like a child that can be adopted or placed under the care of a babysitter. Does that answer your question? Or do you want to argue about how you have the right to murder children based upon Hosea 13:16 KJV? or Hosea 14:1 Catholic Bible?

Geez... If this guy has such a Golden Tongue... What’s he doing HERE?.. there’s no fetuses in here... the fetuses are down at the abortion clinic... They’re being walked in and they don’t come out... Seems like he could use his powers of persuasion better there....

Not accurate. We knew fetal development in 1973!

Commander Blox sure but it’s not a women’s right to kill another human life and that’s what the pro life is arguing

@@lenny9342 true, i haven't fully picked a side but for now im pro choice. Can you convince me otherwise. And please be calm if I rebutle your statements I just want to know the deeper mentality. A lot of arguments are the same but everyone goes about their arguements with different evidence and point of views. What is yours?

@@silent04_ Every single part of your body has its own human DNA code, every single one, so therefore, you can do whatever you want with that, when we talk about pregnancy we are talking about another life with its own unique _human_ DNA code, with already all the information about its genetic and hereditary traits, it's a consistently growing and developing human, a human with a different DNA from its mother's, a human that in just weeks has its own heart, its own limbs, its own organs, no woman has two hearts, two heads, or eight limbs, therefore it's not her body, it's a completely new human being, innocent and vulnerable, but quickly growing and developing. By saying it's not viable because it can't live outside the womb ( *_yet_* give it a few months and that statement won't be valid anymore) is like leaving a newborn child abandoned without anyone who can feed them, protect them, and teach them, it can't survive on it's own can it? It must be protected by another human to live; the only difference between our bodies and the ones developing inside the womb is _time_ , because our DNA _never_ changes, _ever_ , and it's one of a kind

@@caspertheghost4458 When do you think life begins or what are your requirements for someone to be considered human/worthy of life?

It’s pro choice not pro abortion

He also presents his videos in a very professional setting and has the intelligence to back it up with his content. I'm sure those at RU-vid do their best to try and compromise his channel

Amen to that!

Yes!!!

The algorithm

Because RU-vid is as far left as you can get

Killing babies? You mean aborting fetuses? This is the false equivalency meant to evoke an irrational emotional response

@@YamadaDesigns literally the same thing bro. Life starts at conception

@@YamadaDesigns in the end, abortion always ends up with a dead baby

@@childofthelivinggod. a fetus and a baby are not the same thing. The terms aren't even synonyms

@@Skelekitten_ how is the term "fetus" different from "baby/offspring"? And how does it then give you the right to kill your child?

Wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove

Not tricky if it causes you to hear truth....bless

@Tessil and that makes it ok? People have also molested children since beginning of time...if you follow the morals of society you will find them everchanging.....you dont kill, its amazing that there is even a debate on this.

@Tessil save an embryo??? Umm aside from rape which is hugely marginal in this discussion, the woman and man made a concious CHOICE to create that baby, nothing more than selfishness and denial cause a person to willfully kill their own child.

@Tessil nazis also convinced a nation that jews werent human.....and everyone went along with it. Just sayin, it absolutely is a human.

Yes, the crux of the entire abortion debate revolves around bodily autonomy. The fetus is dependent on the mother’s body, not the other way around. The fact that the mother’s actions (whether voluntary or involuntary) created that situation is not relevant. This is brilliantly summed up in the violinist argument. It is not a question of whether abortion is right or wrong, it’s a question of whether the mother has a legal right or not to terminate her own pregnancy. Pro-lifers put the fetus’s bodily autonomy above the mother’s, and there is no strong argument to support that hierarchy.

But you’re not violating the unborn’s right to autonomy, you’d be violating their right to life. With human rights, life would come before liberty. Also a person’s right to autonomy is violated when it comes to any baby, both unborn and born

@@texasjoehotdog1838 by aborting the unborn you do not give it a choice in what happens to its body. Hence the violation on body autonomy. Scientifically speaking it already has life. The "right to life" is still left up to interpretation. Like what does having a right to life even mean? Does not the right to be born as well as the right to live your life as you see fit fall under the "right to life"? Is the right to be birthed valued higher than the right of the person who would have to give birth and all the changes and health concerns that can and do fall under that? We should also consider the rest of that phrase which would be "liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The choice to see pregnancy full term or the choice to end it would be a part of that person's individual liberty and pursuit of happiness. Does the unborns right to be born hold higher intrinsic value over a mother's own unalienable rights? I'm not here to tell you what you should value more. But we, as humans, inherently give life different types of value. What you may deem of more value, someone else may not. Either way in this debate...something ends up being of loss. Whether it be the rights of the unborn or the rights of the mother. Which do we hold of higher value? Which are we willing to infringe upon? Personally, for me, it's up to the individual to decide. Which is why I'm pro choice. I think a living person's rights, who's body has to be utilized in order to keep another alive, has more rights. But that's just me.

@@Youdontlooklikeher Your answer was literally the second sentence in my comment lol. Life comes before liberty, pursuit of happiness would come after that. Your right to liberty, autonomy, whatever you wanna call it, can’t infringe on my right to life. You say “right to live your life as you see fit” would be your right to liberty but I’m hoping you’d agree that you can’t murder people just to live your life as you see fit. In that case you’d have restrictions on your own rights because the rights of another play into it. Of course you could hold all of your own rights to a higher value than the rights of anyone else, I just wouldn’t agree and I’d say a society where that isn’t the case is a better one

@@Youdontlooklikeher Where is this bodily autonomy "right"?

@anonymous guy I'm vegan and pro-choice. The two aren't synonymous. I find it ironic that pro-life people say that "murdering" unborn non-sentient (the frontal cortex doesn't develop until months into pregnancy) beings is wrong, however forcing animals to reproduce only to abuse and slaughter them solely for taste pleasure is acceptable...

@@JACKKiXi this is about abortion and you bring up a different topic and assume a person's stance on it to the justify your thoughts on this one...... That's not how it works. You can discuss the topic of animals and mistreatment. Which I do agree with. It's absurd how things are happening. However that is not this conversation. And no the brain is in fact irrelevant in the main point of this conversation. The unborn IS alive from the moment of conception. Fact. When you get into the stages of development you're basically arguing that a human life is only worth anything depending on what stage it's in.

@@vikkidonn by scientific definition it actually isn't alive... It doesn't have the characteristics that define a living being at conception. It doesn't have metabolism and isn't sentient. Saying "fact." unfortunately doesn't make you correct. You can't claim something as a fact without actually giving reasoning. I agree that abortion is wrong past a certain stage of development but it is acceptable in the early stages imo. Also I wasn't assuming anyone's stance. If you are pro-life, yet murder animals, you surely have to acknowledge the hypocrisy.

@@JACKKiXi actually no. It is a fact that from conception it is alive. Science is flawed in many aspects. But you had to give a reason as to why it wasn't considered alive which is to say that science doesn't see a human being as alive until it is " sentient". But it is a living thing none the less. It doesn't matter how you want to slice the cake. We are talking about a living human life. When you want to start basing your stance not on life itself but what you personally would consider living is a separate conversation. Which again holds no barring on it BEING alive, just how you VIEW it's life. As for the animal thing there is a reason we are where we are as a species as it concerns eating animals. But again that is a separate question and topic. You cannot merge the two as if Because someone is only talking about this one topic they must ignore the other. I say that because from this thread your comment on people's diets came from left field.

@@vikkidonn It came from left field? I was literally replying to another person's comment on the subject. The two don't need to be kept separate as I was highlighting a common logical inconsistency in many pro-lifers. And you decide what life is now, not science? Okay. Sounds like you're coming from a much more emotional side than logical to me. Just because you feel a way doesn't make it a reality unfortunately.

Well it sounds like you want to hear the other side of the argument so here it is. I am pro choice. This is my counter argument to this video, which I made in a previous comment. I have chosen to address this video systemically. Starting with the first premise: homicide is wrong. Yes, we can agree on this. Not going to elaborate on that, seems self explanatory. Second premise: homicide is defined as the deliberate killing of an innocent human life, however, self defense is okay. I suppose I can agree on this, though would it kill you to use sources? I will be using this one, it’s similar enough, but I find it more credible to use sources. According to Cornell Law School, “homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense.” I’ll be using this because it makes much more sense to use this than something some person I don’t know said on the internet. Third Premise: abortion always involves the killing of an innocent human life, and therefore it is homicide. Here is where we disagree. The issue is, you haven’t actually proven that it is human. There were two reasons you gave for why it is human, however I disagree with the very premise. The issue is not whether it is human or not, the issue is whether it is sentient or not, because that is what makes someone human. Many anti-choicers use the argument about how “if it has DNA it has a right to life.” The issue is, human DNA does not make it sentient nor does it make it its own person. Identical twins have the same DNA, but they aren’t the same person. A drop of my blood has human DNA, so what? That does not mean that it feels pain or has hopes and aspirations. If it is not sentient it cannot be human. Again, you don’t need to prove that it is human, you need to prove that it is sentient. Second, many anti-choicers say that it has a heartbeat at 6 weeks. This is only half true. When you say this you are implying that there is a little heart beating inside the embryo, however this is simply not true. There is a tiny flutter, however the beat isn’t audible, if a doctor put a stethoscope up to your stomach at this point they would not hear a thing.* It’s only been in the past few decades that doctors have been able to detect this using more sophisticated machinery. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has said in a statement, “What is interpreted as a heartbeat in these bills is actually electrically-induced flickering of a portion of the fetal tissue that will become the heart as the embryo develops.” Thus, ACOG does not use the term ‘heartbeat’ to describe these legislative bans on abortion because it is misleading language, out of step with the anatomical and clinical realities of that stage of pregnancy.”** Plus, a heartbeat does not equal sentience. Just because it has a heartbeat does not mean it is alive. If it is not sentient, then it is not homicide. Now I would like to make another point. Even if it was sentient, abortion is still morally acceptable due to self defense. You say that homicide is acceptable if used as self defense. Approximately 808 women die every day from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth.*** That would total out to 294,920 women who die each year due to pregnancy and childbirth. Compared to the 68,000 women who die from unsafe abortion annually****, abortion is far safer. Thus it is completely morally acceptable as self defense. After all, if it is taking advantage of your organs without your consent then removing it would be self defense. Finally, due to bodily autonomy, it would be morally acceptable even if it was sentient. I am sure you have heard of the violinist analogy, however I find it important so I will describe it to you on the chance that you have not heard it before. It comes from Judith Jarvis Thomson, first published in Philosophy & Public Affairs. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. In this situation you have the right to unplug yourself, I hope we can agree on that. My point is, there are limits on the right to life, which does not include the right to use another person’s body. This clearly applies to abortion as well. Abortions does not violate the fetus’ right to life, but merely deprives the fetus of the non-consensual use of the pregnant woman’s body and life-supporting functions - to which it has no right. Thus, abortion merely withdraws its use of the pregnant person’s own body. Due to bodily autonomy, it is my belief that even if the zygote/embryo/fetus could feel pain, it would still be moral to abort because it is using someone else’s body without their consent. Would anyone be able to refute these points? Please cite sources and do not use any religious texts as evidence. *www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html **www.factcheck.org/2019/07/when-are-heartbeats-audible-during-pregnancy/ ***** www.unfpa.org/maternal-health ****** www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/

@@isabaglin3384 I don't know how you missed this but you've only asserted and assumed that sentience determines what qualifies as valuable human life. You never once proved that sentience is the only valid criteria we ought to be using for determining human value or what is human. Asserting stuff doesn't make it true. Human DNA, on the other hand, is a pretty solid, unchanging and scientifically provable criteria for determining what's human. And on top of that, for the past few decades, the pro-life position has had pretty good counter arguments against the "sentience" argument. Sentience is not a valid criteria for determining human value or what is human, and here's one simple reason: If sentience is the ultimate determining factor for "humanness", then you'd have to accept the absurd conclusion that people who are (1) reversibly comatose, (2) under general anesthesia, or (3) napping are not "human." The logical conclusion of your position is that killing such humans is morally justified. Also, just because someone cannot "experience" harm, it doesn't mean that that someone isn't harmed. And it's not even the case that pro-choicers know exactly when sentience begins, but you presume you know when abortion is justifiable and when it's not.

@@isabaglin3384 Second, "just because it has a heartbeat doesn't mean it is alive". Okay, most pro-lifers know that. But are you implying that the human embryo isn't alive? If you are, do you have reliable sources that say or prove that? Is there an embryology textbook that identifies the human embryo or fetus as something other than a *living" organism? Third, you seem to have only focused on a very small section of the video. You grabbed on to terms like "human DNA" and "heartbeat" from that particular section (around 06:17 - 07:00) and said to yourself, "this is his proof/argument" and wrote a entire essay trying to disprove your own imagined pro-life argument. But you did that all at the expense of what the context for mentioning those terms were. In that small section of the video, he wasn't trying to PROVE that the presence of human DNA or a heartbeat is what ultimately makes the unborn "human". What he was doing was responding to the overused pro-abortion trope that "it's just a clump of cells" and the point he was making was that by the time you're able to detect a pregnancy so that you can opt for abortion, it's well beyond a mere "clump of cells", the entity containing its own developing nervous system and a developing fetal heart. I mean, the pro-lifers have been arguing all these years for the humanity of the unborn from the moment of its conception - you know, "conception"? when there's no nervous system, brainwaves or fetal heart yet? Didn't it occur to you that if pro-lifers simply used the presence of a heartbeat or a brain as the determining factor or evidence for what's human, they wouldn't be able to prove the humanity of a human zygote??

@@isabaglin3384 "if it is not human, it's not homicide"? WHEN and WHERE did you disprove that a HUMAN embryo or fetus wasn't HUMAN? Fifth, "even if it is sentient, abortion is morally acceptable". So even if it's human, it's okay to deliberately kill it. "If it's not human, it's not homicide. But even if it's human, it's justified homicide." So why did you even go through all that trouble to pretend-prove that it wasn't really human or homicide? This is your argument: (1) sentience is what determines what qualifies as "human" and if it is deserving of life. (2) the unborn lack sentience. (3) hence, the unborn aren't human and not deserving of life. (4) so abortion is justifiable. (5) but also, screw sentience. Abortion still justifiable. You literally just admitted that your sentience argument is irrelevant. Sixth, regarding your "self-defense" criteria, the human fetus isn't some hostile intruder who voluntarily and intentionally chooses to enter your uterus by force that you should treat him/her as such. you don't bring another human being into your house and then treat him as if he's an intruder. The fetus isn't "taking advantage" of your organs. In case you hadn't noticed, the fetus has yet to develop any sort of agency of its own. In the overwhelming majority of pregnancies, the only human capable of agency is the mother. She's the one who consented to the sex and to its consequences. And this is not to say that she is supposed to accept life-threatening conditions as her consequences. Like one of your own citations said, the majority of pregnancy-related complications is completely treatable. It's only the lack of awareness or medical interventions in certain places that lead to rise in the mortality rate. And only a small percentage of such complications ever become life-threatening (www.firstthings.com/article/1996/03/medicalizing-abortion-decisions). Also, the pro-abortion narrative of huge numbers of back-alley abortions have been called into question by abortion choice advocates themselves multiple times before. Oh and the "great"and extremely old Judith Jarvis Thompson's "violinist" thought experiment. You want a rebuttal to this in this day and age? Have you ever read any rebuttal regarding this? One of the only reasons this is still in popular culture is because of cultural bias.

@@mkmarak Firstly sentience is absolutely relevant to this discussion. I’ll give you an example for this. Henrietta Lacks was diagnosed with terminal cervix cancer. Before she died a doctor took some of her cells (unfortunately without her consent, but that’s beside the point). Those cells can still reproduce and are still alive today. By your criteria those cells have a right to life and it is immoral to kill them, because they are human cells that are biologically classified as alive. This is clearly not true, they aren’t sentient therefore they do not have value. To address your “killing comatose people/sleeping people/people under anesthesia” argument. I’m just going to say “sleeping” instead of that whole thing we’ve got there. People who are sleeping still have desires and interests. Desires and interests are a central part of sentience, because they show that one has been conscious. There is a huge difference, because a zygote/embryo/fetus cannot feel those desires and interests, because a zygote/embryo/fetus has never had consciousness. I believe that once one experiences sentience they are of value for the rest of their life, and that is why it is immoral to kill sleeping people. Of course, to me the sentience/human issue does not matter (and I clearly stated that in my original comment) because of bodily autonomy. Second to your response on how I took it out of context. I understand that, but to me the thing is; those claims are still being made by anti-choicers, so I did want to address them. I suppose the way I phrased it made it sound misleading in that regard so I apologize. I have heard the heartbeat/DNA argument so many times that I felt the need to disprove it regardless of what he says. Like seriously, I don’t think I have ever met a single anti-choicer who hasn’t used that argument, so it gets very repetitive and I wanted preemptively disprove that for anti-choicers. I did not address his reply to “viability” because I have never made the viability argument so it would be strange to defend it. To your point about how embryologists define zygotes/embryos/fetuses as alive. I never said that they aren’t biologically alive, I said that they aren’t sentient. They call them alive in the same way that biologists classify bacteria and single cell organisms as alive. We would not consider bacteria or single cell organisms alive in the same sense that a human is. It is in a biological sense a living organism, but I do not consider this a biological issue, I consider this a philosophical one, because to me the question is sentience, not if a single cell organism is alive. Again, either way this does not matter because of the bodily autonomy contention. To respond to your points on bodily autonomy. It does not matter how it got there, it still does not get to use another person’s body without their consent. Consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. Acknowledging the risk does not equal consent to whatever the risk entails. When one participates in sex, they consent, acknowledging the idea that they risk becoming pregnant, getting a sexually transmitted disease, or even dying (e.g. exertion and blood pressure changes during sexual activities caused an aneurism or a lethal fit of asthma). They are aware of the risk and they consent acknowledging this risk. This does not mean that they consent to becoming pregnant, to becoming HIV-positive, to dying. The same way that you consent to riding in a car, at the same time being aware of the non-zero risk that every car ride could end up with you traumatized or dead. It does not mean that you get in a car with the thought “yeah, if I die, I basically agreed to it because I got in the car.” You would still be able to go on life support and get medical care for an accident if you willingly got in the car. To your point about how “this is your argument.” Yes I understand that, I merely think that those arguments are super commonly used, so I wanted to address them before getting to my personal reason about why abortion is morally acceptable. Yes my argument about sentience is irrelevant, I knew that when I was writing it. However, the argument that many anti-choicers use is that “it is sentient therefore it is murder” and if I want to convince anyone I have to address those beliefs. Seemed pretty clear to me but go off. Goodness, if I said the phrase “it is not human,” it is clearly implied that it is not *sentient.* I will edit that because clearly some people do not understand implied meanings. As I said with my point about the biological definition of versus the philosophical definition of life, they are not on equal levels. I never pushed a narrative about back-alley abortions so I’m not sure what your point was. You claim that the Judith Jarvis Thompson argument has been responded to by others. Then make a response. Just because pregnancy complications are treatable in some cases does not mean that they do not happen. Just because not all pregnancy complications are life threatening (which I never claimed) does not mean that none are. I do not care how the zygote/embryo/fetus got there, if the pregnant person has not consented to it using her body then that person has the right to remove it at any time. *Abortion is not violating the zygote/embryo/fetus’ right to life, it is merely denying it of the non consensual use of another person’s body - to which it has no right.*

constantdoodle His arguments are very poor. I am pro-choice and I just said what the fuck through the whole video.

The only answer I could imagine one giving without contradicting themselves is that we shouldn't wait for proof because it doesn't matter whether the child in the womb is a human being or not. The choice of the woman is more important than the humanity of the child. Essentially, a human's life is only worth nine months of life support only if another human chooses it to be. Even if there's a 90% chance that the human will survive at the end of that nine months, and more than 90% that the life support will survive-- in developed countries. Life support that feels pain and has its own humanity, but life support nonetheless.

Very well articulated. The unique relationship between mother and her child is a good starting point of discussion IMO. Also, the unique purpose of woman’s womb. Its only purpose is to grow a child.

exactly!

@Noah Smits Alabama abortion law ban includes the cases of rape and incest. Are you saying that in such cases, a woman is not allowed to have agency over her body? If the fetus has the same human rights as a born child then how about the woman? Doesn't she have human rights as an adult human?

Yes but don't u think that even the baby has the same rights....To not be murdered from without. And also it is not a tumour cause no tumour in our body grows with a heartbeat and cannot leave the host body itself like babies do after 9 months

@@ellastone6280 if it is the case that the unborn baby or fetus' rights take precedence over the woman, then we are treading on very dangerous territory. If so then a woman can be impregnated any time, even without her consent and she can do nothing about it. She is nothing more than a birth machine.

The problem is that they truly believe that a baby in the womb is not alive, due to misinformation campaigns from the media and other democrats. Once they have decided that it isn't a human it is easy for them to believe that abortion is morally sound.

@@giantsboy3068 I believe that a baby in the womb is alive but I'm still pro choice

I believe that all stages of pregnancy include life and that a baby in the womb is a person. I am still pro-choice, not because it isn't sad to see a child die, but because people need the ability to decide when to have children.

Both of them are technically life, but the Martian is not violating anyone's autonomy, the fetus is. Therefore the woman's autonomy overrides whatever the fetus wants.

What?

wow how the hell did you get that from watching this

Lmao what

XD

Lambs too? What about venison?

@@timmeagher2687 in defense of premise 2 i would elaborate and say zygotes produced by humans are also humans

Cancerous cells are also produced by the human body.

@@GrimaldusSc2 cancer cells are not humans on their own

@@dakotahill8193 A single fertilized cell is not a human on its own either.

​@Painter Mike His source arent that independent. The first (australian) contradicts his standpoint the second (USA) is in critic that they mischaracterizing work to advance their political view against human rights. Even the National Institutes of Health spoken out against them.

I’m pretty sure that’s the point of the video. He pulled a bait and switch on pro choice people lol

Anddd you're a male. Interesting.

@@RPKD88 100% irrelevant

@Zachary Wheeler I love how the beginning of your comment is like this video: It's something that gives us the wrong impression until we actually see the whole thing. :)

@@eddieolivas4804 haha right!

Well a pregnancy can put a mother's life at risk so she should have the right to have someone removed from her body if she is going to get hurt or killed.

@@Fandar that's not why they're doing it though.

ZRAM ZRAM exactly we all support women’s rights we are fighting for the babies rights to live as it was written in the constitution life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

@@Fandar Yes, however the vast majority of abortions are performed for convenience, not to protect the mother's life

@@Fandar she shouldnt of have sex.

we got it at march for life in edmotnon

Justin Bosley I’m pro-choice, and it’s quite annoying to hear people say that it is not life.... of course it is. Then again many may look at me as much more cynical for admitting that it is life but still being pro-choice.

@@bryanvega9011 do you perhaps subscribe to the *eugenic* reasoning for being pro-choice (No I don't mean it in a negative sense, I mean it in a neutral way).

How is killing a baby putting a life before another? God seems like the pro-choices didn't learn anything from this video.

@@samuelsouza3054 It comes down to quality over quantity for me. I believe that the risks, consequences, and costs to the bearer's life outweigh the mere existence of the fetus. Yet, those variables will affect the entirety of both lives. The consequences are not temporary. I simply don't see how someone outside a complex situation can apply a blanket solution. Feel free to explain why you feel the opposite.

@@samuelsouza3054 I cannot think of another circumstance under which ANY human being is required to give their life, body, or health for another. If you can give one example, enlighten me. Organ donors get a choice, by law. In either situation, the sacrifices are lifelong. Why does the unborn get the only exception? What gives a them the right to take over my body? What makes a fetus so special? Simply telling me I'm wrong is not a very compelling argument. If you want to change my mind, you're going to have to point out, specifically, where I'm wrong and explain your reasoning for holding the opposing view. I cannot take your opinion into account otherwise.

@@JayeEllis Okay the risk you must be talking about is the women's life, when the pregnancy is dangerous, and i never saw a pro-life saying that a women should carry a dangerous pregnancy.

@@samuelsouza3054 EVERY pregnancy and birth carries risk to the body and life of the bearer. And yes, there are people who believe there is NO reason for abortion to ever occur. You didn't answer my questions. Make an argument.

He purposely did that to get more pro-choice people to watch the video and riled up pro-life people (aka me bc i was upset until i actually watched the video)

@@Ahiruuriha i should probably delete the comment i left "gtfo my reccommendations"

read secularhumanism.org/2016/07/cont-why-i-am-pro-abortion-not-just-pro-choice/. I come from a disfuncional family, ive seen children starve in horrible situations... I've seen abuse, stress and most people that are Not meant to be parents, guess what?? Their children turn aggressive, in jail, studies shows that timing is everything when raising a child and that kids that come in a home with 2 parents that are mentally stable with 2 incomes do WAAAY better than children that are not wanted, in nayas case, she would have lost her career, she would have resentment towards that child and it would have been a DISASTER... Jail is full of babies that should have been aborted.. I'm sorry you come from a good home, but be a little more open Minded, travel and see other realities

Desirée Rodríguez wow...just sad, you would rather kill someone then Give them a chance to live. Since you are ok with aborting people who might end up in jail, you must really be pushing for capital punishment for all crime; that would be the logical conclusion to your stance.

@@mystdragon8530 If they wanted fewer abortions the'd favor better birth control. They are against birth control because of religious moralizing. What they want is orphans they can abuse, use as soldiers for profits and low wage workers. Number of orphans adopted by priests? Exactly Zero!!

@@desisarod do you believe in "Person's body, person's choice" ????

@@karlobabic8495 yes I'm pro-choice if that's what you mean

The first (australian) contradicts his standpoint the second (USA) is in critic that they mischaracterizing work to advance their political view against human rights. Even the National Institutes of Health spoken out against them.

You would have to admit though that high risk pregnancies like you're describing are extremely rare overall. Would you be in favor of banning abortions in all other cases?

@@JYPrime I have zero problems with women having an abortion because it was unplanned. Just because something is alive does not mean it should be protected. E. coli and salmonella are both alive, should we keep them alive? What about tapeworms? They’re alive, too.

@@mjtruth1039 I agree not all forms of life deserve to be protected. However I would assert that all HUMAN lives are equally valuable and deserve the fundamental right to life. Are you saying a mother should be able to murder her child if she deems it an inconvenience to her own life?

@@JYPrime I believe human life isn’t worth protecting. Why should Peter Scully and Jared Fogel be spared? Also, who waits until after giving birth to kill it if they never wanted the kid?

​@@mjtruth1039 Both of those people are convicted criminals. A person can forfeit their right to life by intentionally committing heinous crimes against humanity. I'm sure you'd agree there's a difference between the death penalty for a criminal and the murder of an innocent child, right? What if the mother decides to give birth to the child, but later decides it not worth the trouble and decides to abuse/abandon/kill it? Should that be considered acceptable since it's her own child?

Kevin Bolton Pro-choice is not always anti-life. We do not want all babies aborted, as our standpoint says, we believe that it's the mothers choice alone if she wants to give birth to the baby or not. You do realize that there are women raped and impregnated by their rapist, right? It can make a woman go insane to carry the baby of a man who made her life living hell, do you really believe that she should carry out the baby? And possibly get injured/die during childbirth? And/or not be able to give the child a good life? And no, adoption is not a viable option, because there are already far too many children given out for adoption that never have and never will be adopted. There are just too many.

@@shoutaaizawa5810 and obviously the only reasonable option is murdering another victim of said rapist, pro-murder

Shadow M3lo3tta you are using the complete extremes of abortion. if the mother’s life is in danger, then yes, she should have priority. But for most abortions, it is for pure convenience.

@@shoutaaizawa5810 "It can make a woman go insane to carry the baby of the man who made her life hell." First of all, how do you know this? Are their cases of women literally going insane *because* of the pregnancy? I can see then going insane because of the actual rape, but the pregnancy? C'mon, man. State actual facts for once and not just useless misleading rhetoric. Secondly, all I see here is an argument appealing to the emotions, not arguments based upon science or logic. Could you say the same thing about a three year old? Could a mother kill her three year old because he/she reminded her of her rapist? Also, saying that we should just kill all the babies because there are "too many in adoption" is just cruel of you. Sure, let's kill all the homeless people because their lives are hopeless. Let's kill all the African children because their lives suck. Who are you to determine if these kids lives are worth living? Who made you God?

@@ea-tr1jh Women sometimes literally kill themselves when they're impregnated by a rapist, don't you think that counts? And depression is far more likely in such a case, either. Killing a developed three-year old doesn't compare to abortion. There's a reason why the far majority of abortions are only allowed during the first trimester of the pregnancy. During that time, there's no child yet, only a bunch of cells doing their thing. They don't feel pain, they aren't conscious, nothing. Also, I can't recall saying that children open for adoption should be killed. I just stated the fact that there are so many of them that very many of them will never find a family to adopt them. Families seem to prefer self-made children over adopted ones, though that obviously doesn't hold true for every single one.

MojoPin1983 Brian was taking the usual pro-life arguments, and pitting the usual pro-choice retorts against them, and pointing out the holes in the pro-choice arguments.

No, he's telling pro-"choice" people why they fail to win converts.

KA Fleury Because their arguments are flawed. And will always be flawed. KA Fleury, thank you for posting on this board and others. I’ve enjoyed reading your well-informed and thoughtful posts over the last several months. I’m happy to see them, because you’ve helped me learn about my faith. I’m an adult convert. 🙂

Yes, it’s a very clever ploy to try to convince pro choice people that their arguments are spurious...kudos. Posing as helping pro choice argument could work, though all he really did was articulate the pro life position in a calm and articulate way. There was no counter argument, and that’s where the title fails. . However, he does have a point in that pro choice folk definitely do choose conception as the beginning of the humanity as it is the only concrete event that all people get...though in fact, even that is incorrect...pregnancy dates are based on the date of the first day of your last period, which is the antithesis of conception in most cases as it is the shedding of the uterine lining prompted by drop in progesterone and estrogen secreted by the corpus luteum (the ruptured follicle) due to the absence of fertilization of the ovum expressed by the follicle. If you don’t understand about this process, a) do some reading, and b)extract yourself from any argument/protests/legislative process regarding abortion because you are too uninformed to be involved in this matter.

Jamie O'Connell actually sorry but the rape and my die argument is the worst

He missed the importance of the heartbeat argument by a mile but other than that, ya

Wait, you can PREVENT PREGNANCY?!? NOOOOOOO WAAAAAAAYYYY!

Eddiefied me too

@targarynka YOU hate women. And children apparently.

Don't play stupid!!! No one is that dumb are they?

conservatives always confuse Homicide and Murder... They apparently don’t know that we have five cases of LEGAL killing... when you inform them of the 5 cases, it turns out that they pretty much support ALL five... Even if the one killed was a REAL person... War, capital punishment, citizen self-defense, cops use of deadly force and taking people off life support...

This is not true and I find it difficult to believe that you are pro-choice. Calling bullshit.

It’s logical because pro lifers are defending the most basic moral position whereas pro choicers weather right or wrong are defending the option to abort a baby they can’t budge

Abortion is a right: no one should carry an unwanted pregnancy of a non bodily autonomous foetus that isn’t conscious and isn’t consentually carried by the mother

@@DhukuAC A fetus is first of all, a whole living human organism, separate from the mother. It is living because it fits the scientific criteria for life, we can see it has cellular life, for example, it grows. It is human because it was conceived by two humans, and nothing has been conceived by two humans, that hasn’t been human. It also has its own unique human dna. Finally, a fetus is a whole organism, separate from the mother, because if you give it time, the right environment, and the right nutrition, it will eventually become an adult human. This won’t happen with a tumor, or a cancer, or a sperm, or an egg cell, or an arm or a leg. This is because once an egg is fertilized, there is now a new whole human organism that has just started developing. It is not partially an organism or a part of an organism, and it is it’s own organism, separate from the mother. Next, what makes a fetus not a person? What I’ve generally heard is that fetuses don’t rationally think yet. They don’t have that inner thought experience we have yet, and therefore we can kill them. However, infants also don’t rationally think yet everyone agrees it’s not okay to kill them. We can kill animals. Animals don’t rationally think. We do. Does this mean since infants don’t rationally think we can kill them? Obviously not. And there’s no moral difference between killing an infant and a fetus, if you look really actually look at it. Abortion advocates would say that there are certain qualities that make a human organism a person or not, and therefore only some have a right to life, whereas I’d say all human organism from the moment of conception to natural death have the right to life. If you don’t agree with this, you deep down are just a eugenicist because if you really start to argue, abortion just becomes a eugenics argument. Furthermore, saying that some specific qualities are what makes someone a person, is what bad people like the Nazis and the white slave owners did to justify hurting people. As for consciousness, is it consciousness that makes someone a person or not? Obviously not, we wouldn’t be able to kill animals for one then, for two, it would then be moral to kill a sleeping person or a person in a coma. What about development? Well, would we kill the disabled for being “underdeveloped”? No. Would we kill a child for not being an adult? No. Obviously, stage of development doesn’t mean one has a right to kill another. You wouldn’t kill a child for not being an adult, and you wouldn’t kill a fetus for not being an infant. And there’s no difference between killing a fetus and an infant morally, and if you think you can kill either of them, you are simply thinking evil. I mean, a fetus can feel pain, it has a heartbeat very soon, it has brain activity soon, studies show they know certain voices, like their mothers, etc. And also certain states allow abortion after the baby can be cut out and still live, and also some states are trying to allow infanticide after birth, which is just nuts. Next, the violinist argument. Why should someone be forced to use their body to keep another person alive? You wouldn’t think you would be forced to give another an organ. Well first, just an interesting idea, do you think that it would be right for a conjoined twin to kill the other one, because they don’t want to support another person? Obviously not. Maybe this has some connotations for pregnancy. Anyways, what I’d like to point to, is that morality is mysterious, and objective, and that for some reason, people have certain inherent responsibilities towards other certain people that they have only towards these people. For example, a child must obey his parents. Another example, is a child must take care of his parents when they are older, but only his parents, not others’ parents (I believe this to be objective morality). These are responsibilities people have towards certain other people, and it’s just like that naturally, it isn’t necessarily because of a choice that person made, and it would still be immoral not to fulfill those responsibilities, and furthermore, I think these responsibilities are a good thing. Another example, is the responsibility parents have towards their children. So, pregnant women, have a responsibility, towards their offspring. If this wasn’t a concept supported by the law, we wouldn’t have child support laws or child endangerment laws. This is a theological concept that might be called closeness where certain people closer to you, are people you have more responsibility towards. And a woman with a child in her womb is even closer to a woman with a child outside of her womb, because that child was conceived in her womb, and is being kept alive by her. Furthermore, it’s not about forcing women to keep a pregnancy, it’s about certain women wanting to kill innocent children, their own children, to avoid responsibility, and our culture forcing this idea onto them. If a woman chooses to keep a child, a man must still support that child, and can’t abandon them, but yet a woman can back out just by murdering them? Yeah, that makes zero sense. And I support child support, as well as the man having to care for the mother, and spousal support too. I also think that 99% of abortions come from consensual sex, and sex’s primary function is procreation, so if you can’t handle the consequences, don’t have sex. Furthermore, people are often forced into things morally that they don’t want to do, but often the world places in front of us, tough moral challenges that would be immoral not to do. Pregnancy can be hard, but deep down a pregnancy is a blessing, because a new person has been born. I’m not however, going to support a holocaust-like thing, which has killed tens of millions of people, of literal babies. And has traumatized many, many, women.

@@kyrptonite1825 bruh noones reading all that…abortion is fine

because "innocent" in terms of an unborn human is already a subtle bias one needs to be privy to. it might sound valid and true to call the unborn innocent. but it's actually a disingenuous sleight that biases the topic, by poisoning the well ad misericordiam. a vacuous truth is a statement that is formally true, but only under the pretenses that the antecedent cannot be satisfied. Because the antecedent cannot be established to be true or false, the consequent cannot be evaluated to be authentically applied either in the syllogism. The conclusion then becomes one that cannot be disproven, while also holding no argumentative weight/meaning. The goal is to get someone to fall for this vacuous truth, in order to disproportionately reify the unborn "innocence" as the same innocence that a born alive human being with rights subject to legality/morality is. This is a false equivalence. One is incapable of action that can be deemed guilty/innocent, while the other is. In simple terms: P1:The unborn cannot be guilty. (The unborn is incapable of being innocent nor guilty because it does not act. Anything can therefore be called innocent or guilty under this premise, including inanimate objects) P2:If you're not guilty, you're innocent (This can't be fully assessed either, verdicts of not guilty/not wrong do not always mean innocent/right, it could also mean there was not enough evidence to prove guilt/wrong.) C:Therefore, the unborn is innocent. (Is an invalid argument by product of a vacuous truth fallacy) That being said, take your statement now, remove "innocent". Can you rationalize a situation that justifies taking a human life? Yes, and while it's not a right to take a human life, there are real justifiable situations that allow it, and abortion is one of them. Innocent for the unborn is a reification fallacy, a vacuous truth, a false equivalence and a red herring all in one, that is deflected using argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to shame/emotion/guilt of your opponent) which is neither a logically sound argument nor a valid one. It is therefore, a product of unsubstantiated personal belief deeply rooted in these type of pro-life arguments and not a fact that is advantageous over pro-choice ones.

@@gb213 An unborn child has certainly done nothing wrong to deserve death - that is the point of using "innocent" (e.g. it's OK to end someone's life if they are about to shoot you but the unborn child has done nothing wrong to deserve death) - A woman and her partner created the human being that is in her uterus and put that new human being in a position of dependence on the woman - neither one of them should be able to kill their unborn child for excuses like money or not wanting to be a parent. i.e. if those are horrible excuses for a man to take the life of his unborn child (e.g. by slipping a woman a so-called "safe" abortifacient) then they are horrible excuses for a woman to take the life of her unborn child.

​@@mathildeyoung1823 Well, my comment was deleted, so I am unsure what you specifically responded to. The term innocent is as relevant to the unborn as it is to anything else absent of guilt. It is incapable of being legally scrutinized in either direction. So, if innocent is being used to refer to absence of guilt, then sure, but since it is vacuous of any ability to act deemed in either direction, what point did you actually prove? Innocent is a useless term used only for guilt tripping in favor of a side. Guilt tripping is not an argument, is poor taste, and isn't relevant. So your point of using the word innocent actually has no point to it. Secondly, you imply fertilization is enough to prove personhood. When someone passes, after the moment of their death, every single one of their cells in their body are still biologically defined as alive, which you just used for fertilization. How does someone lose their lively personhood and pronounced dead then ( therefore property of the state as a corpse ) despite all of their cells still are human, are still biologically alive, and are still their body? Proof their cells are still by biological definition are alive, is that if they are an organ donor, they can be used, as you cannot transplant a deceased organ. Could it be personhood is not just a simple biological definition of cells that make up a body being alive? Aren't you defining it as the cell or clump of cells argument? Go on, I'll wait.

@@gb213 1. The point of using "innocent" is that if I say "it's wrong to kill a human being" a pro-abort will often come back and say "not even in self defense?" (i.e. if someone is pointing a weapon at you) and think that is a snappy comeback to justify all abortions... Certainly you can agree that it's not OK to kill a human being that has done nothing wrong to make your life easier, right? Oh wait.... 2. What I'm SAYING is that the life of a new HUMAN BEING starts at fertilization. Science tells us that. Don't you think there is a big difference between someone who just died (someone who is brain dead) and a young, living, human being with (hopefully) a full life ahead of them? Perhaps this explanation will help: “Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT - i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning - their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms - living individuals of the human species - at the earliest developmental stage.” - Dr. Robert George Abortion kills a human being. Killing a defenseless human being to make your life easier is wrong and needs to be illegal.

@@mathildeyoung1823 You cannot kill what is not viable. The right to life protects viability which is what establishes our personhood and not only on the biological status of our cells, tissues, and organs as being alive. Viable meaning carrying out the critical basic required functions to sustain ones body on their own. This is why death is defined as the opposite, the cessation of those functions to sustain ones body own their own. And just as someone can be deceased as a person... their cells, tissues, organs that make up their entire body can be very much biologically alive. No one is killing a person again when they're getting an autopsy despite their human cells, tissues and organs still being biologically alive. You can only die once and you had to be alive to have died. Pro-life uses amphibole ad homonym (words that look and sound the same yet mean different things, and switched out to be deceptive). Human life, does not imply personhood life despite both having the word life. Legally, we prove things on a beyond a reasonable doubt basis. Meaning you don't pronounce someone as deceased because you are 60% sure. What a horrible thing to go by, imagine waking up being embalmed, buried or cremated on the 40% chance they're wrong. That is why certainty is required in pronoucement in both deceased, and in declaring a persons life. Life is declared beyond a reasonable doubt based on being viable, which can only be done by being born alive. This is why the born alive clause defining personhood in USC Title 1 S8 is worded that way. Why would chance of being viable not be important? Because we don't criminally charge people of 50% chance of murder. So even if the unborn has a 80% chance of viability, we still don't charge someone 80% chance of murder....beyond a reasonable doubt is imperative. As our technology, medicine and science improves, we will be able to "birth" earlier in the pregnancy. To which the right to life, based on that viable capabilities of our science, automatically covers earlier and closer to fertilization. One day, possibly even at fertilization. This is why the first 20 weeks, the unborn is scientifically by our current capabilities, not viable, 0% chance. Despite it having human cells, tissues and organs that is not enough to prove personhood. It might look like an infant/baby, but it is not yet (fetus), as a corpse looks like a person but it isn't anymore. They both are not viable, therefore no life of a person there, no right to life, therefore it is physically impossible to kill them (person). That growing human life is ENTIRELY contingent on the extraordinary measures credited to the mother, which since it is not/never viable, her choice to terminating it, isn't killing a person (you cannot kill what is not viable) nor a violation of right to life because that protects proven viability, it is ending the process of their development at a nonviable state (ending the pregnancy, which is why the definition of abortion is worded this way). I'm not denying any moral concern here, the chance of viability in the late second and third trimester are seemingly unappreciated entirely by the brutal methods of current abortion procedures that all guarantee no chance of viability. We could definitely do better in alternative options to end pregnancies while also offering nonlethal options and efforts to save the preborn especially in later stages of pregnancy. But even if one argues, the prevention of a human life at a chance to become viable, that is at best a chance argument which we do not legally observe or enforce. Despite that, the claim abortion "kills a person" especially in the first 20 weeks where no viability is possible, is not scientifically true, nor intellectually honest. If you are not viable, then it doesn't matter that you are human, cell/tissues/organs are alive, nand your own body. That is the clump of cells argument without viability which the right to life acknowledges on a scientific basis through being born alive.

Yeah. Taking someone's choice away is horrible

@@tangoseagull4966 parents do that constantly. That isn't the issue. It's what I did. Killing a baby.

There is no difficult situation that God cant redeem and make good out of. You loved and not alone sister, God bless you

What if you just don't care though? Since it's inside someone else's body, it's not like anyone can prevent them from self harming behavior.

@Elijah Clayton link? This is well known.

Similar to distinguishing different noises, ants distinguish between different scents to tell whether another ant is from a different colony, does that now mean ants are "completely cognitive".

they never win. they’re immoral, illogical, detached from a cornice and reality…

@@babs_babs taking the life of a defenseless human being to make your life easier is immoral.

@@mathildeyoung1823 yeah that’s not what an abortion is. abortion just means taking the fetus off life support. the fetus doesn’t get rights to use someone else’s organs without consent. nobody has that right

@@babs_babs Wrong. It's the willful intent to kill an innocent human being that is growing and developing inside of her womb by actions she took to help in their creation. A woman's child has the right to be cared for. It's why mothers of newborns can't just let their baby die outside their womb. She has to use her body, to secure the welfare of that child.

@@AdamtheGrey02 it’s taking someone off life support. a fetus does not have the right to use another persons organs without the expressed ongoing consent of the donor. a fetus does not get extra rights that no one else has

i like that point of view

"If you don't like murder dont murder someone" - Truly an enlightened take

Wow. Can you tell me why it "says a lot" that he had to clickbait? Oh wait yes. It's because no one who is pro choice is going to want to click on a pro life video that gives actual facts. That's why. He is trying to get the actual, solid prolife argument out there so pro choice people, like yourself, know that it's not just "religion" or some s***. I, for example, am an atheist. I deeply apologise if any of the above offended you in any way, I really do mean to really just have a civil debate and I fully recognise that you could possibly have already known that our arguments are not all based on religious beliefs, and yes, I am fully aware that there are some pro choicers out there who do try to have an open mind and accept other points of view and still don't get themselves convinced. Anyways I would like to hear your argument: Why is the zygote, at the moment of conception, not a human life?

@@caoiceyxx4439 "it's because no one who is pro-choice is going to want to click on April live video that gives actual opinions" Entitlement much?Nobody has to want to. I do not have to want to hear what this guy's opinions are that different from mine nor anyone else have to want the debate with this person this is RU-vid not to debate class the fact that he has a trick people to try to force them into listen to what he thinks is pathetic it's no more pathetic than RU-vidrs who put sexually suggestive pictures of women in their thumbnails to lure people into watching their crap. It doesn't make what the video topic is. did this person really think this was going to completely work and most people wouldn't just click off the video right after they realized that this video wasn't what they thought they had clicked on? As for your question that thing isn't even remotely alive until it's brain develops later on It can't hear feel move or do anything it's just a bunch of skin that sits in your stomach. this is when most abortions are legally allowed to be had at this stage. for the first few months (Edit due to a small spelling error mistake)

@LipstickSuccubus Yeah, it says a shit ton about the RU-vid algorithm and people's lack of an open mind.

@@LipstickSuccubus Actually the video was meant to inform pro-choice people why pro-life people are pro-life.

Facts

When does a heap of sand stop being a heap of sand if you keep taking a grain from it? Your argument is particularly weak since what someone means by "a lump of cells" is that you can't even see it with your eye. There's no brain that has been formed to kill. You CANNOT convince anyone that an abortion is murder by the standards of which people hold things to be alive and "human". You can only make-believe.

​@weed soup How do you figure? What purpose or reason would there be to do that? Understand that philosophers back in the day argued there was a period of time after birth where you could kill your baby. They'd say that they still had not developed enough after a couple months after birth where killing them would be inhumane. Of course, this was only said because the alternatives of not killing the baby would be to have them suffer and likely die a worse death later on when the family can't take care of it. These days, orphanages have gotten rid of such a need. While I think women should still have the right to choose late in pregnancy, it definitely wouldn't be beyond considering that they may as well have it. At birth, its not like great changes have happened, but the baby's mentality still doesn't reveal care for its own life. Cries and such are just instinctual reactions to discomfort, they don't even know that they're alive. I'm not saying infanticide should be legal, but just something to think about. As a species, we make decisions about who lives and dies through cognitive abilities. A fetus in a petri dish isn't worth the same as a grown adult, and a newborn baby is almost on par with a comatose patient. Here's some food for thought, if you had a baby that would turn out to be Hitler or Stalin, would it be humane to kill them?

@@lelouchlamperouge8286 The baby has yet to commit any crime. I think this undermines the nature of free will in humans, even if this child will grow to become some being as vile as Satan or Mao Zedong.

@@themercifulguard3971 So you think Hitler and Stalin should be given every right to live out their life. This is what I call next level delusional. We as humans decide what is right or wrong, and you've decided that letting millions die rather than a baby is "right". The lengths some people go to to defend an unbacked position is hilarious.

Forced birth is not legally enforcable.

Why? Just out of curiosity.

@@grosty2353 Because I believe what people want to do with their bodies is not a political issue, so it shouldn't be banned. I support choice. Abortion is also a choice and I support it (except sex selective abortion because in some countries it's done because of hatred for a particular sex like abortion of female fetus due to male dominant society, which is not good, for this, in such countries, sex determination must be banned instead). And I don't consider abortion inhumane till 14-16 weeks or so. Because till this period of gestation, fetus is not developed enough and it don't have organs, feelings and pain sensation. There are two conditions 1) Someone(fetus obviously) is inside a woman's body against her will. 2) It's not developed enough to have organ system, feelings and pain sensation. If both the conditions are fulfilled, one must be allowed to abort (early pregnancy abortion obviously within 4 months or so, where exception is threat to mother's life or embryo's life after birth). Women will have abortion immediately after discovering pregnancy and pregnancy is generally discovered within a month or two. And abortion is no joke, people don't have abortion just for fun. Women have abortion if they don't want to be pregnant. Forcing someone to give birth may destroy her mental and physical health and banning abortions completely would be snatching women's rights. So yeah I'm pro choice, I don't believe people should be forced to do anything against their will. Atleast one chance must be given to them. There should be atleast a time period within which they can discover and have safe abortions (minimum 14 weeks, or more) .

@@twinkle334 I don’t think I can agree with that. For one, I don’t think it should be a political issue. Everyone agrees that intentional killing of the innocent is wrong, and the question should be whether or not the fetus is an innocent human life. So let’s define life. You mentioned pain being a marker for whether or not a fetus is life. Why is this the marker? It seems we could apply it to grown humans outside the womb and justify their murder. Take humans who are undergoing surgery who are on anesthesia. Or take people with hyper rare conditions that prevent them from feeling pain. This isn’t a good definition for life. This also isn’t a women’s rights issue. We are talking about another innocent life. Not just the woman’s life.

@@grosty2353 Read my comment properly. I've mentioned 2 conditions. If both the conditions are satisfied (not only one) then it should be allowed. So whatever you're saying about anesthesia, I've already mentioned that both the conditions must be fulfilled. And also, it's not that developed till that time. And if you think killing is inhumane, do you think the same for animals? Are you a vegan? If you are, can you stop the world from killing innocent animals just for pleasing their tastebuds who have feelings, pain sensation and fully developed body? I'm a Vegan and a pro choice. Because in my eyes, all are equal if they have feelings, pain sensation and fully grown body. And I don't believe one should be forced to give birth just because YOU and other pro lifers want. As I've already mentioned 2 conditions, if both are fulfilled then women have right to abort. Abortion is women's choice, and nobody can force women to gestate for their personal beliefs.

@@twinkle334 I will refrain from answering the vegan objection because it’s a red herring. It’s unrelated to the topic. I don’t really know why you are comparing cows to human children but whatever. I will object to both conditions. 1) the fetus is only in the body of the woman against her will if she was raped. Rape is not where a majority of aborted pregnancies come from. I also question why bodily autonomy should take precedence over the life of an innocent child who has committed no crime. 2) having any of the characteristics that you describe does not describe life. It could be applied to grown humans to justify their murder. Take organ development. Certain people have birth defects that leave them with non functioning or non-existent organs. I also see no reason why organs define life. What’s the reasoning behind it? As I covered, pain is also not a proper way to define and I would again call into question why that’s the standard we use.

Wesley Heartland oh so what if its a women in the womb do they not get a say what about the basic principles this country was founded upon life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, what about that? What if the guy wants to keep the baby?

Wesley Heartland Killing an innocent human should never be a choice! 🤦🏻‍♀️ When you kill an unborn child you take away CHOICE from him or her. If the baby in the womb is a female where the hell is her “choice” where are her “women’s rights”?

The self defense argument is a very unconvincing argument because prolifers don't believe the fetus is invading anyone's body. The better point is that it is a question of values. Do we value a collection of cells more than the mental and physical wellbeing of the woman it's inside. Furthermore, why should we value it more? Is it purely because of the potential for human life (experiencing consciousness) as we value it (which is the same potential eggs have before contraception), or is it only because the living cell has unique human dna? Why should we value unique human dna more than the other qualities that we value about life. It's really just a measure of what we value as a society. And being that what we value as "life" and how important we think "having human dna" is differs from person to person, we should probably just leave it up to the only one affected by the pregnancy.

@@agoodpoint9476 Could you explain why pro-lifers don't think of it as invasion? I think of it like sex. You must have someone's consent before you enter their body. Once in that state, they can withdraw consent at any point, meaning that you no longer have the right to be inside their body. If you choose to continue without their consent, they have the right to forcibly remove you from their body. If the only way for them to remove you is to kill you, they are justified in doing so.

@@lachlanhobson8588 Pro-lifers think that regardless of consent the child has a right to be there because it was produced in there; therefore, it wouldn't be an invasion. In fact, most prolifers would actually say that during pregnancy it is the fetus' uterus, not the mother's. They basically grant the mother's body to the fetus, so suggesting that it is invading the mother's body wouldn't convince them. Furthermore, they think because the fetus can't make the choice to leave, the mother is obligated to leave them there. They usually just counter this argument by saying "it's the baby's uterus" or "well she's invading the baby's bodily rights" or simply "I don't care, the sacrifice is worth the baby surviving because she'll be fine, but the baby will die." Now obviously they're wrong for holding those opinions, but I'm just point out that the argument would not be convincing to them in the slightest.

@@agoodpoint9476 I think it's more along the lines of its not technically an invasion on the unborns part, because the unborn is not there as a consequence of its own actions, intentionally or unintentionally. For instance if you found someone tied up in the trunk of your car, this would not be an invasion on there part. The person who tied them up and tresspassed to your car is at fault, not the person they tied up. And if this person were tied up in such a way where they were tied to parts of the car, you would not be within your rights to start removing them piece by piece or starve them to death, or poison them to get them out, regardless of how they got in there. It would be legally, socially and morally expected that you would remove them with a little harm as possible.

@@tripkings547 There is no option for removing an embryo with as little harm as possible. Isn't death like the most amount of harm you can do? If you are referring to second term abortion... like... do you even care. If you disagree with abortions as a whole, why am I gonna waste my time defending second term abortions since you think that first term ones are immoral too for a different reason. Not to mention there's a difference between someone being in your car and someone being inside you.

It's more like choosing not to go through the mental and physical trauma of childbirth as the result of a traumatic violent experience that you're not even responsible for... which is fine.

Basically if they wanted fewer abortions they favor better birth control not laws and cops.

Toastee

You know its possible to support safe sex and be pro life right? This whole ethical dilemma could be avoided if people would just where a condom.