Joe Schmid on Abortion 

yes but a fetus is not a person.

@@matswessling6600 fetus is a Latin word that means young one. Strike 2.

@@asiaaviator5353 yes but that is irrelevant since "fetus" is the medical term for the unborn. And the early unburn is not a person.

@@matswessling6600 of course an unborn person is a person. What makes a person a person for you then? Just location?

@@asiaaviator5353 an early unborn has no memory, has no self, has no conciousnes. Thus its not a person. yet.

He went to catholic school

I wasn’t surprised at all when I hear he was pro-life.

That's an over-simplification of the argument. The argument primarily has to do with moral uncertainty and what one should/should not do when faced with such moral uncertainty. If one is not certain about the moral status of a prenatal human, then one should err on the side of caution when it comes to abortion. Driving a car doesn't necessarily put you in a situation where you're faced with such moral uncertainties.

@@IWasOnceAFetusthere is moral uncertainty about if animals should be food, so are you vegetarian?

@@MrAdamo No I'm not vegetarian. Not all beings have moral standing.

@@gabriellevitale4670 Financial support is one thing. Moral responsibility for your own choices and actions is another. Hopefully, you'll make better choices the next time around.

@@IWasOnceAFetus you believe personhood starts at conception because of your religion. And that the only purpose of sex is for reproduction. I believe personhood can’t start until the organs involved with consciousness are developed, so 24 weeks. And I believe sex serves many purposes and consenting adults can have it when they want to- no government or godly permission required. In this country- we have freedom of religion and from religion. I don’t have to believe as you do. You can choose what to do with your body and I can choose what to do with my body. If you want to live somewhere where religion is enforced by the government- go hang out with the Taliban.

​@@gabriellevitale4670 i don't "believe" personhood starts at conception. I make arguments to that effect. Arguments - not mere beliefs based on feelings - are the basis of my position. Calling me names is not a counter-argument to my position.

​​@@gabriellevitale4670 Also, the right to choose isn't an absolute right. You cannot choose to intentionally harm other persons, for instance. This is why I said: make better choices. Very straightforward proposition.

I agree. I never understood why "bears" specifically, since it would have worked just as well without that specification.

Nicely put. Thank you!

Well you basically defined DRI so that it will arbitrarily exclude gametes but include zygotes, how convenient. What was the ground for this distinction in the first place?

@@exalted_kitharode isn't that fairly obvious? The distinction is grounded in the fact that sex gametes aren't individuals while human organisms are.

@@exalted_kitharode Gametes don't develop into adult humans, but zygotes do.

@@GodisgudAQW gametes given the right environment with each other will develop into a human . A zygote also given the right environment will develop into a human

@Oners82 Yes

The arguments don't ignore the role of the mother. They emphasize/debate the roles that adult humans have towards prenatal humans, whether they're biologically related or not. The arguments debate the ethics of killing. No one here is suggesting that prenatal humans grow in a vacuum.

⁠@@IWasOnceAFetus​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ “The arguments don't ignore the role of the mother.“ - no, they ignore. Because how you said “The arguments debate the ethics of killing.” and don’t include a wider range of topics, such as the socio-economic status of women in the world. Discussing the topic of abortion from only one side is called “ignoring.” That’s why in the very first comment the person wrote “a fetus doesn’t grow in a vacuum” because your propaganda channel shows arguments as if mothers don’t exist. But you are too stupid to understand it. You took this phrase literally “No one here is suggesting that prenatal humans grow in a vacuum.”🤡

​@@dobby2270Hm...killing defenseless human persons on-demand for socioeconomic reasons? Really struggling to see how that makes your position better.

It is a matter of the life of a baby.

@@Isaac_L.. Well, very briefly: the ethics of abortion has nothing to do with whether the arguments sound _convincing_ to you or not. No offense.

@@IWasOnceAFetus The whole reason arguments exist is to convince people of (or to defend) a position. And it seems the best way for someone who is undecided on an issue (like me with this abortion) is to evaluate which cumulative case of arguments from both sides is more convincing. To be clear, I wasn't trying to prescribe my unsettled view onto others and obviously as I am currently impartial to two opposing (and incompatible) views I am certainly significantly incorrect regardless of which side is actually right. I just wanted to throw out my current thoughts on the matter that's all.

@@Isaac_L.. My point: whether you are convinced by the arguments or not has nothing to do with whether the arguments themselves are valid or not.

@@IWasOnceAFetus I agree, but I don't know how else to determine what is true besides evaluating arguments from each side. Also I rewrote part of my original comment that I had messed up so it should make a bit more sense.

@@Isaac_L.. to determine whether you have reasons to reject an argument, you make counter-arguments. The validity of your position is contingent on whether you have counter-arguments that succeed to demonstrate the original argument as false. Being convinced of something demonstrates nothing but a state of mind.

I'm not Joe Schmid. Read the description. Also, "i was once a fetus" is a philosophical argument against abortion by Alexander Pruss. It's also very accurate.

Yep. And Peter Singer, John Harris, Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva, Jonathan Glover, J. Räsänen too. Ben Watkins of RealAtheology also admits that their pro-abortion position entails infanticide of born infants.

@Oners82 1) I was mostly trying to point out that most abortion arguments entail the logical permissibility of infanticide. I think this is generally speaking true regardless of whether you want to accept it or not. I was just stating that many leading abortion defenders (philosophers & bioethicists) agree with that point (2) I don't see how your position doesn't entail infanticide. Your position entails late term abortions. These are practically infanticide. Killing inside & outside at that point seems pretty irrelevant in the moral sense if you ask me.

@Oners82 (1) I didn't make any "rebuttals." (2) You may want to demonize the prenatal human as "violator" to justify killing him/her but that's just you. Because the fact is prenatal humans aren't "violators." (3) Using arguments from consent as justifications for abortion makes sense only if you equate prenatal humans to intruders/violators/rapists & I'm glad you admitted to doing so. Doesn't seem like a reasonable move to me because prenatal humans aren't intruders/violators/rapists or even equivalent to them.

@Oners82 (4) Bodily rights arguments are, generally speaking, self-defeating. Here's one example how: If it's wrong to force a human to give up SOME of her blood/kidney/bone marrow to save another human being, then it's even more problematic to force one human (the one in utero) to give up all of her blood/kidneys/bone marrow, all her organs, & her life itself, not to save the life of another human, but to simply render another human free of pregnancy. In the case of abortion, what the donor gives up is much more substantial (life itself) & what the recipient receives is much less substantial than life itself (freedom from pregnancy). (5) "I was just stating that many leading abortion defenders (philosophers & bioethicists) agree with that point." That wasn't an argument. Not even a proposition. You're arguing with yourself. (6) If killing inside & outside the womb is the only difference you have for saying that one is infanticide & the other is not, you have no justification for why your position doesn't entail infanticide. Location isn't a morally relevant difference.

@Oners82 Alright. I don't have time for people who lack self-control and you clearly can't wait for this discussion to turn into a contest of wills. You don't even seem to know what arguments are. One advice: Stop equating prenatal humans to rapists. Now shoo.

Your analogies fail. (1) accident: woman did not cause her son to be in need of her kidney. In abortion, the parent knowingly caused the prenatal person to be in need of her body. If you cause someone to be in a state of neediness, you have some obligation towards that person. You definitely have no right to kill that person on-demand. Same goes for the drinking kid and his dad. (2) The debate isn't about whether you have to sustain another person's life. It's about whether you have the right to kill another person on-demand.

​@@IWasOnceAFetus Just so you know my position beforehand: Legally, I'm pro choice as I think a person should be able to have full bodily autonomy. Morally, I'm not sure. I think the later into the pregnancy it is, the worse it is, but I have a hard time saying it's flat out wrong. I find it really difficult to give a straightforward answer. The reason i'm legally pro choice is basically because of OP's argument. i) If A needs a specific body part (X) to survive, and B is the only person that can provide X should B be legally required to do so? I don't think so, I think that would be wrong, legally and morally. Would you be considered a murderer in this instance? No. ii) As you point out in your (1) response though, if it is the case that A needs X because of B's actions. Lets be extreme and say that B hits A with a car or something (intentionally), and as a result, A needs X from B. Legally, should B have to give up that body part? No, and that sounds like some sort of dystopian future novel. However, B in this case would be charged for attempted murder... There is more nuance in these, but I think this is the general point, no? The big question is this: Does ii) apply to pregnancy? Personally, I don't know. In specific scenarios, possibly. In the case of ii) and applying it to pregnancy, the result would seem to be that it would be legal to have an abortion, but then one would be charged with murder as a result and this seems wrong somehow, I may have to come up with a different analogy. Hitting someone with a car in this case, remember, is the act of getting pregnant and not the abortion of said pregnancy. The abortion is the refusal to give up body part X so that A can live. As a general rule, hitting someone intentionally with a car is illegal and morally wrong. There are exceptions of course, but the general rule here stands I think. Getting pregnant, isn't illegal or immoral. Going back to ii) and your 1) it feels like the issue is person A being in a state of need because of the actions of B aren't the same in these analogies and in pregnancy, as the act of getting pregnant (consensually) is not illegal or immoral. Is this an issue for the analogy? I'm not sure, I'd like to see what you have to say about the issue. I hadn't considered your objection in 1) so thank you for making me aware of that... maybe we can come up with an even better analogy and I will change my mind all the way and become pro life! The car hitting might be too extreme... but it might be just the same for any analogy, I don't know. There may be some analogy where its the negligence of B the causes A to require B to survive? Again, I'd like to see what you have to say:) What I am taking away from this though, is people need to not be precarious with their sex lives. Regardless of whether we are pro choice or life, abortions shouldn't be used as a form of contraception. Thank you for reading, if you did:) Its such a complicated question in my opinion and warrants serious thought.

@@justdavelewis My thoughts briefly: (1) "Full bodily autonomy" would entail late term abortions-on-demand. In principle, bodily rights arguments don't/can't grant exceptions or they fail. This is one of the many reasons why I find bodily rights arguments utterly unpersuasive. (2) In response to argument (i): a real-life counter-example to your argument is the relationship between a lactating woman & a newborn baby. Newborn babies have the right to use someone else's bodies to stay alive. If the only one who can help the baby stay alive at the moment is the lactating woman, the baby definitely has every right to her breasts at the moment. Denying him/her this right effectively entails infanticide by means of neglect. The only way your argument seems to succeed is if you accept the moral permissibility of such a case & that would just be absurd. (3) As I've shown above, some forms of refusal *can* be morally problematic. But I think the dis-analogy in your argument, primarily, lies in the fact that you think "abortion is the refusal to give up body part X so that A can live." We're talking about abortion-on-demand, aka. a form of killing-on-demand. Not a mere refusal to allowing someone the use of one's body. Abortion is more akin to letting someone have your kidney & then forcibly retrieving it back by killing the recipient.

@@IWasOnceAFetus Thanks for the reply! 1) Just to reiterate: I think bodily autonomy works as an argument for purely legal reasons, not necessarily moral ones. I think it could be problematic to mandate forced pregnancy no matter the situation. The autonomy argument is actually what convinced me to accept the legality of abortion, regardless of how I may personally feel about it morally. I could be mistaken about this, there may very well be a good argument which brings me in line with your views here, I just haven't heard it yet. 2) "Newborn babies have the right to use someone else's bodies to stay alive" - I think this might be where we disagree... Babies, and children alike, have the right to be cared for, not the direct use other peoples bodies, no one has that right, not even a baby. Mothers choose to breastfeed their children with their milk, but they don't have to, there is baby formula. In fact, some mothers have trouble getting their baby to latch on properly and therefore they have no choice but to use formula to feed their child, I know one such woman personally. Though I do agree with the sentiment that neglecting your child is morally wrong, I think your 'infanticide by neglect' defence there does not apply in this situation for the reasons mentioned above. If, however, your argument is the baby will die of starvation unless it is breastfed, then I don't thing that really changes anything... If the baby is in the position where it is starving, there is already neglect in the first place. I mention above that there are alternatives to breastfeeding, but even if there was no baby formula, neglecting your child is wrong, I agree. If the baby is starving because of reasons that aren't the mother's fault then the analogy no longer applies due to your reasoning here: "If you cause someone to be in a state of neediness, you have some obligation towards that person." This would be essentially same as the analogy where your child needs a kidney from you and only you, but it's not your fault. In fact, this is a weaker version of that argument because breastfeeding entails no personal risk to the mother. Donating a kidney is major surgery and that has a risk of complications and death, as does pregnancy in general and childbirth. Abortion will have risks too, but those risks are less great than ones that can arise in childbirth and some pregnancies. I think pregnancy dangers and childbirth complications are serious considerations in these discussions. I will say that most people would probably give up an organ for their child or a family member/friend if they could and knew it would keep them from dying, but it shouldn't be a law - and i think thats where a lot of my contentions come from to be fair. 3) "Abortion is more akin to letting someone have your kidney & then forcibly retrieving it back by killing the recipient." This is POTENTIALLY a more interesting analogy but i think it fails as well, because it doesn't properly reflect the nature of the pregnancy situation. Once the kidney is inside the other person, it is their kidney. In your analogy, the kidney is equivalent to the mother's whole body essentially, not just the womb. I do not agree that the child has a right to the mother's entire body. I don't think anyone has that right. Just as a separate curiosity, imagine a hypothetical scenario where for whatever reason, you can either choose between the unborn child's life or the mothers life. Would you choose the child or the mother to survive? In my opinion, i think the mother's life is more important than the unborn child's and so, If only one could be saved, I would choose the mother. I suspect you would disagree based on your comments, and that's cool, I can't tell you that's wrong. I can sort of see where you're coming from on a lot of these, but i just don't feel that the reasoning you've provided here is solid, and i think thats because we disagree on what rights an unborn child should have when compared to a human. That's ok though, I don't think there's necessarily a correct answer. This is an emotional conversation too. It's sad that people feel the need to get an abortion, no matter the circumstances.

@@justdavelewis (1) Bodily rights arguments convince you of abortion's permissibility but I've already given you two good reasons for why bodily rights arguments are unpersuasive - they lead to extremist conclusions like late term abortions-on-demand as well as infanticide. I don't see how you can avoid those absurd conclusions. Plenty of other reasons why they're not good arguments for abortion. (2) Bringing up baby formula only adds to your dis-analogy. The initial point was to make this analogous to pregnancy & abortion, which is why I mentioned that the lactating woman was the only one who could help the baby at the moment, as is the case in abortion. As you yourself admit, the rightness or wrongness of infanticide in this situation does not depend on whether there are alternatives to breastfeeding. Even if alternatives did not exist, infanticide would still be unjustified. So your argument (i) where B is the only person who can provide X to A still essentially entails the moral permissibility of infanticide. (3) Now onto the point about the relationship between the woman & the baby. Notice that my first comment to you was in response to your arguments involving a mom & her kid, a father & his kid. It was simply a response to that. If you cause someone to be in a state of neediness, you're obligated to ameliorate the situation. Like i said, you have some minimal obligations to that someone. You definitely don't have the right to kill that someone on-demand. That's applicable even if there's no parent-child relationship, but even more so when there is. Now i think that's enough to discredit your arguments and most abortions that happen in reality. If by some chance the adults here were not responsible for the pregnancy, would they have a right to abort the prenatal human? I think not. Because you'd be arguing for killing the innocent party on demand & that's not justified. (4) Never implied that the kidney is analogous to a woman's entire body. The kidney is analogous to the woman's uterus. The analogy was simply meant to demonstrate that abortion isn't a case of mere refusal as you suggest but is more akin to active killing.

The "downside" in the analogy is that someone's right to life can possibly be violated. That's, of course, a huge downside. Not to mention, most burdens of pregnancy don't come close to justifying killing in general. It's simply saying that if people can't agree about the moral status of a prenatal human, then one shouldn't say it's fine to abort the prenatal human. The point is simply that if there's a *non-negligible* chance where you might kill someone in an abortion, you should err on the side of caution.

One can also put out a less "theoretical" analogy if you'd like. Imagine you were hired to demolish a building. As Project Manager, you hire a team of experts to get the job done. When the time comes to press the trigger, you ask your Safety Officer if she's positive that no one isleft in the building. She replies, " I did a walk-through last night & I didn't see anyone. But I'm not a 100% sure." It's clear what ought to be done at this point. Given the small but reasonable chance that someone is still in the building, you ought to postpone the demolition. Going forth at this point would be reckless & negligent. This mirrors the other analogy & its point.

@@IWasOnceAFetus Nice try, but your analogy suffers from the _exact same weakness_ as the bear analogy: it fails to incorporate the very real damage associated with forcing a pregnancy to term. Put another way, no one gets hurt by refraining from demolishing a building. So, _speculate_ all you want about the possible murder of a fetus, but you are still left with the very real consequences of an unwanted child. Of course, if you think the former is more compelling than the latter, then have at it, Hoss. But that is a matter of opinion, and, unfortunately for your camp, the majority disagrees with you.

@@BertRussell4711 (1) I don't see the "weakness" you speak of. If you're suggesting that simply being pregnant is reason enough to justify abortion in general, then I don't find it persuasive at all since most pregnancy complications don't even require abortions to treat. And the right to life is a serious right. If there's a small but non-negligible chance that you might end up violating it, you ought not be reckless. It's a simple principle. (2) The language of "force" you use is disingenuous at best. A law that bans infanticide is not "forced parenthood." A law that bans starving children to death is not "forced feeding." When someone tells you not to kill other persons, you're not the one who's being "forced" to do something unjust. (3) "No one gets hurt by refraining from demolishing a building." Yes that's the point. If you demolish the building & someone does get harmed, then that's morally wrong.

@@BertRussell4711 "the very real consequences of an unwanted child"? You find it "compelling" to kill humans based on the justification that they're "unwanted"? That doesn't seem compelling at all. I bet even your own intuitions go against what you just said about that. The fact that a born child is unwanted has nothing to do with the child. The fact that a prenatal human is unwanted also has nothing to do w/ the prenatal human. If you blame a born child for being unwanted & kill him, it would be morally wrong. This same principle applies to prenatal humans.

@@truthseeker2275 The prenatal human has more at stake here. This can be determined objectively. Compared to the woman, the prenate has at least two more rights at stake: the right to life and the right to bodily integrity. The prenatal human suffers a more significant amount of harm to their bodily integrity. He/she also loses something more substantial - life itself. What the prenatal human gives up is much more substantial (life itself) & what the recipient receives is much less substantial than life itself (freedom from pregnancy). The prenatal human is also not responsible for what he/she "does." He/she is a product of someone else's agency. There's no argument as to who suffers more injustice here

@@IWasOnceAFetus my point is your opinion is entirely valid...but then so is the option of the counter-argument entirely valid. But if you claim that your argument answers all circumstances and you work to enforce your claim, then that is an immoral action because you claim to know something you don't, and you simply do not care for the consequences. Do you care about people suffering?

@@truthseeker2275 I'm afraid I'm making arguments here. Not opining. If you have any counter-argument, lay it out here. I'll be happy to address any argument you put forward. I'd rather you not imply that I have ulterior motives. Demonstrate your claims by argumentations. Non-arguments are not useful here.

@@IWasOnceAFetus Thank you for engaging, I hope we can have a productive convo. I would like to make an argument that will be effective so I ask : Do you care about people suffering? I will direct my argument based on your answer. b.t.w. you make an argument but it is your opinion that the argument is sound and valid whereas my opinion is that it fails as it relies on a non-sequitor. please: Do you care about people suffering?

@@truthseeker2275 My argument has not been demonstrated to fail. You've only opined and claimed that it does. Yes i care for people suffering. Let's see you formulate your arguments now.

I think you're onto something with the environmentalism objection. If I'm not mistaken, I've read similar objections in Patrick Lee's "Abortion and Unborn Human Life." I think that book might help you out in this regard. Also, I don't think Joe's objection can make sense of cases where a human embryo (presumably a non-person) is deliberately & genetically modified to grow into a mature person who desires all the wrong things, such as wanting to be a slave to other people, etc. I believe everyone would say that is wrong, even if the embryo were not a person. But locating the morally bad in future harm to persons in such a case seems absurd.

In his defense of the FLO argument, Trent Horn belabours a similar point in his recent debate with Nathan Nobis, when he talks about NBC's ("Never Been Conscious").

@@IWasOnceAFetus Ooo. I'm excited to view that debate. Thank you also for the book recommendation. Not much of a reader, but I'll look into him.

@@jimbojackson4045 No problem! Thanks for stopping by. ✌🏻

@@IWasOnceAFetus With the genetic modification thing. I think a critic is going to say human beings should have these certain "proper" desires in virtue of the type of beings they are. A pro choice person is most likely going to say the type of being we are is not our organisms, or body, rather our mind. And thus, when a mind comes into existence, the person has been harmed by such impairment, and an explanation of why such impairment is immoral has been generated. However, we cannot say the same for a 10 week fetus who is aborted, because abortion prevents a being from developing such perverted desires to begin with. So impairing an organism to the nth degree brings about a sufficiently relevant good that impairing an organism to the n+1 degree doesn't. You may appeal to an imaginary case were Mary genetically modifies her fetus to desire to be a salve, but 5 days later is hit by a car and her fetus dies. Clearly, the pro lifer says, Mary's actions were still wrong even if no person came into existence. However, if one makes such a move, they are confusing subjective wrongness with objective wrongness. In this case, with Mary's limited knowledge and limited beliefs, what she did was only subjectively wrong, not objectively wrong. However, when the fetus obtains a mind in the case of an impairment (n+1), Something objectively wrong has happened. For an actual person has been made worse off.

@@WUWHere I don't see how the fact of women choosing their abortions follow from the concept of brute facts. If you're implying that abortions will keep happening no matter what, this is no argument against anything said in the video.

@@IWasOnceAFetus, the argument for a woman’s sovereignty over her body and reproductive capacity is essentially absolute. Why? Precisely because of the brute fact that she had no choice about her innate reproductive physiology, and there is no one who is impacted more by pregnancy than her. Get over it.

@@IWasOnceAFetus, I was once a fetus, too. Big deal. But, to respond to your assertion that the freedom of women to choose abortion does not follow from a "brute fact", let me start by reminding you that no woman chooses to be a woman, and no woman chooses their reproductive physiology and all that it entails, good and bad. And often, a woman does not even choose to be pregnant. These are all brute facts. It is also a brute fact that women can die as a result of pregnancy, and on the contrary, no man will ever die as a result of pregnancy. This fundamental difference between the sexes is the foundation of a woman's right to control her body during pregnancy, including the elective termination of a pregnancy for whatever reason that is important to her. Her body, her choice. She is ending a pregnancy, and on occasion a potential life, and no one and no law should be permitted to force her to continue a pregnancy against her will. Let's all focus on the people that are born and stop obsessing over the unborn.

@@WUWHere Firstly, the majority of abortions are abortions-on-demand aka. abortions that aren't medically necessary and abortions that are done on-demand & on-request. Brute fact. The debate has to do with abortions-on-demand. Secondly, that made very little sense. The fact that someone is a woman doesn't necessarily entail abortion. You admit that it comes down to choices. And choices can be good or bad. Well the choice to abort is morally wrong because it kills a human life. Not "potential life." Instead of choosing to kill other humans on-demand, let's choose not to

@@IWasOnceAFetus, you don't seem capable of cogently rebutting any serious point that I advance in favor of a woman's right (read: Individual Right) to procure an abortion to terminate a pregnancy for reasons personal to her as an individual human being on this Earth with inalienable rights. On what basis do you argue that she, a woman, must forfeit her rights to control her own body and her own destiny? Can you at least try to construct an intelligible argument for your position? "that someone is a woman doesn't entail an abortion."....this is nonsense. Many women never get pregnant because they don't want kids (I know quite a few of them) and so, ipso facto, abortion is never even on the table for them, so what is your point? And, that a woman is making a "choice"? That choice devolves from her fundamental right TO AN ABORTION and not some abritrary and capricious impulse. Do you even understand the notion of "fundamental rights"? Our "Founding Fathers" thought there was such a thing as fundamental rights. The many nations that ratified the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights thought so as well. Rights are granted by people, not the God that I think you probably worship. And, on this subject of abortion, there are rights that supersede any supposed rights of a fetus, and that is the woman's essential right to her bodily autonomy. A fetus lacks any bodily autonomy, can we agree? Let me provide a personal example from my own life. My girlfriend got pregnant by me when we were both 18, and we both agreed that an abortion was the right choice at that time in our lives. If that abortion had not happened, my first 2 children would not have been born. If they had not been born, my 5 grandkids would not have been born. Do you want to explain to the seven individuals that were actually brought into this world, precisely BECAUSE in my state of residence abortion was legal when I was 18, that their individual lives should have been nullified in order to force my girlfriend to bring that one fetus to term when we were 18 year old? I make zero apologies for that abortion, and my ex-girlfriend saye the same. Do you really want to have that conversation with my kids and grandkids about their collective illegitimacy in your eyes? My story is just one of an infinite number of possible scenarios that can lead to an abortion. My question to you, which I doubt you would answer, is why do you care so much about the fetus that my girlfriend and I terminated? Given all the truly existential problems facing humanity, there are myriad ways to use your personal energy and resources on problems that are much more important and urgent than saving a fetus.

The prenatal human isn't a body part. That's silly and unscientific.

@@IWasOnceAFetus It's attached to the mother via the placenta. For more information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta

@@copernicus99 Your citation doesn't prove that the prenatal human is part of the woman's body. Your body parts are supposed to have the same DNA as you.

@@IWasOnceAFetus Half of the fetus DNA is from the mother, the other half is from the father. If both parents consent to an abortion, then that makes 100%

@@copernicus99 A fetus has two feet. If the fetus is a body part of the pregnant woman, does the woman have four feet? If the fetus is male, does the woman have a penis?

Dude.... He was referring to PREGNANCIES caused by rape....

He’s means that he doesn’t have settled views on cases where the mother wants an abortion because they were raped. Not that he doesn’t have settled views on rape itself.

@@jacobschroeder5615 do you think that makes my statement any less valid?

@@hjvjccc Yes? I’ll set aside the fact that the actual quote is “I don’t have settled views about cases of rape” (meaning he is still considering the philosophical implications of both sides). In cases of non-rape he leans towards pro-life. Cases of rape can be different due to the lack of consent and he may come to different conclusions due to this nuance. Calling him an intellectual joke is a childish over reaction.

@@jacobschroeder5615 any man that hasn't formed opinions on rape has no intellectual integrity worth defending. Since you are defending him I will assume that you are also somebody with an extremely small capacity for any sort of intelligent opinions

Said the imbecile

Do good consequences justify murder?

@@GodisgudAQW In some cases, yes, you are a fool to think otherwise.

@Jacob Lee Hmm, would you say the same about slavery? Because in my view, slavery is not as bad as murder, and slavery was vastly more socially beneficial than abortion is today. Yet I would never want to hold a principle that entailed that slavery is justifiable for its social and economic benefits

@@GodisgudAQW I agree, slavery isn’t as bad as murder but can you enslave an embryo?

@Jacob Lee No, but you can murder one. And since we agree that murder is worse, if the benefits of slavery did not outweigh the moral wrongness of slavery, then the social benefits of abortion would have to be even greater than the social benefits of slavery back then in order for those benefits to be sufficient to make abortion permissible