It is really simple, if a woman becomes pregnant and then thinks she doesn't want to carry it to term because she's not ready for parenthood she has the right to terminate the pregnancy, the religious side has no right to stop her, they should mind their own business.
If a person has the opportunity to terminate the pregnancy, and freely decides not to, do they at that point consent to take on the obligation? Would it be negligent to terminate at a later point?
@@rennnnn914 not in all cases. If I consent to take a group of kids on a camping trip, it would be negligent of me to remove my consent in the middle of the trip, abandoning them in the woods.
If men got pregnant, abortion clinics would be open 24/7 and they'd have drive-thru service and house calls! They have no right to impose their religious dogma on the rest of the country. That's sharia law. They have become a Christian Taliban.
well now....I've certainly augmented "deal-breaking" behaviours in pursuit of a (wrong) relationship...jail wasn't part of the calculus, but an ultimatum all the same.
If men became pregnant and had children, there would be abortions at every gas station, with a stamp card; "Have 9 abortions and get the 10th for free!".
I'm biology male but I can't stand to see a man ever saying that towards a woman and banning abortions and don't forget about the pink tax like with the menstrual cycle products is considered cosmetics like tf
Sorry to say, it's because we've never felt the consequences of these situations as women have. Terrified though we may be to think of the consequences of causing an unwanted pregnancy, we don't have to know what it's like to carry that pregnancy to term, to take that physical risk, or to carry the weight of the alternative. We don't have to know what it is to reject an innocent child. Or to raise an unwanted child that we bore into the world. We have no experience of that. We have instead, at best, a relatively abstract idea of complicity. We can pretend it away. We may be wrong to do so, but it's easy. It just takes denial. Try to pretend that you don't have a foetus growing in you. Try all you want. See the difference? Men have no standing on the matter. So let's just SHUT THE FUCK UP.
I'm a cis het male and I understand the logical consequences of the "pro-life" postion. By the logic they use anyone could be forced to use their body to do anything for anyone on the basis of "well its a life". If I was a blood match for someone, I could be forced to donate an organ or blood because it could save somone.
I have no idea. Frankly, I prefer to defer to the people who actually know what they are talking about and have to deal with the consequences of unwanted kids. That said, I am of the opinion that its infinetely better for both parties if an unwanted child is terminated. After all, if forced to carry it to term, theres a good chance that its life will be...less than pleasant. There are usually very good reasons why a mother might decide to terminate her child after all. Better to abort than force a child to grow up in abject poverty or to be seen as a blight or burden by their parents.
No one should be able to tell someone to keep a fetus, or donate a kidney, or wear a mask, or remove a hijab, or get a tattoo. What an idiot he was. Anyone who doesn't believe in body autonomy is a tyrant.
@@chadbogdahn2541 No one should be obliged to wear a mask but if they want to go somewhere other people can be harmed by their failure to do so then it is reasonable to have a condition that they need to wear a mask to be in that place.
@@Illawong Other people can be harmed every time you interact with them. If you mean passing on germs and viruses, people do that every time they interact with each other. It's called 'socializing'. And, by the way, late-term abortions do harm someone other than the mother. They harm the baby... quite significantly.
@@johntheos There is no illness as common as Covid-19 that people in certain categories are as likely to catch and die from. You don't seem to understand that living during a pandemic is not the same as in normal times. This is not equivalent to catching a cold. It seems that English is not your strong point. A baby is defined as a human infant between birth and around two years of age. No baby is EVER involved in an abortion. Nothing that is insentient can possibly be harmed and sentience is impossible before 28 to 30 weeks. I would care about a stray dog before an insentient fetus as the former can feel pain and deprivation and it cares about its life. No rights are needed for anything that does not value them. ALL late-term abortions are performed for medical reasons and not because the mother does not want to carry the fetus. No woman carries a fetus for six months and then changes her mind. Reference to late term abortions is always a dishonest ploy that those who are against all abortions use to justify their otherwise clearly immoral position.
You two have now qualified as kindergarten teachers after talking to Mike. Thank you for being so patient with someone who clearly struggles with even the most basic of concepts and would I suspect fail to understand a 'pop-up' book on biology.
"Why is it that so many of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't wanna fuck in the first place!!!?!" -- George Carlin *RIP* (We miss you SO MUCH, GEORGE!)
If men became pregnant and had children, there would be abortions at every gas station, with a stamp card; "Have 9 abortions and get the 10th for free!".
Even then, to conflate what he says as “using the body” and bodily autonomy is just a bad faith argument. He knows damn well they aren’t even close to the same
@@Julian0101 Really? That's you best shot? That a rich parent has to use their body to earn money to pay a nanny? And you are comparing that to a fetus inside a woman's body using her organs for 9 months with all the attendant health ramifications? Wow. This is why theists lose every argument--they have no idea what logic is and therefore have to twist themselves into semantic pretzels to try to make a point and fail monumentally. I've read this post twice and I'm still laughing.
@@lawrencefleischer1414 Sure you are laughing, it was sarcasm. That is why it has a /s. Though i'm sure someone would have actually used it as a serious argument.
All the caller is saying is that once a fetus passes through the birth canal and becomes a baby, it has an individual constitutional right to life. Well, sure. That doesn't happen, however, until it's physically separate from the woman. Prior to that, the woman has all the rights, up to and including the right to terminate the fetus... because it's inside her body.
Arguing with a man about abortion rights is like arguing with a lion about vegetarianism. If men got pregnant, abortion would not even be a religious argument.
You (in the 19th century): Arguing with an abolitionist about slave ownership is like arguing with a lion about vegetarianism. If abolitionists owned slaves, they wouldn't argue for their emancipation.
@@jameshayes211 You are comparing the dissolution of forced chattel slavery and all it's evils to people deciding they don't want to host a fetus. Get help.
@@jameshayes211 forced dismemberment? Wtf are you talking about. Oh wait! Your on about abortion? So it’s using the most in incendiary rhetoric possible? It’s not an abortion, it’s “forced dismemberment of persons”? You know your being dishonest, huh?
@@lockeseven7 I prefer accurate descriptions to euphemisms. Anthony Levatino is a former abortionist---check out his lectures for an informed description of the procedure.
The problem with people like Shannon is that she gets so defensive and hyper focused on her topics. She literally blew up over her own arguments and didn’t really hear the guy out. Take giving blood for example. I can actually see a situation in which someone could be forced to give blood. Though it would be an extreme case, however, that is not remotely the same as a fetus surviving in its mothers womb. Do we give the fetus special privileges and special consideration? Absolutely and for good reason. There is almost always a chance that there is another heart donor, kidney donor, liver donor, or blood donor out there. Maybe not a perfect match, but there is almost always at least someone that can be a good enough a match. A fetus inside its mothers womb literally has no other options with todays technology. It will either live or die based on the whim of the mother. So, yeah, it’s a special case. Ordinarily I would agree, that so long as there is some other option you should never force someone to support another person against their will. But in the extreme case where there is literally no one else that can do it, provided your life is not at unnecessary risk I don’t necessarily see the problem in it.
@@littlebitofhope1489 no one has tried what? Why didn’t I work on what? I’m just pointing out the obvious here, I’m not claiming to be a savior of lost children or anything. Reality sucks, let’s not color coat now.
No, he can’t. And that’s his point, isn’t it. So when we develop the technology to remove and transfer, we should make sure it’s to the end of his penis. And it should be mandatory. Which is what he is arguing for.
Even if a parent does take care of a child that doesn't mean they have to give up blood and organs to that child like that analogy was talking about. This guy is so monumentally flawed in his thinking.
The organs/blood distinction if significant enough to warrant separate discussion. The surgery risk is higher and quality of life reduced with say one kidney. A blood donation is not like that, in fact it's healthy to donate blood. If a parent had a unique blood type same as his child, but refused to donate, should the state force him to donate the blood in the higher interest of the child ? I propose that in a sane utilitarian society the answer would be yes, and only a society deluded by the irrational love of individualism would deny it.
Shannon literally said the same thing over and over ad nauseum and he was just sitting there like “abortion bad drrrr.” I found it annoying how she had to tell him repeatedly not to interrupt her while she was speaking and how he’s incapable of listening to her and what she’s saying
"This guy's argument is so inane, he knows NOTHING about pregnancy and its risks or anything else for that matter" He is also like most vile forced-birthers who view women as nothing more that male-owned below-the-waist service animals (all they are in the Abrahamic religions in particular, nothing but sexual cattle) who are nothing but disposable property. The Forced-Birther Pressgang position on women in this regard is best illustrated by that viciously anti-Semitic, dedicated woman-hating, Catholic renegade and founder of the Protestant Reformation Martin Lutherwho said this about women: "If a woman becomes weary and at last dead from bearing, that matters not; let her DIE from bearing, she is there to do it!"--- Sermon: Von dem ehelichen Stande (1519) I would wager a very sizeable bet that the foul git the hosts patiently tolerated is of the same "mind" (use the word loosely here) as Luther (he doesn't regard women as human beings at all, but things for his use/abuse/exploitation).
This gentleman’s understanding of family law is as feeble as my understanding of the nuances of K-Pop. As this clip goes on, it’s clear that every time he talks about “legally,” it becomes obvious that he hasn’t ever read or studied any actual law.
I have no idea what your musical taste is, and yet I suspect that you are understating your understanding of K-pop's nuances. Just the fact that you recognize that it has nuances puts you above him.
Shannon Q has always been my favorite person when it comes to the topic of abortion. She makes it so clear how disgusting violating any person's bodily autonomy is!!!
@Richard Eubank see, now you're poisoning the well by using the phrase "kill someone." Abortion is the termination of a nonviable pregnancy that results in ending the existence of the fetus or zygote.
@@orias12 Not true. Non-viable means it can't live on it's own. I have a bad heart. Are you obligated to give me yours or you go to jail for murdering me? What's that you say? You don't have to use your body to save me? Well, that goes for everyone or no one. If the little parasite can't live on it's own, how about YOU carry it to term. I don't see men doing any research to make that happen. It IS possible you know. Are you ready to volunteer? Hypocrite!
@@littlebitofhope1489 hmm good question but very easy to answer. There are a number of reasons why that scenario would be immoral. 1. It is immoral to forcibly take a life just to save 1 other life. 2 or more and we can talk. 2. There are already heart donors. Sorry, I hit send too fast…. But I think that pretty much makes the case. With a fetus, it’s life is wholly dependent on the mother. There are no other doners that can support the fetus. Also, in most cases, carrying a baby to term is not a death sentence.
@Richard Eubank A fetus is not a human life. It was not recognized as such by the Supreme Court in its ruling and is not recognized as such by any other government agency.
You're not really making the point you think you are. Yes, he said that a parent is legally obligated to take care of a child after that child is born. His point was that, morally, the parent has the same obligation to take care of the child before birth and that that obligation should be legal as well. If you disagree with that then by all means argue against it but your OP doesn't do that.
@@wunnell legally, a fetus isn’t a person until after birth. But I think your right, there is still a difference between “legally I have to take care of this fetus” and “morally I have to take of this fetus”. I don’t think I recognized that difference when I posted this comment
@@wunnell well... You're wrong. IF a woman chooses to become pregnant, or once already pregnant, CHOOSES to birth that child, then that 'obligation' is there. BUT, since consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy (no form of birth control other than abstinence is 100% effective), YOU are saying, "too bad, you gotta pay to play." At NO time can ANY human be required to allow the use of their body to benefit another. And since you're apparently male and unable to gestate, your opinion(that yes, you're entitled to) is FUCKING IRRELEVANT. Your biased ignorance is not equal to another's informed stance.
@@ringo666 , apart from that, most people who are pro-choice are OK legally forcing a woman to carry a baby to term once the pregnancy gets to a particular stage, and that includes women as well as men. If you don't support abortion right up to the moment of childbirth then any claim that "you can't force a woman..." is just a lie.
@@wunnell because there are limits and qualifications DOES NOT MAKE THAT A LIE. The 1st Amendment right to free speech has limits, as well -- does that make 1A a lie? No. And your stance that it is is stupid. This caller equates conception with birth. They are not coincidental in ANY equation. And the limit BUILT INTO Roe V Wade halts abortion without medical necessity at 20 weeks... halfway through gestation. BECAUSE that is the general period in which brain activity is detectable. I can accept that, because the cessation of brain activity is the legal point of death. Stop arguing absolutes, because there's only one absolute in life -- that it ends.
I was waiting for that "go f... yourself ". Thank you Shannon and Arden. We know that if men had the ability to be pregnant then abortion would be legal in all circumstances.
Yea, but men also have a huge risk and a sacrifice, and will never be the same after they body's are forced to be used for gain resources (pay child support) or get punished with jail. But whatever, lets free the men from they responsibilities and let have the woman they 100% choice to abortion, it will compleatly destroy the relationship comitment in the social structure, but fuck it, men will never again be child-traped because they can then just walk away and then women can get they choice to abortion, how about that?
"One who goes through it will never be the same." Yep, and some do not survive the experience. That alone is a good argument for allowing the person who may become pregnant to refuse to be the host.
Once again 'bodily autonomy' is being conflated with 'using your body to do work'. Whenever you agree to take on a responsibility; be it raising a child, accepting employment or coaching a netball game, you are agreeing to 'use your body' to meet the inherent requirements of the task. If you don't want to 'use your body' in a way required in your employment contract, in accordance with child protection law or under your coaching contract, you can choose to not go ahead with signing the contract or accepting the role. Either way, you still retain the right to determine how your body is used, who can touch it and who can see it. It's astonishing to me how many people have no concept of the importance of 'consent'.
@Anser Bauer If you break the terms of your contract, you'll be held legally liable. You can't breach your contract cuz you changed your mind. It's astonishing to me how little people understand of the concept of contractual law.
@@johntheos I used the phrase "Not go ahead..." implying that one would not proceed to sign the contract and take on the role, though I understand how you have misinterpreted my intent. I think others took my meaning, but I concede I could have been clearer and have edited it to better reflect my intent.
@@anserbauer309 You said, "not go ahead with the task", not "not sign the contract". That would imply that you signed the contract and don't want to do the task because you have "bodily autonomy". If this is your argument, then you're making a mockery of the concept of bodily autonomy, as well as the concept of consent. But we're off on a tangent here. This is about Shannon Q saying that a mother has no responsibility to take care of her child if doing so would interfere with her "bodily automony". This is an outrageously immoral argument. A mother has a moral, and legal, responsibility to care for her child until the moment that she hands custody over to another caregiver. There's no "contract", not even a "social contract". It's a moral imperative. Shannon is using phrases she doesn't understand. It's videos like these that made me stop watching the Atheist Experience. You don't invite people to share their feelings and then mock and shame them for it. But you might be right that people don't know what consent is. After all, millions of Americans are being forced to take a vaccine they don't want without their consent. I've been defending women's bodily autonomy all my life. It would be nice if they would defend my bodily autonomy now that I need it.
@@johntheos Sadly, it seems you are one of those who doesn't understand consent and your disingenuous interpretation of Shannon's position is disappointing. It's also disappointing you chose to argue my intent, when I'd already conceded my wording was subject to misinterpretation and changed it on that basis to better reflect that which I wanted to communicate. Seems like you're on a crusade. 'Enthusiastic consent' is different to 'informed consent' and those who consent to having the vaccine still have a choice regarding their bodily autonomy, though may face social and economic penalties for not doing so. Bodily autonomy applies equally to men and women and 'defending' the principle that women should enjoy the same rights as men is hardly medal-worthy. It might surprise you to learn that human rights principles seek to ensure an appropriate balance between individual wellbeing and societal wellbeing, so there may be times when levels of coercion or even force (like forced drawing of blood from criminal offenders) doesn't breach human rights law. Your refusal to become vaccinated can result in harm to others. As such, the State can impose penalties for your refusal to behave in a socially-responsible manner. Individual human rights do not override all other laws. In a similar way to refusing vaccination, a person can refuse a BAC test after a traffic accident, but can be charged with failing to comply with State law and their refusal to give blood can be interpreted as a negative factor in court proceedings as a result. Complete bodily autonomy, free of consequences or social responsibility doesn't apply in every situation. Furthermore, Shannon is quite right that a birth mother need not surrender her bodily autonomy after giving birth to a child and cannot be 'forced' to breastfeed. While the birth of a child instigates 'social contract' in terms of responsibility for the wellbeing of the child for both parents (because it triggers both the UDHR and the OHCHR-and thus, relevant State legislation), neither parent can be forced to spend time with, or nurture the child in the days preceding adoption or State Care, though of course, it is encouraged. They can be required to pay for that care though. If it remains your position that women are obligated to support your anti-vax ideology on the basis that you have traditionally supported their right to bodily autonomy on the same basis as men, I have no interest in continuing dialogue with you. Proposing that women ought to be equal on the condition that you get to be special is not a conversation worthy of my time or expertise.
While I do not dispute your conclusion, I do not agree that infant circumcision is a violation of bodily autonomy. An infant does not possess the ability to understand, much less articulate, its wishes or decisions. Its parents, or legal guardians, make those decisions. That’s why we can hold parents responsible when they reject medical care. We can also reject a child’s demand to not get a shot, or not get fillings, or not get surgery. Again, it’s not that your conclusion is wrong, it’s that I disagree that it’s a bodily autonomy issue.
@@atomicsquirrel6457 this is ABSOLUTE rubbish. it is completely a violation of bodily autonomy. you are removing something, 👉unnecessarily👈 that denies the person the opportunity to MAKE THAT DECISION for themselves. it is demonstrably a violation of bodily autonomy. there are many people out there who are furious that that decision was made without their consent. they have been denied the most basic bodily autonomy. they’ve been victims of genital mutilation based on obscene and unacceptable reasons. “Bodily autonomy is about the right to make decisions over one's own life and future. It is about being empowered to make informed choices. These are universal values.” - UN
@@goalski134 if you can find me an infant with the power to make decisions about its own life and future, you can call what I said rubbish. I’m not saying infant circumcision is not mutilation, I’m not saying it’s acceptable, nor am I saying it’s not abuse. I am 100% saying a baby is not autonomous in any way.
@@atomicsquirrel6457 so you can cut whatever you want off someone if they don’t have thr cognitive capacity to state otherwise?! the bodily autonomy definition used within the charter of human rights contains FUTURE decisions. you understand that? it is defined as a denial of bodily autonomy if you impact on FUTURE decisions. no change should be made to a person’s body, unless deemed medically necessary, as it is a… wait for it… violation of bodily autonomy. holy heck. 🤦🏻♂️
Mike's what I would call a yeah-but. Whenever you make a point, no matter how valid or sound, he says "yeah, but..." (insert other iteration of previous argument here). Mike does this at least half a dozen times throughout the discussion. A yeah-but will never concede the argument so in this format he cannot be convinced of anything that shows he's wrong however, since there's an audience involved, he just keeps digging his own hole into which his argument is buried.
Yeah but . . . . . they choose callers who do that for a reason At anytime he could have pointed to alimony or men paying child support for children not theirs as proof people are indeed forced to care for others all the time, never having 'chosen the social contract to do so'
@@lujlp nope. Men who need to pay child support aren’t victims, and their autonomy isn’t being violated. Being held financially liable for your actions is nowhere near forcing you to be an incubator at great physical risk to you.
@@johnlewis9266 this is where we disagree seems to me being forced to provide resources for 26 years is a hell of a lot more violation of someone's autonomy than forcing them to provide resources for 40 weeks 1352 weeks vs 40 weeks 34 times longer Truth is when it comes to pregnancy women basically just have to eat more and move less We now live in an era where you're more likely to die from medical error or obesity than anything else so childbirth is not the burden it used to be Being forced to provide resources for 26 years however is more of a burden
Shannon: Here is why this is not true. Caller: But I don't like that Shannon: Consent is kinda important Caller: But I don't like it Arden: It's still true Caller: I don't think it is
Shannon is like a better version of Dilahunty. She has every right to feel the way she does. She’s literally arguing against ppl that don’t even have uteruses about what they think her rights should or shouldn’t be. Arden is a cutie 🥰
Love it How come men are so loud on the abortion thing It’s the biggest decision of your life to have a abortion . It’s her body that’s it . Men please keep your thoughts to your self Can you imagine what the Woman is going threw.
Why the Anti-Abortion stance having people just wont say up front and be honest what they really want and that is, that they want women to be baby incubators. Disregard any women want or feelings, what ever they are. Do they (Anti-Abortionist) really advocate the idea that women do not have any say on whether they want to carry the pregnancy to term or not ? Because that is the deal we are dealing here.
@Ysabel Love I meant what i wrote more as a world wide phenomena. Christian conservatives in US having that attitude is granted. My solution to this is that there have to be registry of people who are against abortion and that they must become a legal custodian to any baby to be born if the woman wanted the abortion and its prohibited. Not just one baby per family, if in Palookaville pop 1500, there are two persons who oppose abortion then these two must take care of any and all babies born in Palookaville from non made abortions. Not government, they. No i still support abortion but in this scenario way we get these people to take care of their actions.
Most of the callers on this show are males. Also, isn't this kind of the same argument as Reagan's "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born"?
I think men are seriously insulted and confused by abortion because it’s the one area they can’t control. When they infect you with their seed, they want to know they’ve co-opted the rest of your life. This is misogyny.
Let’s ask him if we can temporarily connect blood vessels to other healthy person to compensate for kidney/liver function failures(provided that every immunologic typing matches, no rejection occurs). The patient can process metabolic waste, and the other person can still KEEP the original organs. Is it okay because the other person loses nothing?
@Magical Chemical Daddy God I wasn’t talking about god…Does your god say it’s okay for me to use you as a hemodialysis machine, as long as you don’t lose any body parts?
@Magical Chemical Daddy God Sorry calvin, your god still doesnt exist regardless of your beliefs. And your feelings of envy will never change that fact. And that is ok.
What would you prefer? Allowing some of those men in power to turn women into chattel? I'm all for an argument if it raises awareness about the dangers of a theocracy.
If he thinks bodily autonomy should be revoked to prevent someone from harming themselves, then he thinks abortions should be mandatory for everyone. Does he not have any idea the harm a baby does to a woman's body??
You are not legally required to take care of the baby when born. You can put the child up for adoption or leave it at any hospital, firehouse, police station etc...
This conversation was 16 minutes and 20 seconds longer than it should. But this guy couldn’t accept it because he wanted to keep to his script to spew his straw man and and propaganda.
Calls like this one really make me consider if democracy is such a great thing for society? Does it really benefit society when people like this Mike can vote?
@@tannermclaughlin2653 good point but that isn't automatically the only alternative. What about a system where someone has to at least show some aptitude for leadership? I'm not sure what the answer is but democracy depends on the intelligence of voters and let's be honest, the human race has far more idiots than intelligent people. It also depends on a honest and fair system and human beings are incredibly corrupt.
I'm literally 47 seconds into this clip and I already have to pause to process the stupidity of this argument. It's hard to tell if he genuinely doesn't know the difference between moving your body to accomplish caretaking tasks and forcibly co-opting someone's organs/blood/bodily functions to sustain a life, or if he's being intentionally obtuse.
The question I always ask is: Why have MEN for centuries made abortion a sin or just illegal? Is it basically down to women's bodies are just a means for them to have children (also known as sons) to pass property and/or their bloodline down? Is that why, for centuries, women could not own property?
I’m surprised no one said the flaw in Mike’s argument is that even if there maintains an obligation for a child to be cared for, it would be impossible for a person carrying an unwanted fetus to have someone else take on the burden.
@@ioioiotu abortion should never be illegal. Even if it were up for debate regarding an unwanted pregnancy, it should still be a legal option in the cases of rape and incest.
@@barryweatherley5046 But if the alternative of the artificial uterus arrives, then the person carrying an unwanted fetus has the ability to have someone else take the burden. That means the bodily autonomy argument becomes invalid: the female can remove the unwanted fetus in the artificial uterus. To have an abortion in this circumstance, one would have to argue that the female also has the right to end the life of the fetus, even if the fetus doesn't depend on her body anymore. It's basically like abandoning a newborn on a field when one could put it up for adoption/leave to the state/etc
@@ioioiotuA woman, or whoever is pregnant, should always be allowed not to reproduce. To say, “I do not want another person to be brought into this world” and thus artificial uteruses- which are a great idea and hope they become a thing- wouldn’t change a thing in this regard.
Sure they do. That's why you never see any of them doing research to create technology to THEY can carry it. If they had done that kind of research for the past 30 or 40 years it could be a done deal. It would also mean that implantation could be done into other women too. Then they could save as many as they wish. What do you want to bet they would run for the hills if someone did invent that.
@Richard Eubank No-one is 'slaughtering others', they are just saying that a fetus has no right to use a persons body without their consent. Do you want to give a fetus the same rights as a born child?
@Richard Eubank Yes, one most certainly can refuse/choose to steer a car into pedestrians or ignore a child and shoot heroin if one wants. What planet are you from that you don’t understand that?
You can’t launch a baby from a cannon. At least you can’t if you don’t first pack the cannon with the correct amount of gunpowder. Which is calculated based on the size and mass of the baby. And the diameter and length of the barrel.
Mike is free to pontificate poorly because he'll never be faced with carrying a child to term. How fast would he reverse his position if he found out he was pregnant? My guess is about 100 milliseconds.
I kept wanting either Shannon or Arden to tell that knob to just go F-OFF already. The patience of these two women is amazing. When the F-bomb was finally dropped, it was something of a relief, actually. Love this clip.
@Richard Eubank Do YOU? Your anti-women stance does indeed, cause the senseless death of many women from dangerous pregnancies. Face it: you believe women are just baby-factories, because of your "magic" sperms
I am 56yrs old the woman who gave birth to me has had nothing to do with me my whole life my mother chose to take care of me my whole life , its called adoption , what about this dose this fool not understand.
For me the right of a woman to have an abortion is part of a governing structure that should try to maximise individual freedoms and only use laws were other options are not available. The right to Bodily Autonomy should be one of the foundation stones of any society. Anti-abortion Laws break that bond of trust we should have in those we allow to govern us. If people want to see abortions become rarer than they are now then throwing our individual freedoms under the bus is neither justifiable or necessary. Give people better paid jobs, free Education, free Health Care, access to well funded & monitored Adoption options, good sex education, and so on... All these things have been shown to have a far greater effect on the number of abortions which are declining anyway. Laws should always be the last port of call as they often make criminals of the most vulnerable and take us down a slippery slope that will see bodily autonomy lost with all the other potential harm that could cause if the wrong people are in power. People who always want the changes in law rather than strengthening all the other options always worry me as they are the ones who could give all our freedoms away just to fight one battle; their pyrrhic victory is what we should be trying to avoid at all times.
Helen, (in relation to reducing abortion) "Give people better paid jobs, free Education, free Health Care" But there's the rub isn't it? I would argue for many who are anti-choice it isn't about "innocent babies", but really about what I quoted from you in the preceding sentence. And what is that? We all know the answer ... power and control.
I think it's spectacular that Arden apologizes for implying that only women can give birth. No more open mind exists on this planet. Arden, you are a gem, and Shannon is one of my favorites based on the many times she has laid out brilliant explanations for how physical processes work within the brain. Thank you Arden and Shannon. It is a pleasure listening to you dismantle bad arguments.
"Up until the child gets adopted, you are responsible..." Well, no. Adoption agencies and orphanages are responsible. And also, 'Legally you have to care for it.' only applies after the birth anyway. It's quite legal (here, anyway) for pregnant women to smoke, drink... So it's not a basis for an anti-abortion case anyway.
@@grabble7605 "Deader than all the babies they'd murder. For sure". Huh? Not sure what you are saying here but just in case abortion isn't murder so I hope people will cut that out of their mind.
You (in the 19th century): When an abolitionist owns a slave, then he can have a say on slave owners' autonomy over their own property, but until then...
@@jameshayes211 because anyone can know what it's like to be a slave, but you are never going to know what it's like to carry the burden of pregnancy to term, especially if it's being dictated by old white men and their archaic religious convictions. The same men that justified slavery using those religious beliefs
@@jeffreyphillips4182 Anyone can be enslaved, and anyone can be dismembered and murdered. The party that denied millions of persons their right to liberty in the 19th century is the same party that denies millions of persons their right to life today.
I have a simple solution, if you don’t believe in abortion due to religious or moral objections, *then don’t get an abortion.* problem solved. It’s the same with gay marriage. If you don’t believe in gay marriage, then don’t get gay married. These are all clear occasions of people imposing their religious beliefs on the rest of society. Mark my words, now that the religious people have successfully banned abortion, they feel empowered and will next try to overturn gay marriage laws.
@@ookeekthelibrarian Fair enough but it seemed to infer that I referenced that book, now you have explained what you meant it makes sense and you're right it kind of shoots him down in flames, then again everything these theists say is easy to shoot down.
@@ookeekthelibrarian No problem, all explained and sorted, If that book is the infallible word of an all powerful 'god' then it is a deranged deviant, I obviously don't believe that it is the word of any 'god', it was written by backward primitive sheepherders who had no idea what the world actually looked like and how it worked. How any all powerful thing can state that if you wanted striped cows they have to mate in front of a fence is beyond me, clearly written by ignorant savages.
@@ookeekthelibrarian You got a little angry? I didn't notice, then again you sound like me when I have a rant at them. Theists should take off their rose coloured glasses when they read their immoral book, if they actually do read it, they would be an atheist by the end of the book. The problem with theists is that they are weak minded and need an invisible crutch to lean on, I've even been asked, 'whats the point of life without 'god''? Just how weak do you need to be to feel that way? When I was a soldier, 69 to 92, I was once told to report to the unit padre for religious conversion, this was in the 70's, clearly it didn't work.
Another thing I've observed is that pro-choice can probably fall under self-defense law (I am not a lawyer). The pro-choice argument is largely based on the identical autonomy arguments that are asserted by those who believe one can defend onesself with lethal force to protect one's life or physical safety, and in some cases property. Where threats to the physical body or life are concerned, that also excludes intent of both the victim and the offender, and thus by extension excludes claims that the woman shouldn't have had sex if she wasn't willing to have a baby, or that the fetus or embryo is innocent and thus cannot be destroyed-- one can use lethal force to protect onesself even if the other person is innocent (does not know they pose a physical threat to you), or if you put yourself in a situation (which escalated to lethal force) innocently, or maybe even with a small amount of risk (decided to take a walk in a park at night). The government cannot regulate who can have sex with who and when, therefore it can't assign morality arguments to unwanted pregnancies to effect pro-life policy. Finally, in some cases one can also use lethal force to merely 'stand your ground.' All other rationales for using lethal force don't exist, because they don't threaten life or physical safety. Holding a baby does not pose any theoretical threat of death or injury to the mother. Raising it for eighteen years doesn't. Giving it a part of her kidney or bone marrow, does. Carrying it to term, does.
I'm waiting on family to show up for the holiday and decided to check in with AX. Arden & Shannon, hope you ladies have WONDERFUL Holiday season with family and friends ❤
The woman has no obligation to a baby when born. You can leave the newborn with the hospital, and they will take custody of it until its handed to an appropriate agency. Hell, you don't even need to give the child a name. It can appear callous and be frustrating, but that's the reality. Once the umbilical cord is cut, the tether binding the two is severed. Literally and legally. Once you may be discharged from the hospital, you can just leave. Empty-handed and without any obligation.
The Bible has relatively little to say about either abortion or homosexuality yet dominate christian activism. Instead of more obvious biblical themes, like fed the poor, help the sick, love they neighbor, etc.
You know, a lot of people are focusing on the mother, which is perfectly fine and understandable, but I'd like to take just a moment to consider the child. Abortions happen for a reason. Now, that that reason is could range in levels of selfishness, ranging from not wanting to give up the party life to being unable to care for the child for whatever reason. Whatever the reason might be, if the woman is forced to carry the child to term, there is a better than zero chance that it WILL impact his or her life for the worse. There is far to much abuse in this world already, why would we want to force a child into a situation where they could experence that? It doesnt have to be overt, but if a mother feels that their child has ruined their life for whatever reason, it'll likely show. And what about for other reasons? The mother might be terminal, she might have mental health issues, she might be living in poverty, forced to live paycheck to paycheck while BARELY keeping herself of the streets. Or what if the child was the result of rape or from an abusive relationship? That would most definitely taint the child in the mothers eyes. Would you want to bring a child into that life? A life where they are seen as a burden, a reminder of past trauma or even result in their family ending up on the street? Now of course any one of these are just examples and its entirely possible that the result could be a happy family, but in that case, I feel like the option of abortion wouldnt enter the picture. We already have far to many children who suffer every day, from abuse or simply because they have no family due to being abandoned or taken from unsuitable homes. Can we please not add to that number because people dont like the idea that women DONT want to be forced to have a child? If people really want to keep kids safe, why dont we focus on the ones that already exist, suffering in the system where they are far to often ignored, rather than trying to add to those numbers while simultaiusly taking rights away from women?
@@NubianNarrator Indeed. It astounds me that people put so much time and effort into protecting children who dont even have an mouth yet and yet seem utterly uninterested in the plight of actual living children.
@@marcusreading3783 But but is says in the bible in that life and babies and jesus needs soldiers! Meanwhile, god is ordering fetuses torn out and babies skulls bashed in.
Um...people HAVE lost their uteruses as a result of pregnancy. A woman in Oklahoma who had a cancerous pregnancy had her uterus removed after fleeing the state to abort her pregnancy which would have killed her otherwise. While not all pregnancies end in the loss of a uterus, it is a risk. And you can't get that back. This lessens the caller's assertion that pregnancy is somehow different than other activities in which you donate some or all of an organ.
The key word is consent. A person consents to parenthood and are obligated. If a person doesn't consent, they don't have to take care of a child. If you don't consent to pregnancy, its immoral for the government to force you to.
The logic being presented for him isn't difficult... if you relinquish your parental rights you are no longer responsible for the care of that child, the state then becomes responsible. Its no different than if you resigned from a job, you are no longer responsible for the duties of that job. That isn't "kicking the can down the road". As Shannon mentions the responsibility falls on whoever accepts that responsibility, regardless if that is the birth parents, the state, foster parents, adoptive parents. As somone who works in mental health his comparison is utter bullshit.
He didn’t come to have an honest conversation. He came to build his bullshit hypothetical for his straw man to knock it down for his propaganda to work.
Yet the biological dad has to pay support by default, can't relinquish parental rights. In fact if is the woman's choice if that will happen or not. How's that for double standards ?
@@ioioiotu that depends on the state. They can relinquish parental rights if they want to, but many don't. As a result they are responsible for the rearing and support of that child. I would be more concerned about men being able to demand that a women they got pregnant carry the child to term just because they want a kid. I think the person carrying that physical burden opinion should matter more than the person who wants the kid.
@@jwomackandcheese73 I think the opinion of both parties that provided the biological material should matter the same. The fact that the mother carries the physical burden is irrelevant to the fact that as a species we evolved for both men and women to have a tendency to care for the children. A woman having an abortion just to spite a man she broke up with is a possible scenario that is morally repugnant.
@@ioioiotu it is not irrelevant, it isn't a males life at risk of carrying the fetus to term or giving birth. The gestation snd birthing process are both dangerous to a women, not sure why you are ignoring that fact. Literally women die from carrying and giving birth. The infant can die during birth as well. It has a risk, like any medical event. Maternal and infant mortality is used to measure the success of a country, so clearly it matters. How many men die as a direct result of them giving birth? Probably not zero, but excluding men fainting and hitting their head etc. It kinda comes off you don't like women, who hurt you? Do you have data on women who get abortions to spite a man? That also carries risk, I doubt women are doing that, especially not in a majority of cases. Should those receiving an organ transplant be able to control if the person who is doing the transplant can back our or not? No, no they shouldn't. We don't force people to donate organs, even if they volunteer to do so. They can back out at any point, even if it would kill the other person. Even if they agreed to it up until the they are being put under. Why do we not allow women to have even a fraction of that autonomy? Why must the man be consulted? We don't do that for basically anything else.
If a woman can terminate the pregnancy without the man's consent, the man should be able to abandon that child without being obligated to pay child support.
@@Regular_Pigeon no it wont because youre not sponsiring a woman. Youre depriving already existing human of essential things , so good luck trying to argue or defend it lol. Youre also making a pro abortion argument while doing so, so in reality you dont have a point
@@vermilion6966 "Youre depriving already existing human of essential things" No you're not. You're depriving a woman - to whom you hold no connection - of money that she did not earn. Whether she or the child is deprived of essential things depends on her because she's the one who accepted that contract.
The man doesn’t own the woman. Her body isn’t chattel such that she would need his consent. The man can’t abandon the child because he’s culpable for his negligent insemination, and a child has rights to parental obligation.
Shannon Q will never read this comment, I'm sure, but I would love to have a beer or 6 with her in a bar somewhere, debating something. I'm sure it'd be amazing. Merry Christmas SQ!
So a man and Arden think they have something to say about Abortion that matters? Why does the AXP keep taking calls about abortion and why does anyone besides those who own a uterus feel like they have anything of value to add to the conversation?
Because bodily autonomy rights are everyones business. Would you be happy for no-one to stand up for your bodily autonomy rights if the government takes them away - forced sterilisation, for example.
Shannon clearly headed this call so your initial objection about Arden rings hollow. The AXP will take any call that makes it past the screeners unless the host(s) make a judgment while it’s in the queue. For your last point, anyone that has an opinion has the right to try and defend it. If they are wrong they should be made to see it, forcefully if necessary.
Bruh, with that logic, cis women who've had total hysterectomies or who were born without a uterus at all (it happens) wouldn't have any say as well. Arden just happens to be a woman who presumably hasn't had a uterus, HOWEVER, she still has experience with situations of bodily autonomy, consent, and the social agreement to care for children. It's not like having a certain body organ makes you magically aware of these arguments.
Ladies, I am a man . I was born a man. I never had a child, nor can I have one. It seems wildly inappropriate for me to tell women about bearing children. Am I fucking weird?
Suppose your gf gets pregnant, and after 6 months she has a fight and breaks up with you. If she knew you wanted a child, she says she will abort it because she hates you and wants to make you suffer. If she knew you didn't want children, she says she will keep it out of spite. Is that ok with you ?
Not just blood donation is replenished either- when you donate a piece of liver it grows back. The only harm to the donor is that they have to risk surgery and might have to be careful what medications and alcohol they use for a number of weeks until their liver is back at full force. But they still have to consent to that surgery.
The issue is very simple. If you choose to give birth, or choose not to...it should be YOUR choice alone. No one else's. And I say that as a man who's had 3 children with my wife. Ultimately, it was HER choice and my preferences were irrelevant. Because as Shannon points out, it was HER body and her pregnancies caused permanent changes to her body. No one has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body.
