Peter Singer and Stephanie Gray Connors Debate, "Resolved: Abortion is Immoral" 

I want to Trent Horn vs Peter Singer

I came into this being on Stephanie’s side (because I’m pro life) but was very intrigued by the good points from Both sides. Also it was awesome when he called her out on her stance (which was no stance) on animals rights 😂

The cross-examination was way too short. I prefer instances where both participants are able to more freely pressure test each other's ideas for longer. That's often the most interesting and unpredictable part of the debate and issues can be resolved in real-time between the debaters in these segments.

Hi! Why does the title of this (excellent) debate include a resolution? Who decided on the resolution? It doesn't seem to be in the video.

This was a really good debate. Both sides were able to make their points and had to provide reasons for their thought process instead of just using sound bites or one-liners. Thank you for sharing!

I really enjoyed the debate. Stephanie was on fire during her time to ask questions.

I'm completely shocked at how well Stephanie did in her first cross examination. She seems really intelligent on this topic

Please post more videos here! Even small ones!

I appreciate Peter's consistency in some cases (like killing born children up to 6-9 months old), but was disappointed in his inconsistencies such as being able to kill someone who's not aware or who can't feel pain, but if you apply that logic to adults, it falls apart. If he could have been pressed more on those topics, perhaps he could have come up with something else. I thought Stephanie was more logically consistent.

Problems is the identity we inscribe on things. When is an individual an individual? When is a bicycle a bicycle? More fundamentally when is a triangle a triangle? Ahh there you go.

Peter Singer never responded to Gray's questions as to why a pregnant woman would not then have her life ended on a death sentence for some crime. The fact that he affirms that it is because he is a person did not answer either when Gray indicated that he would not be a person for a long time and took that opportunity away. Usually Peter went away because he defended human rights when we are not, according to him, superior to them. However, the debate did not focus on it in any way because we were talking about humans and their abortion. This is a problem that I personally see a lot and it is that no matter what is debated, a vegan will always try to introduce his ideology to be more comfortable in his field of action.

Why am I reading unsophisticated rhetorical drivel online over abortion when intelligent conversations like this are possible?

Nice debate! I would say both sides were pretty consistent in their world-view, so I think this debate was a draw. I would subscribe to Stephanie's view though. I wouldn't call Peter's view ageist, but I would call it ableist. At the end of the day, Peter believes that a disabled animal has less right to life than an able one which to me is immoral. One point that I think Peter didn't answer very well is whether or not killing someone who temporarily cannot suffer is morally acceptable. The distinction Peter makes between wanting to live seems odd in his answer about someone in surgery shouldn't be killed even though they wouldn't feel pain because they still have a desire to live. I would assume every living organism wants to live unless there's evidence to the contrary (e.g. committing suicide) so it seems to me that we should assume that a fetus wants to live too. If you don't make that assumption, then I think Stephanie's point about asking a 3-year old if she wants to live is a good one. Should we actually take an answer of "no" as permission for killing the 3-year old? At the same token, isn't Peter assuming that the person while under surgery still wants to live? Isn't it fair to say that once in good mind, both the person in surgery and the fetus would want to live? I would say yes, which is why I support Stephanie's view.

I am surprised that the argument of the right of physical integrity of women is never brought up in those discussion. This is the argument that I hear most frequently from defenders of abortion rights.

This woman is so clear, so logical and so right! Keep talking Stephanie! You’re a breath of so needed fresh air…and TRUTH!

Well done Stephanie for fighting for the rights of children God bless you 🙏🏾

Stephanie really failed here on all fronts. Her argument relies on showing that Peter was arbitrary or inconsistent, but she only really achieved this by ignoring his distinctions and challenges. She starts by assuming that all homo sapiens have these rights without justification, even though that is the thing being challenged, and never elaborates her reason for taking that view, while Peter gives powerful challenges. She seems more focused on emotional gutpunches or hyperbolic/deceptive comparisons (e.g. holocaust, bullying, abortions motivated by sexism, etc.), changing the topic and skipping over the part where she needs to argue the hard part. And for her position to make sense, you need to adopt some very clearly hard positions, as Peter pointed out, like how an abortion could not be performed even when the alternative is the mother AND the fetus dying. Her best argument is perhaps the point on parenthood, but despite her insistence that its central, seems rather forced. The force of her argument is to show abortion not merely as immoral, but as immoral on the level of murder and should be legally treated as such. Who cares whether the person is a parent then? If we ignore the entire "murder" argument and just focus on the fact the parent is not fulfilling their duties, then abortion would be no worse than giving up your kid for adoption. It is the argument that you are murdering which gives the whole thing force.

If killing a human being is not immoral then nothing is immoral

Well done Stephene you did brilliant you are great at making your defence praise God

Stephanie Gray used the example of the video of a mountain lion defending her Cubs in Utah, showing that it’s obvious that we should protect our children. However, this is an appeal to nature fallacy. It’s the claim that morals come from nature. However, many feline animals will also kill and eat their Cubs, including lions. This doesn’t help her make her case.

I’ve gone through the comments and it’s full of people absentmindedly espousing “Stephanie/Singer obviously won.” I’m going to say that, because of the format of this debate, with not so much cross examination nor clear points nor obvious standpoints made by either side (this mostly due to the debates format), that it was a draw. Of course I have my own opinion too, but I think it’s unfair to say either side “won” this debate.

This woman is a lunatic. She actually said that if you could only save the mother by directly killing the fetus she would let both die because letting die isn't killing lol. Holy shit. "Yea, I know that I am indirectly killing them, but I didn't intend to, so la la la la I will pretend consequences don't exist!"

Stephanie amazing woman . God bless you for being a voice to the voiceless

My position is way closer to Singer’s than Stephanie’s, but she did an EXCELLENT job grilling him

A lot of this boils down to their philosophical perspective and worldview, it would've been more productive to dicuss why they hold those fundamental values.

35:15 Nature is much harsher than SGC thinks, and a very bad example to support her views. Actually it can provide an argument AGAINST her views. 1) There are virtually no unwanted pregnancies in nature. So no analogy there. 2) Weak or sickly offspring are often consciously abandoned in nature (not to mention phenomena of outright infanticide). Mothers do not want to allocate time and resources for them, out of fear that it will jeopardize their own lives, or the lives of their other offspring. Essentially they are making...a choice.

Morality can be different across cultures, religions, individuals….therefore it’s up to interpretation. I love how people think they have a monopoly on the concept alone and would force others to conform.

Debating Peter Singer is brave but a futile endeavor. It is impossible to win an argument against someone who is perfectly consistent in his moral philosophy and unafraid of any conclusion that may be drawn. Pro-Life hangs its entire argument on the fact that a baby has the right to life, this guy doesn’t care. Good Luck.

I’m gonna be honest, sometimes Stephanie’s extremism pushes me to better understand where pro choicers are coming from. Similarly to when Peter mentioned that you can’t kill someone during a surgery because despite them not feeling pain they have already lived and they have a will to live even if they don’t in that moment. Then Stepanie asked “why does that matter” and Peter gave a really crappy response that I was not expecting 😂 but I could tell that he cared more about being consistent in that moment rather than being rational and moral. Stephanie did the same thing when Peter was probing her about ectopic pregnancies and situation where you have to kill the baby in order to save the mother otherwise there is a great chance of death to both parties. And you could tel Stephanie was paying way more attention to trying to be consistent rather than logical and moral and in the process of doing that she made herself look silly.like really? You would willingly die and let your baby die instead of saving yourself by intentionally killing the baby? I mean it sounds horrible but there’s not a big difference because if you follow through with not killing the baby then the baby is going to die anyway and now so are you. You’re really going to let yourself die and leave all of your other children behind? It’s definitely a heartbreaking and traumatizing moment that you will have to live with for the rest of your life but you have to understand that there are no good options, because the baby will die either way. So at the end of the day you are choosing to leave behind and scar you other children simply because you want to be consistent with your views or you don’t want to feel bad. Honestly, it was really hard to watch her make really weird and illogical decisions because I’ve always viewed her as the opposite of those things

It seemed that suffering defines morality for Peter which I think is not tenable.

Mr. Singer won this debate, no question about it. Stephanie defended her views admirably, but she employed several logical fallacies that really lowered her argument. It didn't help that she missed Peter's refutation and he wasn't even allowed to repeat it, but I guess there's not sense in repeating for deaf ears. I appreciate how civil the debate was, and the subtle burns and excellent points and refutations made by Peter made this debate and absolute pleasure to watch :)

Being a member of a species doesn't give you a right to life, since we are all going to die. A better way to frame it is that we have a right to not be intentionally killed unless we have done something to forfeit that right (e.g. murder - taking another human life).

49:31 We could use the self-defense argument. Baby is actively killing mother, mother decides she can't run away, so she has to kill the baby to safe her own life. Killing in self-defense is not murder.

To Singers first cross examination and Conner's response; she states that it would be better for her to die than kill her child. What if she is leaving a partner and children? By not saving her life, she is inevitably harming her family right?

1:08:40 those who know the person at the funeral would be hurt by this.

There is a difference when someone who has no prospect to live and a foetus who has that prospect. Even if that person who has no prospect seemingly, euthanasia is wrong. But it is different when the person make a will to give it up out of love for his neighbours.

When Stephanie Gray Connor calls Peter Singer an ageist, and that his position can't stand against discrimination based on sex or color, I think this is one of the biggest straw-manning I've ever heard before. I think Peter Singer has made it clear (more than once) that his position is based on the capacity of suffering and awareness. It makes Stephanie's repeated attempts to call him an ageist seem to be an intentional straw-manning.

Good debate. However, Stephanie's are based quite a bit on classifications and the choice of words used to describe. Like "fetus is human, humans have human rights per UN, so fetusus have human rights" or describing abortion as "murder". Peter's (ok he's a professor) doesn't depend on the choice of words and classifications. He's simply looking for consistency of moral stance and digging deeper into the criteria - beyond descriptions and classifications.

Was anyone changed by this debate? presumably most if not all viewers are still on the side they were on when this started & this is generally the case when competent representatives debate.

Identical twins are two individuals

Stephanie is outstanding. Morality is tied to the underlying intention of the people acting out their intentions. I agree that abortion is immoral.

I fought, internally warred, with self worth, depression and weight. In my childhood, my dad was very critical. Everything was about appearance to him. He constantly oogled women and made comments about their physical attributes to me, even when I was a little girl. So, I grew up thinking women were just objects for men's pleasure. I had very little sense of worth. My heart was 💔. I started battling depression in my teens and wanted to die many times. I developed a warped idea of food and eating, which of course led to an eating disorder. I let men use and abuse me. I had two abortions, one at 19, one at 20. I was a dark, broken, angry, bitter, mess, wrapped in a young woman's body and I plastered a smile on my face for public use so no-one knew the destruction inside. At 30, after going through a divorce from a narcissistic addict who cheated all the time, I was then a single mother of an 18 m/o. At that moment I reached my breaking point and realized I needed help. A friend, who truly cared, asked me why I didn't believe in God and Jesus Christ. I didn't have a good answer...it was simply that I felt I could only trust myself and I doubted there was a God when I looked at all the pain in the 🌎. Not long after our conversation, I heard the Gospel, which is the Good News that Jesus Christ came to earth 2000 years ago, fully God and fully man, to be the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, so that we could then be counted as God's children here on earth and then for eternity in Heaven. WHOA!! That blew me away....Jesus loves me (and you) so much that he allowed himself to be mocked, ridiculed, BEATEN, and HUNG BY SPIKES AND ROPE ON A ✝, then he was brought back to life by God the Father after three days, spoke to his many disciples and then ascended to Heaven in his glorified body!! AND, He did that as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. All we need to do is believe he is alive, repent of our sins, and pursue him in prayer and in his WORD, the HOLY Bible. Abortion is a sin because its spilling the blood of the innocent lives God created. God wants to forgive us tho and that's why He sent Jesus. Since the moment I said yes to Jesus, he has given me SO much. He healed my ❤ from all the pain and regrets of my life. No more depression or questions about my value. I'm a new creation through Him, and because I chose Him, I'm worthy of God's goodness. He gave me a new life... a new job, a new husband who loves me for me, not what I look like or what I can do for him, a new home, the $ ability to send my child to private school. He blessed me with a 4th child (2 in Heaven, 2 on earth), the college diploma I had worked for but had not received, work promotions/bonuses, and now I'm blessed to be at home and care for my elderly mother and young child. The Lord gives me peace, love, kindness, joy, patience, comfort, strength, and goodness! The Lord is our great councilor if we'll let him. I've never regretted choosing Jesus. He's waiting for you TODAY! He wants to heal you, love you, and be with you for eternity! If you don't know him, I challenge you to just ask Him... Jesus, are you real, are you alive, did you create me, is the Bible your word, etc.??? If you're sincere in your questions, he'll answer you. I pray you don't doubt when He answers you! May God bless you.

im enjoying the conversation so far, but stephanie has done some egregious obfuscation and intuition pumping so far, hopefully thatll clear up soon

Great arguments on both sides. Awesome debate! Thanks for sharing.

Stephanie Gray Connors has, throughout the debate, appealed to emotion, which inspite of being effective is not the way to sway people's emotions. Peter Singer, on the other hand, spoke quite rationally and gave weight to individual circumstances as to when an abortion can be moral or immoral. It is sad, and at the same evolutionarily true, that human beings are more prone to be emotional rather than rational.

I find the affirmative argument more logically sound; however, the dissenter does bring up a good point, why are humans more worthy of protection than other life forms? I would affirm the affirmer's statement that you can't discriminate based on current ability. Shall plants be protected because they are alive and because it is not their fault they cannot act as other creatures do? Are there non-religious arguments that show that humans are infinitely more valuable than other creatures and that their comfort is more important that the lives of other life forms? A basic theistic God may be used in the argument but you still must prove that we are special beings. Would proving humans have eternal souls convince the dissentive argument?

No human being on the menu

The logical conclusion to his argument leads to an untenable position. By his logic we have no right to anything over animals or the very land we inhabit. That being the case we no right to use those things in any capacity. Ultimately that ends with the death of the human race. Which would contradict the view we have equal value to other species and living things on this planet because we would be denied the right to survival.

Of course Peter Singed is pro abort. Dweeb. How dare he say he cares about life itself and acted as so on his Ted talk.

The fundamental error Stephanie makes in her argument against Peter Singer's goal of minimizing unnecessary suffering (upon which we should all agree is a good thing) is that she isn't taking into account _future_ suffering. She says killing is wrong no matter what, while Singer is making the point that killing is _sometimes_ justifiable if it avoids unnecessary and predictable suffering in the future. And it's all the more so when the agent being killed (like a fetus before 20 weeks) is unaware of being killed because it doesn't feel pain. I'm so grateful that we have the world's leading bioethicist to argue this side of the argument for us, because it often seems that we're taking the inferior moral stance when we really aren't.

Peter Singer is on his way to hell if he doesn't repent, repent before it's too late

Stephanie clearly won the debate

imagine taking moral lessons from a cougar lmao.

you are a person from conception since personhood can not be absent if it is not there to develop,? if it is not there to bei with no human being can become a person.Peter Singer your argument is unsound

I think Singer won this debate. If Stephanie is unable to show a morally relevant difference between fetuses and non-human animals that would justify pro-life arguments but allow for animal consumption, then her position loses its strength. Stephanie objects to Singers account of the grounds that it discriminates group members based on age - but she has no defence for discriminating group members based on species. Singers pro-choice view, and his view on animal consumption both seek to reduce pain and suffering; but on Stephanie's view, she inappropriately privileges (human) fetuses over non-animals without providing a moral reason to do so. I do acknowledge that this was a debate about abortion, but assessing her views on animal welfare seems appropriate here. Stephanie did a great job at defending her position, but it seems untenable because of her inability to consider animal welfare. Animals endure far greater pain than fetuses - this is self evidently true because i). the animal agriculture industry kills animals in the billions annually and abortions collectively occur in the millions annually and ii). Singer's account only tolerates abortions before the third trimester, e.g. before pain conception.

It's interesting to listen to abortion from the point of morality instead of legality 🤔 The question I have now is: What is the criteria to receiving the right to life? I agree with Peter that merely being a human is not enough. I have a lot to think about now.

When you kill the chrysalis you kill the butterfly?

Awesome debate!! I'm with Peter Singer, abortion is moral and women from all over the world should be able to decide if they want to have that baby or not. Sadly in my country, Brazil, abortion is still illegal, mostly because of the dreadful influence of religion in the public opinion sphere.

He absolutely has a fascist ideology of ubermensch and untermensch. It proves once again that intelligence without God takes to Evil😱

Well I am definitely on the pro life side, I really think that one has to more fully address Peter’s comment about taking one life to prevent two deaths. Stephanie’s (and my) own feelings that she would rather die then take the life of her baby to save herself, aren’t going to be shared by everybody. Either she should claim that this should be a moral code and even perhaps signed into law for everybody and justify that, or say that this is her own subjective position.

How can you compare your experience to the experience of a single mom who needs to decide between having a second or becoming homeless, cause she doesn’t have any maternity leave and cannot miss work. It is so easy for someone to push their morality on someone when you have not lived a single day in their shoes.

Her 2 big arguments are 1. Human lives mater 2. Most importantly mothers ought to protect their children. 1. How many parts of our DNA would have to be changed/ genes altered before we no longer have human rights. If we have some tiger person just as smart as a person do they not have the same rights as a Homo Sapian? 2. Id say mothers ought to try to prevent suffering from being inflicted on their child or hypothetical child (fetuses or in the consideration of having a child). And in this case the best thing to do is terminate the fetus as painlessly as possible to prevent the pains expirenced with sentience. Why this doesn't allow genocide is that killing another alive sentient being violates that beings interest to life and continuing doing whatever they love. While they are asleep or in a temporary comma these interests persistent, interests even persist past death. And all violations of interests are an immorality in of themselves. Hence one can abort a fetus or even painlessly kill a newborn younger than 6 months without violating the child's interests. In most cases in modern day it would always be wrong to kill a born child as someone would want thst child or be disturbed by that child dying and would be acting against those individuals interests if the new born were to be killed. But what Peter is trying to do is change people's minds so thst maybe it wouldn't be a violation of anyone's interest, and we'd recognize its better for the child to not reach sentience. Also her appeal to pleasures and life argument has been disputed by singer in the past, but we can in theory make fertilized eggs split, so long as those eggs had a surrogate mother we could have billions of people born each year. And not only that but we ought to if their potential for pleasures and life are important. So I really don't think there is anything special about homo sapien DNA, nor that killing a fetus or newborn is wrong in and of itself (though often can be and is).

Professor Singer is wrong.

Peter Singer bringing out them deep thoughts.

I have not hear ONE good argument for abortion yet. The introduction for Pater Singer was so godly in the beginning and when he start talking....it's just bunch of trash. Keep it up Stephanie, you kick Ass!

Pete Singer, my favourite "PHILOSOPHER" who detests wisdom. ;)

All the Pro-Abortion arguments has no foundation to argue on. Just admitted its wrong, it's evil and especially in America...(.it's convenient and necessary!?) I would respect that more if they say that.

Peter owned her with specisism...she can't be consistent in her beliefs and she knows it

Peter Singer, not even wrong

Her first premise literally contradicts itself: “All humans are equal; therefore it is immoral to kill innocent people”. Translation: “It’s ok to kill ‘not-innocent’ people.” So ... “all people are equal” + “All people are not equal”. And, “you cannot kill anyone” + “You can kill some”.

Abortionist are just crazy he lost this debate by far

Wrong again Professor Singer. Belonging to the human makes you an ethical being, animals don't occupy this space of being a human being. Animals should be treated well but this does not mean we shouldn't eat them

This is a white privilege woman argument, Argument from emotions.

God this women is insufferable.

I don't think everyone agrees that every human being should be taken care of by their parents. I think most people would agree that parents would be just in choosing to unplug a brain dead child whose body is still alive over having to spend millions to keep what's essentially a living tomb for a corpse of a brain alive. If a brain dead child is nothing more than a living tomb, wouldn't that make a brainless embryo nothing more than a living empty cradle? Sure, the child-brain may soon enter that cradle, but it doesn't exist yet, and the cradle is not a child. Edit: This does nothing to invalidate Stephanie Connor's argument though since for this debate she is not arguing that aborting brainless embryo is immoral. I was confused since she made the claim that since most people agree with her premises (they don't given the brain dead child example), they must also agree that a single celled embryo deserves rights equivalent to an infant. That position is very difficult to defend though, so I can see why it isn't the position she defends during this debate.

E found many of Stephanie Connors' arguments to be unconvincing, but surprisingly enough, e does consider the last argument about the value of love to be moving and convincing. E finds loving all living things and awakening their potential preferable to snuffing out potential. E wants to recognize the limitations on awakening potential we have today while also striving for a better future where every ailment can be cured, every child can be gestated perfectly with or without their mother, every child will have loving caretakers who nurture them into being able to live a wonderful/fulfilling life, and even where every single thing that lives is within reach of its full potential. Ideally we would become like parents of a state transition toward life, beauty, happiness, interests, knowledge, understanding, expression etc that ripples through the whole cosmos at near the speed of light. Until then, e will look for practical solutions. The best way e knows to help more children get the care they deserve from conception to adulthood is to eliminate poverty and make birth control and safer sex supplies more accessible to all in the short run. E also thinks changing hearts and minds probably helps a lot, but is limited until fewer people have desperate life circumstances. Maybe some less immediate things that will help would be robotic assistance to mothers who need it, and artificial wombs combined with good techniques for transferring fetuses. E doesn't think making abortion illegal will help to optimize love and caretaking of all life, but e does agree that abortion is an awful state of affairs that it's good to end in ways that don't just exacerbate the other problems that it's a mere symptom of.

*Abortion is Immoral? * Affermative - Stephanie Gray Negative - Peter Singer 00:10 Introduction 06:27 Intro Stephanie Gray - Abortion is immoral 18:42 Intro Peter Singer - Being a human doesn't necessarily mean having a right to life *First Rebuttals * 31:16 Rebuttal Stephanie - Every human life matters 36:27 Rebuttal Peter - Life hasn't fully begun for fetuses *Cross Examinations * 41:08 Stephanie cross examination - What age a child became a person? 43:41 Stephanie cross examination - Is it immoral to do abortion for racist reasons? 46:33 Peter cross examination - Life-risking pregnancy: what to do then? *Second Rebuttals* 52:11 Rebuttal Stephanie - Humans have intrinsic value 56:37 Rebuttal Peter - It's not a matter of species, but cognitive abilities *Q&A * 01:02:34 Q for Stephanie - If abortion would be illegal what punishment would you have for those who do or attempt it? 01:04:50 Answer of Peter 01:06:01 Q for Peter - How do you reconcile your case against cruelty to animals with your support of abortion? 01:08:06 Answer of Stephanie 01:09:23 Q for Stephanie - Does your pro-life position implies also that we should be vegan? 01:11:05 Answer of Peter 01:11:50 Q for Peter - Direct killing in Euthanasia vs Passive Euthanasia: is the first as morally accettable? 01:13:52 Answer of Stephanie 01:15:10 Q for Stephanie - Do you think religion should be part of the conversation on the policy of abortion? 01:16:30 Answer of Peter 01:17:55 Q for Peter - Do you think it's up to society to decide when personhood becomes? 01:19:43 Answer of Stephanie *Conclusive statements * 01:21:10 Stephanie 01:25:25 Peter Stephanie's website loveunleasheslife.com

Conners: Deontology! Singer: Consequentialism! Conclusion: No progress made bc they are talking about application of different theories instead of evaluating the worth of those underlying theories.

Thank you for posting this! This was a great debate & I was afraid I would never see it again!

Wow, excellent debate- vegan pro-lifer definitely loving this one 🙂

Would you be so kind to change the title not to include the resolution? How can I share it with my network and ask what do they think if they’re given the answer right away before even watching? Pro-lifers wil not click it as they already believe it’strue, and pro-choicers will not click it as they would think it’s a pro-life propaganda. And this is actually a very good debate and it would be great to encourage people to listen to it, dig deeper into the subject and make their own mind.

Really wished Stepahnie could have heard and responded to his counter argument @ 1:00:00 that a developmentally handicapped human, even if 50 years old, cannot attain a moral status of personhood. This is an inherent problem with the gradualism argument for personhood. Also, it is interesting that Singer references the philosophical work of UHRs and protection of slaves and the randomness or arbitrary of being a human being vs being a fully rational creature per his framework. Historically when de Vitori first made these arguments which became the eventual UHRs argued by Maritain, they did so using Thomistic and natural law theory. At the time of de Vitori, the argument against this was that Native and Black races were intellectually inferior and that, even though widely accepted as true, was still not a reason to deny their natural dignity. There would be no place to start the graudualism argument, had the work of equal dignity already been philosophically argued successfully by natural law. So now we jettison that work to provide a new framework which disallows underdeveloped or cognitively impaired human beings personhood status? It seems to be a work around to provide an objective standard for personhood that preborn cannot attain. Why I say that is because nothing cognitive developmentally special about birth, it is just an absolutely meaningless point of reference that personhood is assigned and so it reeks of circularity and question begging and it is never found in philosophical arguments until abortion became a legal challenge. I would press hard on anyone who adopts it to explain the immorality of infanticide. Singer has already made this concession and argues for selective infanticide in his book Practical Ethics.

Peter Singer's argument is probably one of the more consistent ones I've heard for the pro-choice position, but it literally requires you to be ok with infanticide. I think that really tells you that even if his position is logically consistent, there's something deeply wrong with it. It also lends credence to the comparison pro-lifers make between abortion and infanticide.

Neither being alive nor being human is an argument for anything. A turnip is living. The word human simply indicates a type of species. A real abortion debate would be limited to first trimester and consist of only the two relevant features: most importantly, body autonomy and secondarily, sentience. A reasonable person will conclude that a first trimester abortion is not a moral decision or action because it is nonsensical to assign moral value to a non-sentient organism. It is, however, immoral to take body autonomy from someone based simply on beliefs about God or a species specific infatuation.

By my lights, I think the harm vs suffering distinction is a flaw in singers view. A human can be harmed by depriving them of something they were entitled to but deprived, even if they never consciously suffer from it. Killing a fetus early in pregnancy clearly does harm even though it doesn’t suffer. The harm is in the deprivation of all its future experiences. Opportunity cost is a real cost to use economic jargon. An analogy that works is someone stealing my inheritance without me ever knowing the inheritance exists. Clearly a harm has been done, the theft of the inheritance. Me not knowing about it means I never suffer from that harm but am harmed nonetheless. Also Singers view seems inconsistent to say it’s immoral to kill people who have had but temporarily don’t possess sentience, and will have it again in the future. While it being morally permissible to kill those who have yet to ever have it, but will in the future. In either case the only sentience that will occur is in the future, which both have equally. I don’t see why past sentience has such relevance to his view. Singer glibly says it matters bc people wouldn’t ever sleep well, but in terms of suffering, killing a fetus without sentience and killing a person who has lost sentience temporarily is the same. In both cases the harm is loss of future sentience but there’s no suffering to speak of. By my lights.

Grey is a titan

The anti-abortion debater is so overzealous and shrill and awful to listen to

Very good debate! I am thinking about changing some of my views. At this point I am convinced that if I remain pro-life I should become vegan, which is something I have been considering for a while.

1:09:52 Isn't it ironic how we appeal to the actions of animals when they "justify" our beliefs, but when the actions of the animals are considered barbaric and inhumane, we say "they are animals" we should not be doing the same as animals?

I always find it hard to hear about abortion and why women need it. I understand there is rape and a pregnancy can occur angainst the woman's wishes. But why can't couples conduct themselves in such a way that displays their human dignity and control over their own bodies and abstain from sex which is %100 effective in avoiding pregnancy rather than killing the child that results from their inablility to say no and instead, act like animals feeding their own appetite and not acting responsibly with the consequences.....A society that kills it's own young, is a society that will annihilate itself......

I wasn’t shocked at all that the professor would be in support of killing infants in some situations. because if you are going to back up abortion using logic and reason and with being consistent with your beliefs, then this is where that route will lead you to: to the support of killing young children. It makes you wonder, maybe we’re only centuries away from civilizations like the ones in the “the giver” where some newborns are killed off if they don’t meet certain criteria and it is viewed as normal by their society. It’s eerily similar to how abortions occur in our society today and the majority of the population doesn’t bat an eye

Stephanie was okay, but her response to the question about vegetarianism wasn't an answer. She spoke without saying anything.

Abortion arguments can be made in terms of commonsense but an apriori principle does require a spiritual dimension especially when arguing against euthanasia

“An embryo doesn’t have plans”. Yes but they will eventually have them if you let them grow, so abortion is immoral. Animals never have plans that’s why it’s absolutely moral to eat them

To be entirely honest, I don't think Stephenie is a right fit for the leading defenders of abortion. She isn't a philosopher and it's obvious, she isn't going to fare well with articulated philosophical arguments. It isn't necessarily because the pro-abortion side has more truth on its side, but because when you are a qualified philosopher, you can make unjustified things seem (and I stress "seem") justified. You needed someone like Trent Horn or even better, actual Pro-life philosophers like Patrick Lee, Don Marquis, Stephen Napier etc. Anyone of them would've wrecked this despicable utilitarian

Better debate topic. Is it moral for the government to regulate your body?

1:11:11 oh shit

If possible can you please organize a debate between stepsister and professor Chadwick who Trent horn debated with Also between Stephanie and the channel God is Gray Debate between 2 Grays and 2 ladies. I’ve often seen these discussions between 2 guys or a man and woman. What I’ve suggested might be interesting

What is so shocking about singers position is his prolife view on nonhuman animals. How can he be hold two such opposing views?

Thanks for organizing and uploading this great debate!