Reviewing Trent's ABORTION Debate with  

Holocaust deniers mentioned alongside pedophiles?? Insanity. Sad. This is Controlled Opposition Catholicism. Pathetic. Sinister.

Please get Mark Queppet on your show. Catholic self development coach (not the guru type) I think you would give him a boost to his following which all parties involved would benefit from

Give the Trent v Destiny debate a listen, would be interested to hear your thoughts after

I don't think so in specific cases, like destiny's argument. I don't know whether I agree with Trent or Destiny, but I don't think that this is accurate.

@@GageMasonYeah, destiny changed his beliefs from pro-life after he explored the principles

I got that same book when I was first looking into Catholicism and found it to be a little too advanced for me. I'm converting from Mormonism, so I was pretty unfamiliar with some of the topics that are common between Protestants and Catholics. The book just seemed to jump straight into apologetics rather than laying out the key doctrines with some basis for belief as an introduction to Catholicism. I'm just about to finish up Trent's Why We're Catholic and I found it far more approachable. Different books for different levels, of course. Just sharing my experience for people trying to share the Catholic faith or those that are interested in learning more and don't know where to start for an intro. Hope it helps. I was scouring the comments for stuff like this when I started investigating. I'll go back to the Case for Catholicism know that I have a better understanding of Catholicism!

Read THE GALILEA REPORT It names the priests who Pope FRANClS has given promotions to after they covered up abuse of children. THE Catholic church is still covering up abuse. They never changed. Read Francis' letter defendig Cardinal Wuerl, the one who used hush money on victims...read about the mother who saw the Cardinal who silenced her daughters become an advisor to Francis.

KEEP YOUR POPE AWAY FROM OUR KIDS...Enabling the church that abused thousands of kids.

@@sirshramp5934- Thank you so much. My son-in-law (raised Baptist) is not really religious- AT ALL. (He’s never even been baptized.) Basically says “I’m a good guy so I’ll go to heaven”… HOWEVER, they have 4 children all baptized & being raised catholic. With each baptism he is drawn closer & closer to the faith. Do you think this “Why we’re catholic,” would be a good book for him to start with? 🙏🏼✝️

@@kath0000 Hey! I think it could potentially. In Why We're Catholic, Trent starts from the very beginning discussing topics such as "why we believe in God," "why we believe in Jesus," "why we believe in the Bible," and builds upon these as he transitions into discussing why we believe in the institution of the Catholic church, why we honor Mary, infant baptism, and other doctrines of the church that are particular to Catholicism. It's a 40,000 foot view of these topics, so if he's estranged to Christiantiy and doesn't have a comprehensive view of Catholicism (which seems like it might be the case), I'm not sure there is a better book for him. It could be a great starting point for him to be introduced to the apologetics of these topics, which could lead him to further research on the matters. For me coming from Mormonism, Catholicism was so vast and different that I had no clue where to start in a logical, linear fashion. This book has been helpful for me to get my arms around it all and decide if I can believe it. If he's more knowledgeable and is held back by some of his Protestant upbringing or is looking for more of a deeper apologetic dive to answer his hang ups, A Case for Catholicism may be a better fit. Hopefully that helps. Even if it doesn't happen over night or with a single book, hopefully seeds are being planted and his evolution plays out over time. You just never know what is going to flip that switch in his mind. When my wife and I came to the conclusion that we were going to leave Mormonism, the first thing we both promised each other was that we wouldn't become Catholic. About a year later we're halfway through RCIA and are eagerly awaiting full membership in the Catholic faith. Ha ha. It's been a wonderful journey and I love sharing. God is good. I wish you and your family luck!

Michael Knowles, Trent Horn. We need more Catholics there. I think they do better than the Protestants like Chase there.

In a way that's true. That's why I stopped watching the whatever podcast and other 'red pill' channels, (It poisoned my mind too quickly) unless there are exceptions, for example, Trent debating someome who is prochoice. Other than that, I rather spend my time doing something else more productive like reading

​@Roxasguy13 whatcha reading?

God bless you, sister. Welcome home

Nice

God has called you home!

Press X to doubt.

I can’t support the anti abortion people. It’s an unrealistic law that serves no societal cause other than the moralization of sex

That’s why such a system should stick to intuitions wherever possible. If most people have the same intuitions, then they can follow a well-trodden path when entering the mysterious forest of relativism. And if we can all roughly agree, then perhaps we can have a democratic government over our society.

I don’t think saying “we should live in accord with” any proposed moral principle refutes/conflicts with moral relativism. Are you assuming “should” can only apply if it’s a divine commandment or a rule derived from some objective moral ether? I can say “Morality is relative” and “A society in which murder is allowed will be a far more dangerous and unpleasant than one in which it’s shamed and punished; therefore, we should accept the moral principle of ‘thou shalt not murder.’” I can say a painter should study Michelangelo while still maintaining that art is a subjective discipline.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

@@FirstJohn2.12-17 Authority is irrelevant, but the basis was implied in my construction. Hypothetical imperatives are perfectly logical so long as they correspond to reality. “If you want to survive, you should drink water” is another way of saying “Drinking water will help you survive.” Saying that murder will lead to consequences you won’t like (even if that consequence is simply that I / God / the government will punish you for doing it) is sufficient to say “[If you want to avoid consequences you won’t like,] you should not murder [because if you murder, consequences you won’t like will follow].” Most of the time our “shoulds” have “if you want” hypotheticals baked in. Otherwise, the shoulds fall apart and become meaningless. Even a “You should or else” assumes the person you’re talking to cares to avoid the implied threat. Think of personal affinities as the engine that powers any moral system or “machine.” If you take affinities/subjective desires out of the machine, it won’t work. That doesn’t make moral systems arbitrary, however, as the subjective desires serve as the basis for one to accept the obligation of an “should.” So-called “objective” morality is the only system I know of that is explicitly arbitrary (“You should not X.” “Why?” “Because you objectively shouldn’t.”). Authority is only relevant insofar as it creates incentives. The “shall” in God saying “You shall not murder [or I’ll punish you in the afterlife / because I know that rule will create a society you’ll like / etc]” works because of the implied punishment and reward we stand to incur for heeding the command.

I was bother by trent's rejection of that also. Maybe he doesn't think intuition pumping is the correct term - but he's obviously doing something along those lines at certain points. Agree or disagree with the use, but it's clearly what he's doing

@@fjordan2345 How is telling the truth wrong?

@@boguslav9502 It's also the truth that people that can not move anymore or are stuck to machines in a hospital, yet alive, are useless to society and all they do is hog up resources when it's clear his situation won't change. So me saying we should just stop supporting him because it's a pit that won't get filled, wrong? Or is it okay for me to say? On top of that, the whole debate is about when does a fetus become a person or not. THAT is the debate.

@@boguslav9502 you're literally doing the thing lol, wooosh

@@seanmundyphoto not really, I get what destiny means, however if the truth is the truth then you don't need to change language to say it, or at least shouldn't, if the person you are discussing is genuine and honest. If not then the entire discussion is a farce.

he mentioned it a lot because of how the entire discussion would be framed from uninformed audiences like urself who cant see the nuances. trent tried to put destiny in a box for optics and he didnt want to allow that. its just optics, had nothing to do with the core of the discussion

​@Unknown-zt1ru Well yeah, because Destiny intentionally doesn't pick a box, and constantly stitches positions together based on his moral relativism. All the "nuances" are tangential, and his position on what consciousness is or when it's present or how it compares to animal consciousness either changed or were totally pliable to him at the time. If he weren't so inconsistent there wouldn't be so many inconsistencies with his positions, kinda stands to reason, you know?

@@Unknown-zt1ruThe older I get, the more sus I find the term “nuance.”

@@Unknown-zt1ru No, he just rationalized extreme agnosticism going so far as to admit that chattle slavery was not innately immoral. No one honestly thinks that. No one honestly thinks that it's okay to molest a baby without brain function. Destiny is forced to take those positions because he's an intellectually honest materialist who sacrifices human intuition for his atheistic worldview

I think Trent was soundly winning this debate out the gate, especially optically with his barrage of well-framed hypotheticals, but Destiny proved himself to be radically good faith biting all those juicy bullets. What really reversed the momentum was Trent's unwillingness to bite similar bullets/attempts to weasel out of the "64 Cell Petri Dish" hypothetical and "Women who terminate a 1st trimester embryo should be charged with murder" quandary. This really betrayed a duplicity in Trent's actual intuitions (a 1st trimester embryo isn't really afforded the same moral weight as a toddler) and stated beliefs that seriously damaged his credibility for me. You have to be willing to accept optically difficult truths inherent to your moral paradigm if you plan to convert anyone not already fully bought in to your ideology imo.

same

I'm curious, what was the argument or logic that ultimately convinced you?

Don’t think you are 100% honest, seems like the two things were heavily linked….

My case is opposite I was a hardcore Christian but later felt like it had made me a terrible hateful person. One day I came across an abortion debate and made a decision to leave christianity for good. Now I finally feel like a free human being not living in the shackles of a man made religion

@@xHannibal It wasn't "one thing". I think watching apologetics online as well as Jordan Peterson's Genesis lecture was pretty influential.

Yeah. The reason you should enter a debate is to advocate your position to the audience not win over the other person.

That doesnt exist.

​@@ChillAssTurtle yes it does exist and your a npc who just repeats left leaning athiest talking points without backing it up with evidence. You only care about confirming your perverse worldview in your npc brain and rationalising lies

​@@ChillAssTurtleyou need to deny it to lie to yourself and others that your moral while your not

@@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737 christianity is morally bankrupt, you have no idea what youre talking about lol

Trent literally said he would not debate someone when this person has a opinion he do not want other people to think about. 13:15

Language problem: I ment 'lecture hours at university' instead of 'college hours'. In the Netherlands we call a lecture at the university a 'college'. Confusing🤪

Like how Francis wrote a letter that defended pedo defender Cardinal wuerl...🤨KEEP YOUR POPE AWAY FROM OUR KIDS!

Not pointless. Trent did an amazing job showing to the audience that Destiny's positions led to conclusions most people (even liberals / choice advocates) would not be comfortable with. As far as helping Destiny, a long-form dialogue on the best arguments for moral realism would probably be more fruitful.

Doesn‘t he have an open marriage with a social media sexy woman? It‘s frankly sick

I appreciate Destiny in the same way I appreciate Nietzsche. He is internally consistent in his moral relativism and shows us what it looks like to actually believe in the pro-abortion talking points

It’s not pointless. The reason debates are powerful is not so much the panelists changing their minds right then in there, but what it does for the audience. Thousands of people watch it, learn from it, and think deeper. I was somewhat of a moral relativist/atheist in my younger years and have completely changed from that to a God fearing, RCIA attending soon-to-join-the-Church Catholic. More conversations like these will reach the secular world and for many who are searching, they’re going to see how rational the argument for Christ and objective morality is…the spiritual, faith, and God’s grace will continue to reveal itself as time goes on. Trust me

​@@AxiomsGroundedRead what I wrote. I said in regards to helping Destiny. I didn't say totally pointless.

Why would a church that covered up abuse be seen as credible. So lame

Here you go: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-VCdjMSPEYKc.html "Trent Horn | The Easiest Way to Defend Your Faith"

@cameronclark8298people are very dumb.

I would love that. Host a seminar for a weekend and teach these skills.

Hmm. Help me out-I don’t see how anything in your middle paragraph demonstrates an incoherence within moral subjectivism/relativism. It seems you’re pushing back on ideas that may be expressed by some minority of moral relativists but that are not at all inherent to relativism itself. Moral relativism is not the same as the proposition that “one’s moral system is/should be based purely on what the majority perceives as moral.” Morality is subjective in one way and objective in two ways. It is subjective in that it always proceeds from the interests and preferences of persons (or Persons, like God). It is objective in that there are statements about those interests that are factual (i.e., I could lie about them). It is also objective in that the way to optimize those interests is a strategic question with correct and incorrect answers. Any search for “ultimate objective value” is doomed to failure because at rock bottom, morality is a consequentialist system. It just is. There’s no getting around it. Any attempt to refute this ultimately ends up appealing to consequence. A rule is bad when it makes things worse. A prospective analysis is bad when it through erroneous forecasting makes things worse. One’s intuition is bad when it bends toward making things worse. When it comes to morality, consequence is schematically “king.” And how do we know what constitutes “worse?” That’s the subjective part. Note: subjective does not mean “arbitrary” or “unimportant.” It just means it stems from subjects. And morality just *does* no matter how hard moral realists try to argue otherwise.

@@anthonynelson6249 Sure. I'd be glad to help you out. I am responding to the version of moral relativism explicitly stated by Destiny wherein he appeals to a social contract as a basis of morality. The point is that there is no good reason that a majority is better than a minority according to the relativist framework. Everything they posit morally is entirely ad hoc. Yet they act as though one position is in fact correct and better than another. Well that is an inconsistency between what they say they believe and what they are doing. It is duplicitous (or in common Christian parlance hypocrisy) to say you think one thing is true and then to act as though it is not. The positions of such folks don't deserve to be taken seriously by anyone. I will get to your version of relativism in a subsequent comment.

@@anthonynelson6249 "Any search for ultimate objective value is dommed for failure because at rock bottom, morality is a consequentialist system. It just is." Well there you have it. Thus speaketh the prophet of relativism and all shall hear and obey. Do you plan to provide any arguments for this fundamental premise of yours that you seem to imagine requires no argumentation? Or should we all just place child like faith in whatever you say? That's a quaint little idea. The prophet of relativism speaks and all must listen based on the sheer authority of their assertions. It's just the cutest little thing that you think anyone would take such bare unadorned assertions as Gospel Truth, as "just the way things are." But wait a minute, you don't think there is a "just the way things are" in morality. So why are you out here evangelizing for what are nothing more than your own preferences and then parading them about as though they are "just the way things are"? It seems relativists have a corner on the market of incoherence and hypocrisy. There you have it, it took about 5 minutes of my day to show your own incoherence after I showed destiny's. Let's see how much mental energy it takes you to work yourself out of that little knot. Or you could stop your incoherent evangelizing and do a bit more thinking.

@@AnselmInstitute For your first comment, you’re probably right-I don’t remember how Destiny defined his form of moral relativism, but if memory serves, I thought he did a poor job defining it. I agree that the social construct framing is insufficient and only gets part of the way there when explaining moral intuition. Obviously we can disagree with the status quo social contract, so there are other elements at play beyond obeisance to the social order. Relativism (simpliciter) does not maintain that the majority is better than the minority. The (possibly deserved) ire you hold for such relativists is best directed at those to subscribe to it. I don’t. I share your incredulity in that respect. I think the main thrust of my question still stands and remains unaddressed. Do you assume that the word “should” is only coherent if it stems from God or an objective moral ether? Do you think someone who is trying to build a house can at once recognize that many dimensions of the project stem from his subjective goals and desires and still tell all his men what they “should” do to accomplish that goal? If so, I don’t understand your argument that moral relativists act duplicitously. Moral relativism does not hold that moral systems are arbitrary and insignificant (and therefore not worth arguing about). It just recognizes the (in my view) undeniable fact that morality stems most foundationally from the desires/preferences/goals of persons and is therefore, at least in part, subjective. Again: this does not mean arbitrary or unimportant. The question of “Should we murder and allow murder?” is not a trivial question, even to the moral relativist-it is of tremendous import not least because *it will affect them and all the people they love.* That is not the only reason it matters, but it is certainly one of the reasons (and a rational one).

@@AnselmInstitute Your second comment is a lot of bluster, but I’ll try to find the substance. I think you’re doing two things. One, and this is the one I’m least sure of, I think you’re framing my position in religious language because you assume I’m irreligious and will take offense to it-and perhaps because you want to make the point that I, a supposed atheist, am simply subscribed to a different, secular religion. If I’m right, then you should know I don’t take offense (beyond the fact that I find it mildly annoying when interlocutors waste space just throwing insults) and am in fact religious myself. I’m a Christian. I recognized the relativistic nature of morality *by talking to other Christians.* If I’m wrong, and it “wasn’t that deep,” you were just trying to be snarky and chose a religious framing for some other reason-sorry for the waste of space here! Two, you’re claiming I gave no reasons to think morality is a consequentialist system (even though I did) and that I expected you to just accept what I said whole cloth without any explanation. But I don’t expect you to take it on faith, I expect you to try and disprove it, I was simply underscoring the fact that the only way you would be able to do so would be to appeal to consequence-which proves my point that consequence is schematically “king.” If you have a rebuttal to this that ultimately appeals to something other than consequence, I’d love to hear it! And I’m glad you think I’m cute, but I don’t know where you got the idea that I don’t think there is a “just the way things are” in morality. I said that morality was subjective in one way and *objective in two other ways.* So it seems you just didn’t understand my point. So while I’m impressed it took you only five minutes to write all this, it seems that five minutes also included the amount of time you took to read and process my reply. Respectfully, try giving the reading part a whole five minutes this time and check back with me after! 🙂

Looking forward to the publication! 🙂 Would you be willing to comment on Trent’s stance on justifying GIFT or IUI to couples struggling with fertility? I was not convinced by his argument given in this discussion, as it seems morally inconsistent. Infertility is not an extraordinary circumstance to be in, so it appears no matter what fringes of morality people might employ to achieve to bring a child via a “lesser evil form of artificial insemination” (eg sperm collection from a pseudo-marital act) can ever justify the means of intentional procreation outside of the marital embrace. I understand there is no official teaching from the Church, but the nuance used by Trent was shakey. Appreciate any commentary on this!

Francis wrote a letter defending Cardinal Wuerl after he used hush money of victims of clergyabusee so no morality or light in him. He hurts and silences kids

H Xu

This is pretty accurate. Catholics have never been about giving people choices unless it was convert or die. Shouts outs to Brazil.

Oh it means they are catholic other than their view on abortion, happy to clear that up for you

@@joss4521 Just like the celibate prostitute: she's celibate in all ways, except when she's engaging in prostitution. Just like the violent pacifist is against violence in all cases, except when he engages in violence. Just like the married bachelor is a bachelor at all times, except when he's married. We can call two contradictory things simultaneously true as much as we want, but that doesn't change the fact that two contradictory things can't both be true. You can't coherently say, "I believe what the Bible and the Church say is true," and simultaneously say, "I think people should be allowed to kill their children."

@@joss4521that's the point. A Catholic understands the creation of God and how we are made in his image and would do anything to protect it.

@@MrISkater They obviously don't think an unborn child before X week is equivalent to an image of God :)

If you're arguing whether there's a major difference between something that is 0.001mm across and something 0.002mm across... I don't think you're really making a difference in anyone's mind, no matter how technically right you may be. But it's not technically right, since it's still arbitrary nonsense and all of those conception arguments are anti-science propaganda.

Kind of. But destiny doesn't care about the potential... only the actualized potential. The zygote and gamete are much closer than either is to a full person, I think was his point on that side

@@fjordan2345 I think I get what you/Destiny are claiming. As a pushback, however, I would say that to deny the potential inherent within an organism just IS to deny biology. From a biological perspective a zygote is closer to a “full person” bc any “full person” can trace their biological organism’s history back to being a zygote. The difference between a “full person” and a zygote is a matter of development, while the difference between a gamete and a “full person” is a difference in kind. Gametes are parts of an organism, a zygote is an organism. But still to be charitable, in terms of number of cells and physical size: I guess a zygote is closer to a gamete (or at least the egg in terms of size) than a “full person”. I would just strongly insist those are not the relevant characteristics to prioritize categorization and compare similitude. Cheers.

@markbirmingham6011 I mean in the same way the egg and sperm also have potential? But again destiny agrees that the potential exists - he just doesn't agree that the potential is what we ought protect

@@fjordan2345 By my lights, and I would also argue according to biology, the sperm & egg qua sperm & egg, do not have potential “in the same way” a zygote has. No egg is human organism, no sperm is a human organism. No egg, qua egg, can become a new human organism. The same with a sperm, qua sperm-can’t become a human organism. It is only upon fertilization & the formation of the zygote when the human organism comes into existence. It is this zygote (human organism) that contains within itself the capacity to continue to develop into a mature human. The potential between a zygote and gametes are worlds apart. Destiny or anyone is free to start valuing humans at any point of development or never regardless of development. All I’m saying is that biologically speaking, the potential inherent in a zygote is immensely & qualitatively different from the potential in a gamete. This is reflected in the biological classification of the zygote as a whole organism (which will develop an immediate capacity for consciousness if it survives) while gametes are classified as parts of an organism.

Read Ignatius of Antioch’s letters.

Stop being Protestant

​@christsavesreadromans1096 I read Scripture and that's why I became Reformed Protestant

@@firingallcylinders2949 The early christians also read scripture, and they became catholic. If you read what the early christians (who knew and were taught by the disciples) taught, you may become catholic as well.

@christsavesreadromans1096 that's such a farce that RCs use....I try to get to doctrine and exegesis and all I get is "yea but the church fathers" "yea but Saint X did this" "yea but Council X said this" ....the early church fathers wouldn't recognize much of Rome today. That's a sneaky tactic Rome often does, they act like their current dogma has always been known by Christians but it's simply not true. The things in Vatican II and the dogmas of Mary etc, Papal infallibility early Christians would have no idea what you're talking about. These were all added over the centuries as Rome continued to stray.

you’d never get anywhere with a materialist like Destiny on that though

@@bananatreelabs1137 well Destiny is not a scholar of philosophy so I don't care.

One could ask, and this is the Michael Knowles question, is it better to bake a pie for a widow, or kick a baby in the head. And if you can answer that obviously, which you can, objective truth exists and in turn an objective morality.

@@mattdaraitis4253 That's equivalent to saying "hurting babies is bad". It may be the case that everyone thinks that but it doesn't follow that it's "objectively" true, or that objective morality exists. It just means a lot of people think/feel that way.

Ultimately, all morality exists as a sort of “intuition pump.” All moral questions will ultimately be reduced to some form of “it’s wrong because it feels wrong.” (Unless you embrace a theological standpoint) Therefore, the only reasonable way to argue morality from a secular worldview is to compare new moral questions with old, presumably already answered, questions that we’ve accepted even if we don’t have an actual provable moral value assigned to any of them

@@mattdaraitis4253”What makes better art-painting with acrylics or making sculptures out of dung? If you can answer this question, it proves that the quality of art is an objective fact.” The argument doesn’t work at any level. Not only is it a non-sequitur but it fails to recognize that our moral intuitions don’t come out of a vacuum-they are informed by the society in which we live and by the sights/sounds we experience as pleasant versus unpleasant. For most, seeing a widow smiling and crying with happiness over a pie is much more pleasant than seeing the bloodied head of a newborn. That doesn’t prove morality is objective-it proves human beings generally like to pursue pleasure and avoid suffering. Is the quality of a smell an objective fact?-No, and yet, the vast majority of the human race will say that flowers smell better than skunk spray. That doesn’t prove that the “goodness” of a flower’s scent is an objective fact; it’s obviously a subjective judgment!

@lwatchingvids1059 your perspective is valid I think overall, but I was moreover insinuating that in this specific case, because the debate was essentially open-forum, Destiny kept driving his qualifiers off into tangential digressions and Lindsay lost patience. Lindsay definitely goes into ad nauseam detail, maybe even superfluously, when he’s making a point. To be honest, though; the degree that he takes it probably wouldn’t work in a timed debate, either, because he’d never get to his actual point inside the parameters of the debate format. I think that he’s fine doing lectures, though.

It's quick and easy, but it's dishonest and bad faith. It's like instead of listening to the whole sentence, you get picky on single words and knock them out. It's just sophistry, may seem impressive to an outside but it's intellectually dishonest.

​@@joane24it can also be dishonest to take more time than you need in setting up and answering points. Some speakers use this to obfuscate and confuse the point for their opponent, as well as spend more time in the driver's seat of the conversation which tends to look strong to the audience. If you can get to the root faster, on balance you should.

sexual abuse of kids being covered up the catholic church...what about those kids???

This is the worst kind of “what-about-ism”. Nobody thinks this was okay. There’s no one to argue with about it.

Wow. Brilliant comment actually

So many kids were sexually abusedd by priests and Francis covers up the abuse by promoting barros etc. KEEP YOUR CREEPY POPE AWAY FROM OUR KIDS!!!

​@@LeiaSagenow do Judaism. I'll wait.

@@mistaando9741 Saying another Religion does the SAME evil things doesn't make catholicism any better. It just means u can't trust both.

I totally agree, I thought Destiny's position is untenable when you realize that you can do whatever you want to the fetus so long as it's before 20 weeks, it's the epitome of arbitrary, and totally betrays the truth that it is a person, because you are rushing to do what you want before 20 weeks, just feels like a license to murder

It seems you just decided that a disgust reaction is your moral motivation rather than rationality. What’s wrong with intentionally preventing a living thing morally equivalent to a bacteria and modify it such that it can be used as a sex doll? What is the moral relevant difference between a corpse that never belonged to any person and a fabricated sex doll?

Yep. The first step is asking why we are letting women control their reproductive right. After that I just knew the church life was for me since they barely let women do anything!

@@usucdik reproductive rights start at consent. Even as an atheist turned pro-life I acknowledged that I am a biological being and that sex had multiple purposes, a major purpose being reproduction. Sorry, it's not oppressive to simply not have sex with somebody I wouldn't raise a child with. Nobody even needs a moral argument to conclude that it's just silly to separate sex from the potential for reproduction.

Also, as a woman, I've never felt like "I couldn't do anything" because of this. There's more ways than just vaginal intercourse to bond with partner. It's incredibly narrow minded to reduce human connection to just penis in vagina. There's absolutely nothing oppressive about holding yourself to higher value than just your parts, nor do you need to be religious to recognize your worth as being beyond than your genitals.

Mine to. It all started with my friend challenging me on when life begins.

Everyone has seen them

People need to see the carnage at Sandy Hook so everyone can witness what these automatic weapons do to small children. People have to know what a School Shooting looks like.

Yes. The 2 cells that just began dividing. That little thing is what is chaining women down for the next 9 months and drastically altering their bodies, even if they don't want it, because you guys said they couldn't stop it at that earliest point.

Do you also look at pictures of single mothers struggling to go through life with no support from anyone? Working multiple jobs and struggling to give their child their basic necessities? Just curious

@@RengaritoEnjoyer I bet they also don't watch how animals get tortured, slaughtered and bred when they eat that delicious steak or cook an egg. I'm not vegan btw, but I have seen the videos. I don't think eating meat is wrong so i'm not stopping it, but we could improve on the quality of life on said animals.

Never thought of that before. Smart!

It definetly came across like a dodge - I agree that would have helped

Some people are too simplistic to understand that clear yes or no is not always possible. We're not omniscient, there's only as much as we can do based on our current knowledge and use of reason.

"The claim that there’s no objective morality, and that this ought to be held to as a Truth since it is in fact True, is an objective moral claim. " I don't think that's a moral claim. That looks like a claim about morality that doesn't evaluate the morality of anything specific?

@@ChenKaifeng It actually is, which is the beautiful part! In philosophy there are three categories of a worldview, and they are all intertwined with respect to any operation or claim we make. If I say there is a tree in my yard, I am saying that there is some metaphysical status of the tree which I am asserting in fact exists, that I in fact know that there is a tree in my yard, and that this is True therefore we ought to view it this way. Metaphysics, ethics & epistemology. People cannot escape value judgements or preferential treatment. When Destiny makes arguments, he is saying we ought to view X/Y/Z this way, since it is True, logical, coherent, etc. These statements cannot be the case on his own view because he’s attempting to apply it to other views, or map it onto reality, but this holds no weight if it’s purely subjective and relative. All we have to ask is, Destiny is it objectively true that morality is subjective? Is Truth objective? If he says yes, then we may ask, is following or adopting what is true in one’s view good? If he consequently says yes, this isn’t only a view that is attempting to make a claim about a universal state of affairs, but one which only works if you deny subjective morality. If he says it’s just his subjective opinion, then it’s stuck in the place it started with no metaphysical weight. Destiny makes universal claims all the time which are objective and apply beyond mere taste preference. He also then prefers these over others (logical vs illogical/true vs untrue), and then attempts to say that these are good by doing so. So, either these things are not true beyond his view, or they don’t hold any moral weight at all. This is the folly of subjective morals. NB: You can look into why we always use universals in almost every sentence from Bertrand Russell.

Here

So the sexual abuse of children in the church doesn't bother you. The cover up of abuse doesn't bother you

@@willdemi4094 lmfao 🤡 how do atheists write these comments

​@@willdemi4094The Catholic Church is a criminal organization which should be dismantled brick by brick. That said Trent was a good debator, it's unfortunate that he is a part of such a terrible organization.

@@willdemi4094this is whataboutism

​@@willdemi4094Bringing negativity into a positive comment, ey? Of course abuse scandals and cover-ups bother people, but the Church is a big institution and bringing lay people into something which has to be resolved by those higher in Church hierarchy is ultimately futile. Can we not, amidst all this chaos in Church, discuss her positives and how we can bring betterment into this world?

@@FirstJohn2.12-17 Yes, persuasive. Trent was being disingenuous and borderline dishonest with his summaries and Destiny rightfully pointed that out.

Pretty much any video destiny is in will get 150-250k

So my contention here is that then at what point should biological facts be bent to serve your concept of negative intuition pumping? For, Trent does make a great point that the person who coined the phenomenon actually sees it as mostly positive, meaning it seems that intuition pumping here isn’t deceitful, but mirroring reality, in this case biological reality. Forgive me for being forward, but it sounds like you’re already operating under Destiny’s presumed notion being true to claim the intuition pumping is bad here…which means you need to have someone like Trent accept the position to even discuss biological phenomenon at issue. :/ It may be better to just take the hit and craft new terms and get more specific. :)

@@FuddlyDud I don't believe there's a need to craft any terminology. Everything already exists. People are just refusing to use it to try and win the argument by equivocation. >In regards to biological facts being "bent", I would say never. | I'm sure you're familiar with the Kyle Rittenhouse case? Well, in that case, Kyle defended himself against two individuals in particular who were threatening his life. It may have been "definitionally correct" for the prosecution to refer to Kyle as an "uncharged murderer" or a "killer", but that would be *COMPLETELY* inappropriate. Yes, he killed people. Yes he is "technically" a killer. However this is a legal dispute. The frame of debate is from a legal lens. You cannot presume him to be guilty. You cannot use *intuition loaded* language to try and demonize him. The judge will require the prosecution to not use such loaded terminology before the ruling has been given. | Moral loading of terms for this debate should be treated the *EXACT SAME WAY* . I am not asking for biological facts to be denied. Yes, broadly speaking, a fetus is human. However, the debate that these interlocutors were engaged in was not a *biological* disagreement. It was a *moral* one. As such, terms should be considered based on moral connotation. | Instead of presuming guilt, you need to make a positive case FOR the guilty sentence. Because this is a moral debate *on when a fetus is of equal value to a person* , it is incorrect to use language that presumes the verdict. Instead, it would be of good faith to use morally neutral terminology that is still 100% biologically accurate has no moral preloading. That is why the use of "preborn human" is so slimy. Insisting on using the "preborn human" phrasing almost appears as if you have no confidence in your argumentation. Yes babies are cute and people want to love and protect them. Yes children, adults, and old people have lives that we value. But it is not obvious that fetuses should have that protection or moral intuition. We must examine it and draw a conclusion based on logic and reasoning (INLCUDING PATHOS), but not simply by asserting the conclusion. I hope this calrifies my position a bit.

@@21area21 "I don't believe there's a need to craft any terminology. Everything already exists. People are just refusing to use it to try and win the argument by equivocation." So then what's incorrect about "human being?" :P "... You cannot use intuition loaded language to try and demonize him. The judge will require the prosecution to not use such loaded terminology before the ruling has been given. " Agreed. In law school and followed this case very closely. "...However, the debate that these interlocutors were engaged in was not a biological disagreement. It was a moral one. As such, terms should be considered based on moral connotation. " True, which is why terms like "baby" or "child" were avoided by Trent. However, calling a 20 week old fetus an unborn human baby is a biologicaly valid description. If there is moral connotation, then Trent would argue (and he did) that this is indeed the utility of "intuition pumping." :) "...Because this is a moral debate on when a fetus is of equal value to a person , it is incorrect to use language that presumes the verdict. " But the question of it being a living organsim that is categorically human is part of Destiny's argument, hence why animals aren't included. Destiny's position is a 20 week old fetus is a human being deserving protection. The answer is in his own standard, 20 week old fetus...but they aren't a fetus from 1-6 weeks, so 20 week old un/preborn (to disclude born humans) human being is actually a pretty good term that encompasses both of Destiny's requirements to be protected! :) " Instead, it would be of good faith to use morally neutral terminology that is still 100% biologically accurate has no moral preloading. That is why the use of "preborn human" is so slimy." So then we are not meant to categorically differentiate between born and unborn human beings in the conversation? :/ I know you don't think that, but would prefer the Latin word of fetus, which I agree is just as valid as pre/unborn human being. However, I would argue fetus doesn't consider how the human being is not a fetus for those first few weeks, so there is a break in continuity that is best filled by a term that is consistent for the entire 20 weeks prior and X amount of time after. This term would be human being and, since we are dealing with those not born, then pre/unborn works well to describe that state. :) If you are seeing it as slimy, then the one who coined the term "intuition pumping" would point out that there is something you haven't fully measured/considered! :)

@@21area21 "Insisting on using the "preborn human" phrasing almost appears as if you have no confidence in your argumentation." Not really...just like how you insisting on "fetus" does not entail a lack of confidence either. :P "Yes babies are cute and people want to love and protect them. Yes children, adults, and old people have lives that we value. But it is not obvious that fetuses should have that protection or moral intuition." Why is it unclear? What presuppositions makes it so? :) NOTE: It is clear from my presuppositions, which I am happy to provide. "We must examine it and draw a conclusion based on logic and reasoning (INLCUDING PATHOS), but not simply by asserting the conclusion." If using the term "unborn human being" is asserting the conclusion, then I can't help but see bad faith pro-lifers saying the same about using scientific terms like "fetus" or "zygote" to dehumanize said human beings at issue. And, unfortunately, when I look at the coldness of ideology of folks like Margaret Sanger, I at least see how a pro-lifer can make such an argument and see it as valid (for I used to make said arguments, although wouldn't now since I find questions on human value overall more interesting). :/ "I hope this calrifies my position a bit." It does! Hopefully I responded well enough! :)

@@FuddlyDud hey, I appreciate the effort you put into segmenting out and responding to my comment man. I will answer you properly when I get to a computer. Mobile app sucks for RU-vid comments debates. X'D

😅right?

A couple issues here: 1) the hardware doesn’t exist yet and won’t for several more months, even years depending on how we measure conscious experience, such as Peter Singer’s position. 2) While he says different in “kind,” this means the “kind” part is important and we should get specific about it with what measurements we have. If we can’t measure it well, I’d reason being more cautious with the ending of life is important. :)

@@FuddlyDud we know a lot more than what you’re suggesting. The lobes in the default mode network are more or less developed by 20-28 weeks. Thalamo-cortical activity has been discovered to be more or less the minimal neural connectivity required for conscious experience. I don’t subscribe to “level” of consciousness for a variety of reasons. To me, it’s binary. There or not there. (Happy to expand if you’d like). In any case. Getting specific involves delineation of the more sophisticated aspects of human consciousness. It’s being deduced from what’re explained in the adult experience (because we can articulate it). The features singer describes are indeed defining characteristics of human consciousness. What I don’t agree with, is that these are absent merely because we’ve no memory of it. As Chomsky posited, there is a hardwired structure to language - brain structure for which exists at an early stage. And language can be the proxy for the innumerable conceptual abstractions human consciousness can perform. In other words, the measurement exists. It simply involves looking at what brain structure exists at how many weeks. And brain structure that can deploy said experience is present at 20-28weeks. I’ve no interest in level of consciousness, although if you’re interested in that. There is actually really good computational neuroscientific methods that have been developed to measure it. It’s got to do with the entropy of artificial electric signals you can send across the brain. Kind of beyond the point in my opinion. Philosophy is what ultimately dictates what deserves protection. Science gives us the description to work across.

@@kuro2797 "we know a lot more than what you’re suggesting. The lobes in the default mode network are more or less developed by 20-28 weeks. Thalamo-cortical activity has been discovered to be more or less the minimal neural connectivity required for conscious experience. " Agreed on this stage of development, but this level of conscious experience is not yet considered valuable yet, right? NOTE: When we talk "conscious experience" as fully developed adults, I'd say its important to remember just how alien this type of conscious experience is to us. "I don’t subscribe to “level” of consciousness for a variety of reasons. To me, it’s binary. There or not there. (Happy to expand if you’d like). " Please do and agreed! :) "The features singer describes are indeed defining characteristics of human consciousness. What I don’t agree with, is that these are absent merely because we’ve no memory of it. As Chomsky posited, there is a hardwired structure to language - brain structure for which exists at an early stage. And language can be the proxy for the innumerable conceptual abstractions human consciousness can perform. " I generally agree, but what's so valuable about being a proxy to language? Dogs and cats can understand language and can even get to the point of understanding syntax. I'd say we are again dealing with analogous levels of consciousness that needs distinguishment (although I will agree there is far more future potential in children, but it doesn't become relevant until later in development). :/ "In other words, the measurement exists. It simply involves looking at what brain structure exists at how many weeks. And brain structure that can deploy said experience is present at 20-28weeks." And Trent rightfully pointed out this sort of conscious experience is analogous to animals...so then why not draw the line when human beings can have rational thoughts, or maybe self awareness around 18 months development? :/ Also, as a quick note, "deploy" implies that unborn human beings are actively choosing to "deploy" their conscious experience. It is not a choice, but an outgrowth of their development. It would be akin to saying a newborn "deploys" their refuse which they don't have the muscles to control yet. :P "Kind of beyond the point in my opinion. Philosophy is what ultimately dictates what deserves protection. Science gives us the description to work across." Agreed again! So, since you know this topic more in depth than I, what's your take on the idea that consciousness is ultimately immaterial, going off of recent quantum physics research that posits that physical reality may not be fundamental? :)

​@@FuddlyDud "Agreed on this stage of development, but this level of conscious experience is not yet considered valuable yet, right?" Depends on who you'd ask. I would personally give value to it. Who are you directing this question to? "NOTE: When we talk "conscious experience" as fully developed adults, I'd say its important to remember just how alien this type of conscious experience is to us." - I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I merely mention the point from which deduction is made. Ultimately, there's an epistemic gap as we cannot know anyone other than ourselves are conscious. Presupposing then that we are conscious based on our own, we can describe aspects that are likely present in our own species - especially if the relevant structures are there. Re Level of Conscioousness - how conscious you are is just a matter of rate in various metabolic processes. Technically, being on psychedelics can be measurably a "more conscious" state when you computationally measure complexity of signals in the brain. And when you're groggy in the morning you're not "as concious". To say levels of consciousness matter, would be like saying you deserve more rights when you're on psychedelic and less when you're tired - all of which is absurd. We don't afford moral rights to people based on what we can or can't achieve, we give rights because we want to protect the essence that is a part of the social fabric we're apart of. ...And language can be the proxy for the innumerable conceptual abstractions human consciousness can perform. "I generally agree, but what's so valuable about being a proxy to language?" Other way around. Language is a proxy for the uniqueness of human consciousness. Language is signposts something that's far more distinct than what you suggest below, so I'll elaborate further there. "Dogs and cats can understand language and can even get to the point of understanding syntax. I'd say we are again dealing with analogous levels of consciousness that needs distinguishment (although I will agree there is far more future potential in children, but it doesn't become relevant until later in development). :/" As far as I know, this is not true. Cats and dogs do not understand syntax the way humans do. In fact, we've tried very extensive and extremely elaborate experiments to teach language to more sophisticated primates and have failed. Always upon closer inspection, you find out that these are just "stacked" stimulus input/output relationships, that are not generalised once context is change - if syntax was understood this would not be a problem. If you can point me to a decent peer-reviewed study, that says otherwise - I'm open to check that out. - now another thing, you've crept in with the word 'level of consciousness' there. I don't care about how conscious something is, I'm only interested in what 'type' of consciousness it is. That is the human consciousness. I'll elaborate on why below. "In other words, the measurement exists. It simply involves looking at what brain structure exists at how many weeks. And brain structure that can deploy said experience is present at 20-28weeks." "And Trent rightfully pointed out this sort of conscious experience is analogous to animals..." No. When Trent talks about "this sort" of conscious experience, he talks about the types of stimulus that is being perceived (heat etc.). This is a "level" of consciousness argument, which neither Destiny nor I am arguing for. so then why not draw the line when human beings can have rational thoughts, or maybe self awareness around 18 months development? :/ - again. This is a levels of consciousness argument, where you're assuming that until they are showing signs of rational thought (i.e., full sentences etc.) they're having some different form of consciousness. This will lead to a Eugenics argument. A person with severe developmental delay with an IQ of 60 is less conscious so therefore is deserving less of moral rights? No. In my world, the fact they have a human conscious experience period -is deserving of protection. Not how rational they are. "Also, as a quick note, "deploy" implies that unborn human beings are actively choosing to "deploy" their conscious experience. It is not a choice, but an outgrowth of their development. It would be akin to saying a newborn "deploys" their refuse which they don't have the muscles to control yet. :P" I'm guessing this is just a joke? It's purely semantic. If I said the immune system deploys t cells and b cells to fight infection, I'm assuming you're not thinking this is a deliberate act of the person. "Kind of beyond the point in my opinion. Philosophy is what ultimately dictates what deserves protection. Science gives us the description to work across." Agreed again! "So, since you know this topic more in depth than I, what's your take on the idea that consciousness is ultimately immaterial, going off of recent quantum physics research that posits that physical reality may not be fundamental? :)" I won't pretend to have a thorough understanding of quantum mechanics, I'll just note that almost every eminent quantum physicist bemoans the recruitment of their field to justify all kinds of unrelated concepts by people who do not understand the concepts to begin with. As far as I do understand, however, there isn't some irrefutable evidence suggesting that physical reality is not fundamental. It just doesn't work the same way classical physics has seemed to suggest. That's not to say it repudiates materialism - in fact quantum mechanics works just fine without having to make this claim, which is why we make very useful calculations based on our understanding of ostensible "objective chance" underscoring superposition etc. In any case, consciousness is something I'm far more versed in. And currently, the idea that consciousness is immaterial is an idea with no evidence to back it up. To be clear, this is not to say it's not possible. It's very much a possibility, but as far as I know, there is no evidence (let alone a little evidence) to suggest this to be the case. A major problem is that we don't yet have a coherent theory of consciousness and the mechanism by which it is connected to the concatenation of electrochemical events. That absence of knowledge is just that, absence of knowledge. It quite literally doesn't suggest anything in any direction. And if anything, we're uncovering many properties of consciousness each day - all of which are explainable by physically testable experiments. But the rest, is up to further research. Sorry, if I missed anything. Pull me up and I'll elaborate if you'd like.

@@kuro2797 "Depends on who you'd ask. I would personally give value to it. Who are you directing this question to?" I'm asking you, for I assume your personal position reflects what you think is the best position. :) "I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I merely mention the point from which deduction is made. Ultimately, there's an epistemic gap as we cannot know anyone other than ourselves are conscious. Presupposing then that we are conscious based on our own, we can describe aspects that are likely present in our own species - especially if the relevant structures are there. " Right, and the aspects that are there are not to do with distinctly human attributes, but with sensory capabilities. We agree on that, so then what do you mean by "relevant structures?" NOTE: It seems to me like you are speaking about the future potential of said structures, so please elaborate if I am improperly inferring. :) "To say levels of consciousness matter, would be like saying you deserve more rights when you're on psychedelic and less when you're tired - all of which is absurd. We don't afford moral rights to people based on what we can or can't achieve, we give rights because we want to protect the essence that is a part of the social fabric we're apart of. " I generally agree! Sooo, then you would contend Destiny's position is valid based on the hardware when you have a more consistent position? :P "...And language can be the proxy for the innumerable conceptual abstractions human consciousness can perform. " I tend to agree, but if some animals can learn aspects of language, then isn't it a poor proxy (leaning into attributing causation with correlation) since the brain has not developed to the point of conceptual absractions? :/ "Cats and dogs do not understand syntax the way humans do...If you can point me to a decent peer-reviewed study, that says otherwise - I'm open to check that out. " In terms of what study to go over syntax, I will point to this study I am currently reading since I heard of the idea of animals knowing basic syntax 2nd hand: "Syntax and compositionality in animal communication" (2020) Of course I agree dogs and cats don't understand syntax the way humans do (since this ropes in adult humans, which the article agrees with), but I would argue a newborn appears to understand syntax the way some animals do. :) "This is a levels of consciousness argument, where you're assuming that until they are showing signs of rational thought (i.e., full sentences etc.) they're having some different form of consciousness. This will lead to a Eugenics argument." Well I agree there! :P "In my world, the fact they have a human conscious experience period -is deserving of protection. Not how rational they are. " Why though? I agree with idea of giving humans more value...but I think you run into the issue of smuggling arbitrary human value. Alex O'Connor brought this up in his conversation with Destiny on animals where said position is like an On/Off switch that, going back far enough in the evoluntionary chain, you have to say the humanoid parents have no moral value and the children of said humanoids are human beings with full moral value. In other words, you would have to draw an arbitrary line which contends with how reality functions on a gradient. :/ Ok, I am meeting with my church's youth pastor for coffee, so I will finish replying when I get back! That said, thank you for being so good faith and thorough in your responses. I am genuinely looking forward to doing the same for you. :)

Yeah I also liked the part were he refused to answer a single hypothetical straight after Destiny gave straight answers to all of his.

​@@Bravo2zero0lol a bit assmad but I understand.

@@NotThePoint-r7n true, always been mad over asses. Way better than boobs.

@@NotThePoint-r7n doesn't seem like you do.

Most people do have their convictions before they watch a debate. I think they are a good thing to still engage one's brain and expand one's worldview.

Lines have to be drawn for policies to be put into place. How different is a 17 and a half year old and and 18 year old? Why does one get a vote for the country when the other doesn't? Arguing based on where the line is drawn just for the fact that one has to be drawn isn't a good argument.

So we should not have age limits on anything? Age of consent, alcohol age limits. All stupid?

@@SteelingMorality No, we acknowledge that a capacity for decision making arises out of potential. The same potential that a human fetus has. Your argument also confuses "vote for a country" with "right to live".

@kingmarlin5043 I didn't confuse the 2, I was listing an example of where a line is drawn that also doesn't make much sense. Obviously in practice the 2 things are very different. That line still has to be drawn though because you can't have a grey area when writing policy(aka laws). So, to argue using the grey area instead of the line doesn't help anyone.

Exactly, the more advanced medical technology becomes, the earlier and earlier we determine consciousness begins. What if 5 years from now we discover consciousness starts at 10 weeks? Would Destiny then say he was wrong for supporting abortion up until 20 weeks? Doubtful

That's not a satisfying answer to any non religious person. What if two religious people disagree and both claim revelation of some sort?

@@fjordan2345 well no one is ever satisfied it seems lol now two religious people can at least have some points of contact and basic assumptions that they share and therefore can use to evaluate a claim of revelation

I think when Trent talks about some people's intuition being is because of sin. The more someone commits moral evil, the more he thinks its right. This doesn't address not bringing religion into the conversation but I think that's the line of thinking Trent was taking. This principle could be tweaked to say that those that commit moral evils over and over again against their intuition will eventually believe that something that is evil, is not as evil, or actually right. This I don't think would work against a moral relativist though...

​@@quinlanhouse8919Thank you for your comment. I understand that Trent believes people can have immoral intuitions, but Trent assumes humanity has the same "basic intuitions" toward "good". However, Destiny's point is what happens when people have different intuitions? Who determines which intuition is correct? We're back at square one. Who determines what is good? At 42:11 Destiny says exactly that, "You come from a position of moral authority. Where you believe you have a set of objective facts you want to argue in favor of. But, my argument to you would be I don't believe you can ever prove an objective fact without diving into the Bible." Destiny doesn't believe "we can reconcile moral fact disagreements" because we can't "perceive morality." We just have how we feel. He admits that's an unsatisfactory answer. I think Trent is right in that we all have a conscience so yes, we can perceive morality. However, I think Destiny is right in that human conscience needs direction to determine what is moral. However, I think Destiny's position on this one key point is in the favor of Christianity or at the very least Christian morality. Trent doesn't want to bring the Bible into the argument, but I agree with Destiny eventually you must.

Yeah, that was the one thing I thought Trent could have really improved upon. His objections were reasonable, but he would have looked stronger if he had just answered forthrightly, then elaborated from there.

As does Trents. The difference in the debate was Destiny was willing to honestly bite those bullets as opposed to Trent who dodged them for optics.

@@Bravo2zero0 Lol you debatebros and your lingo. Tell me which point Trent “dodged for optics” and I’ll answer it for you to save him the trouble.

@@bookishbrendan8875 sure, go back and time to the answers Destiny gives ti Trent's hypotheticals and then do the reserve. Destiny was giving straight 'yes' or 'no' answers as opposed to 'well I'm not in a position to say one way or the other whether or not someone bla bla bla' when answering the suicide one. Complete bullshit.

@@Bravo2zero0 No, give me the timestamps or a specific example and I’ll answer it.

​@@bookishbrendan8875Trent should have said yes to the murder, yes to the police investigations and yes to caring for the 64 cell human. He could have done the nuances afterwards.

You realize that at 20 weeks destiny considers them a person?

Also the"your body"thing is a totally separate argument, destiny wouldn't agree with it

@@fjordan2345 and? Did i say anything about destiny?

@@tylertreese3150 "Anyone who uses consciousness as grounds for personhood has clearly never met a 22/23 week old baby"

"you see the Lord the giver of life at full work" What powerful words, thank you. God bless you and your family 🙏

You clearly didn't watch the whole thing lol

@@ChillAssTurtle wdym

@@valharris95 the blue haired girl completely dismantled him over and over and over and over. I thought trent was gonna cry if it kept going XD

@@ChillAssTurtle Isn’t that just an ad hominem over a good debate? :P

@@FuddlyDud if thats the best you can do then thats the best you can do.

which God?

I’m relieved that you write with a lisp

I think that's what he said and what he expounds in this very interview. He says that proportional medical care should be provided. Just like how someone in hospice may gradually get too much pain medication, or someone on a feeding tube may have their nutrition revoked, or removed from a lung apparatus.

I had the same thought when Trent talked about the dearth of strong Catholic debaters. I think it would still be important to be aware of your limitations however, even if you had taken the hypothetical course. But the more people who are reasonably capable in these areas the better.

Oh..she will learn a thing a two on that day. I would love to see that debate.