Why Abortion Is Wrong | Don Marquis on Abortion 

Note that Marquis's argument is about the _morality_ of abortion. It would take further reasoning to reach any conclusions about whether it should be _legal_ .

Thank you, I was crying and just a mess over the things happening recently thinking i was alone with my opinion and seeing how its morally destructive and disgusting..

Abortion being relatively wrong isn’t always based on political stance or religion, it’s plain logics and philosophy. That’s the only universal government we need.

This is so true. Childbirth is a natural process. Without it, people would not be here, and the fact that people are killing innocent babies/embryos/fetus just makes me sad. Do we see any other mammals that kill a fetus because they don't want to have a baby? Like come on guys. The process of having sex was made to grow the population, not for the many other reasons people do it. Abortion can be used to control the population, kill innocent fetuses, and to stop childbirth all together. I think that if you get pregnant, don't try to stop it. Do you really feel better after killing the thing that could have been your loving child? Please don't send me any hate replies, i am just sharing my feelings about abortion, I should not be hated for that.

If a woman does not want to remain pregnant is her choice to terminate it , as her consent is necessary to remain pregnant to birth .

I accidentally came up with this argument on my own (well, not completely, but I hadn't read it. But I thought of the idea of defining persons in terms of their future and substance in light of how we mourn for an infant with a limited sense of self, identity, and desire). I think this argument is probably one of the best out there, but, like many arguments, I feel like proponents and opponents of this argument aren't going deeper into it, and are just putting in effort to support or defeat it (I find that a lot of the counterarguments are just bad, but there are some better ones that require their own justification and may be successful if done correctly). Do you get this sense as well? That a lot of deep philosophical arguments (take the Cosmological argument for example) end up being just debunking each other instead of trying to see the genuine fruit of the argument and delving deeper towards truth?

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.

Thank you for making this. Im constantly worrying about getting hated for not supporting child murder and this video gave me faith that there are still some people who don't support murder

Hi just as a prerequisite I’m looking to learn more about this pov but I have some questions: What about the value of the mothers life? If carrying the baby to term is going to kill her, and ends her life does that mean the fetus’ life is more important and valuable? Even if that woman is a doctor that could cure cancer in the future? And wouldn’t the all life is equal argument mean the killing a chicken for food is wrong? Or even using antibiotics to kill off foreign bacteria wrong? Those are live thing as well. And I just want to say I’m not trying to invalidate what you believe. I simply want to start a decision and try to understand this point of view.

People in general men and women should reguard unsafe sex as something more profund than just nutting it is like making a mistake and not expecting to pay for it. Comes from a child like mentality not maturity.

@Let's Get Logical - I appreciate how you encourage friendly debate on your channel. Thank you for that, especially with a topic that can be as emotionally loaded as this one. My question to you is: would you be open to creating a "Why Abortion Can Be Right" video? Or something to that effect. I think it would really interesting to experience your way of presenting a philosophical argument from two contrasting perspectives. I'm a teacher, and I've recently discovered your channel, and was thinking that it might also be a great resource for a future classroom debate setting.

what would be his argument regarding assisted suicide? The 2nd objection seems to be in line but then it added this idea that person could get treatment and then value their lives which seems to me(as a layman) to be a cop out. You could have a person that has gone through that cycle and is just at the end of what they want to deal with... Maybe paraplegic or something..Would it be immorial to kill this person.

Another way to avoid abortion is to empower women to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Today, the number of single men is increasing in developed countries. They usually do not use prostitution and sometimes endure life without sex with women for decades. It would be easier than one might think to reduce the frequency of sex to a level where women do not get unwanted pregnancies.

Great video, straight to the point,. Simple to understand

I think scale convolutes our notions of morality. Survivability is the axiom of morality as I see it. Imagine we have a tribe consisting of 5 men and 5 women cooperating together to ensure their mutual survival. Suppose a couple of women in that tribe get pregnant in an unwanted way for whatever reason (which could include a very large fault on the men's part). Then suppose those pregnant women could abort their fetus and do. That would substantially diminish the survivability of the tribe over generations; they are very likely now to become extinct as with the case of a maladapted species against selective pressures. At that teeny scale, it's also easy to imagine from a survivability perspective why it would be so counter-productive to survivable to lie, cheat, steal, rape, kill, neglect health and become morbidly obese, or drink like a maniac. It becomes a no-brainer why this is so contradictory to survival at that teeny scale. I think most people tend to lose their morality because they lose themselves in the complexities associated with scale. That's why they start to need laws or gods or whatever; the not-so-critical ones need rules and serious consequences for violating them, just like very slow children.

About 5:08 : Another reason why someone's future is valuable is because they might have family and friends who value it. And even egotistical people who want to take advantage of a person can value that person's future (although for bad reasons). And, for a person to consider self-end, they don't need to be depressed. Any kind of emotion can downgrade people's ability to be reasonable. So if someone doesn't have depression, and they thought of multiple choices and alternatives, and thought deeply, then realized that the best solution was [insert s word], don't they have the rights to do it? My reasoning is that if there's a right to live, there should be a right to die

What makes a future valuable according to Marquis?

I think this is very interesting point to make but if this is your opinion on the matter how would you justify killing animals for food for examplr

There is a big problem with this sometimes abortion is necessary like when the mother is in labor or when the baby is born the mother and the child won’t survive or if it is super dangerous for the child and mother

This is very true! Imagine being the baby with no choice and no future, just because the mom wanted to get down and not have a baby. Keep the fetus

its not simply the fact that abortion is bad. its the fact that people get unwanted pregnancies.

It is interasting that animals have more rights than baby, and peoples more cares abot animals than about baby. I do not understand how somebody (who is helty and have enough mony) can kill her baby, her chield!!

Potentiality of a non-thinking entity's future appreciation of life is a bad argument. For example, a sperm also has potentiality to develope into a future person, but we do not forbid men from wasting them by wearing condoms or masturbating. You will of course point out that the sperm by itself cannot become a born person as it needs the embryo, the reply is that the fetus by itself ALSO cannot become a born person as it needs the mother's nutritions to become one ... Think, if an artist has an empty canvas laying around, but he decides to throw the canvas away .... but society does not arrest him because he's discarding what could potentially become a great artistic work of art in the future right ? The thing is, where does something acquire the preciousness that makes it deserving to be protected at all costs ? You have to address this before even proceeding to assume a fetus that lacks any thinking process should be treated like a normal person with thought processes ... you're have not done that.

Great video. Thanks.

I strongly Agree with you. This video can teach people who agrees abortion just because they dont think about future of child in mother's belly that abortion is wrong.

If your future is 100% dependent on other person its not YOUR future

the fetus can also take a young girls life, also stealing her future,a child that is most likely to spend its time in an adoption center and suffer because a fetus has apparently more rights than a little girl. I have a question Would you rather die and be reborn or suffer in an adoption center and most likely live on the streets?

If we lived in a society battling a depopulation problem there would be no question about it. Abortion would be a crime and babies would be treasured. The truth would be clear as day. Yet, the truth doesn’t change with fads or societal issues. It is no doubt an inherent evil. May the Lord give you the courage to stand up against what is an inherent evil.

According to your video, he seems to be putting aside some obvious scenarios. Someone might ask, if the mother's life is in danger, who's future gets deprived, unborn child or mother? Or the assumption that that fetus will have a bright and happy future ie being born into extreme poverty and starving to death by a very young age. I see what the argument is trying to say, but it just doesn't seem very sophisticated, and seems to raise more questions then answers.

Facts bro keep spitting facts

The only way that in my opinion, is when the baby can’t be born or is too young but the water still breaks.

Here's a question to you, Mr Let's Get Logical : if you're a mother of a 5 year old child who also happen to be pregnant for 3 weeks, suddenly your already born 5yo child falls ill and the doctor tells you that he needs an organ donation from you (and no one else due to incompatibility) to survive .... BUT going through with the organ transplant to save him will surely end your pregnancy ... would you : A) save your already born 5yo child, therefore ending your unborn fetus ? The reasons for this probably would be because you already have precious memories of shared moments in life with your 5yo child, he has observable palpable personality as a person, he has precious memories of living, you will miss his smiles greeting you everyday ..... all things your unborn fetus lacks ... OR B) let your 5 yo child die .... as you think your unborn fetus is innocent and its murder to end the fetus as its also a human being. Reasons are probably because you think the unborn fetus is just as precious as the already born 5 yo child, even though you have a lot of shared memories of precious moment with the 5 yo child. What will your answer be, A or B .. and what are you reasonings ? (there is no other choices, according to the doctor who is high trained in the medical field)

Why don't we just ask if the zygote is scientifically human rather than worry about Personhood, which is subjective?

The main argument on "future" is based on a flawed premise that assumes potentials are morally equivalent to actuals. A potential Nobel prize winner does not have (nor deserves) the same standing and respect as an actual Nobel prize winner. In the same manner, a potential person does not have the same rights as an actual person. If you're going to make a philosophical argument against abortion, at least base it in logic. The above is why the real issue is about personhood and not potentiality. I recommend you go read Ethics in Health Care by Eike-Henner Kluge. It gives a good overview of both the pro and contra arguments surrounding abortion.

"it takes their future away" ahh yes takes the future away of the parent not wanting the child so giving them away and then the child having trauma

Say this louder for the people in the back ✊🏻

The logical mistake in this argument is presuming that a "potential right" is equal to an actual right. A Fetus is a potential person and can therefore not have the right of one. Examples: I am a healthy male and could therefore potentially be a police officer. Do I therefore have the right to arrest people? There is a difference between boiling an egg (potential chicken) and boiling a living chick. The key lies in determining when a Fetus becomes a person. It seems reasonable to assume it will be once it forms a nervous system and is capable of suffering and having interests like not wanting to be killed and wanting to enjoy future life.

I don't get it, if abortion is illegal so should contraceptives . What's the cost of life if it ruined the loves of others depending on the situation that is

Wild gorillas do not have projects and enjoyments in the way that humans do and comparing them are unreasonable. The nuance of self-awareness disallows for animals to have a future even remotely resembling ours. With this logic as well, would it not be immoral to purposefully step on a cockroach, swat a fly, or, if you want to take it even further, own a pet in the first place? This logic is at odds with itself and cannot even begin to start the conversation of abortion, but then again "simple logic" cannot ever explain morality.

I don't agree with the sperm counter-argument. A sperm is not the same identity as the born human but a fetus is? On what is that based? I see the difficulty with claiming the sperm is identical to the fetus, as that would be asymmetric with respect to the egg cell. I think we can all agree that there is no specific reason to say that either the sperm cell or the egg cell or both are identical to the born child. You could claim that, but there is no reason why you'd have to assume that. But do you _have_ to assume that a fetus is identical to the born child? It _feels_ natural and necessary to not make a distinction between just before birth and just after birth. But it also _doesn't_ feel necessary to make a distinction between just before fertilization and just after fertilization. Imagine the biological process worked differently: There is only one sex and humans can impregnate themselves with some sort of egg-cell that contains a full set of chromosomes. Humans would still have evolved to feel disgusted for killing children just before birth and no pity for ejaculate. What about if human children changed their DNA at the age of four? Would it be okay then to kill them just before their fourth birthday because you aren't depriving _them_ from 90 years of life, just a potential person that doesn't exist now? When someone is sure to die soon but intends to _upload_ their mind, would it be okay to temper with the process, because the person that you are depriving from life doesn't have DNA? I feel like identity has more to do with a "stream of memory" than with DNA. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the argument of Marquis presumes that unfertilized egg cells don't share an identity with the eventual child but a fertilized egg cell does share an identity - and that is not a straightforward assumption. You can make it, but you don't have to. You _could_ also make the assumption that a human changes their identity every time they wake up from sleep or just every moment. That doesn't _feel_ right, but there exists _no_ single point in the transformation from sperm cell to born human that feels special to me. Fertilization just isn't it. Humans just aren't evolved to have certain feelings about abortion. Some species who get a lot of children even eat weak offspring that have a low chance of reaching adulthood (→ "r-strategy" vs "K-strategy"). They probably don't practice philosophy, but if they did, they would regard offspring as proper individuals until a while _after_ birth. (My moral view on abortion is kind of nihilistic, if I'm using that word right. People will just do what feels good to them anyway, so objective moral reasoning doesn't matter.)

Yeah it's a lot better that the mother abandons the baby in a ditch after she has been crying for two weeks because she never wanted the baby, can't care for it and doesn't have the funds to get help. Yeah that sounds about right. Not.

this is so true

1. Its not a human yet, its an embryo 2. If someone was raped at the age of 12 would they still have to keep it when the child would probably end up in an orphanage??

What happens then in cases of self-defense? If my life is threatened, should I simply allow my life to be taken? If the only options are to kill the attacker or die, I would much rather kill the attacker. Marquis' argument would find this wrong, though, as killing the attacker robs them of their potential future. If one were to say that killing is only justified in self-defense, then the small number of cases in which abortions are used to save the mother's life due to complications arising from pregnancies or any other variables would be permissible as well. The is to say the argument must either denounce killing in self-defense, or permit some abortions.

so if someone was 10 or something and got pregnant because of rape they cant get an abortion?

When the bodily autonomy of an already alive person is stripped in favor of the POTENTIAL of someone who doesn’t exist yet, we’ve lost our collective morality as a society.

Abortion is honestly just wrong. Some women are just like, oh, women’s reproductive rights but no, if you don’t want them, put them up for adoption.

Some challenges (not necessarily related to each other): 1. If murder is wrong because it deprives the victim from a valuable future, does this imply murder is permissible and maybe even virtuous if it deprives someone from a miserable future? By Marquis' logic, would it be okay and maybe even virtuous to, for example, go to a sweatshop and mass-shoot all of the exploited workers there? I wonder what Marquis would have to say about that since this is just the other side of the coin he presented. 2. What makes something good? Is chocolate good in and on itself, or does it only become good once someone has a chance to savor it? If a bar of chocolate goes unopened forever, was it ever good? It seems to me that goodness and badness can't exist independently from experience. It's necessary that someone experiences something so that the object of experience can be subjectively appreciated as "good" or "bad". By this logic, how can depriving a fetus from its future be bad if they will be unable to experience this deprivation? I'm inclined to agree with Buddhist philosophers that suffering is a two-variable equation. It requires desire (ie: a want/need/wish that demands fulfillment), and a fulfillment state (ie: whether the desire is or isn't satisfied). Suffering then arises when a desire exists, but is not fulfilled. Iterating on the previous analogy, if I take away a chocolate bar from a child just as they're about to enjoy eating it, I will have caused them some suffering. Their desire for chocolate remains, but it's unfulfilled because I took the chocolate away. This does not seem to be the case for aborted fetuses. Not only is their future taken away, but so is any desire they could ever harbor for it. Since both the object of desire *and* desire are removed, no suffering can arise. If I could somehow remove the desire for chocolate from the kid whose chocolate I took, could anyone still claim I've harmed them? 3. We live in what seems to be a world ruled by cause and effects. Based on the scientific knowledge we have up to this point, the universe is deterministic. If we had perfect knowledge of all causes in existence, we could predict any future event not in existence yet. A deterministic world implies that, when something happens, it could not have happened otherwise. So, if a fetus is aborted, it never had a future to begin with. It was (figuratively) "destined" to be aborted (no conscious divine intention implied). Can you be robbed of something you never had? Or, (a more interesting and pressing question), could parents ever be blamed for an abortion if they could not have acted otherwise? 4. What does it mean to have a future like ours? Where do we draw the line between a future that is "similar enough" to ours and one that's too different? More interestingly, why are we the frame of reference for what a future that's worth respecting should look like? If an alien civilization arrived to Earth, are they justified in murdering any species that are "too different" from them (why would they use us as the reference point anyway)? What is it about our futures that makes murder wrong? I see the video lists things like "experiences", "projects", "activities" and "enjoyments" as some examples of what makes life valuable. Is it then that a person with less projects is worth less than someone with more things planned? And what kind of "activities" do we value? A monkey's future looks bright if they'll be able to mate and have enough bananas for the rest of their life. A human's future would, in contrast, be rather bleak if bananas and a partner was everything in store. A human may want other things like professional success, some travelling, money, etc. Why should we then value "activities" and "projects", and even go as far as deciding who it's okay to murder based on a standard as subjective and biased as "futures like ours"? Wouldn't it be more logical and fair to, instead of putting ourselves as if we were in the center of the universe, simply value the quality of future experiences (ie: positive vs negative) regardless of what kind of activity those experiences were derived from (ie: whether it be from eating bananas or getting a PhD)? Then, in turn, as some others in the comments have mentioned, if we are to value experiences equally using a species-independent standard (simply positive vs negative), how do meat-eaters justify exploiting and killing animals for food (inflicting them extremely negative experiences) and yet condemn similar acts against humans? 5. If it's okay to use contraception methods to catch sperm before fecundation, justified on the idea that abortion is wrong because at that point, the fetus is "something else". Then, why couldn't one say that aborting a fetus is okay and killing a born baby is wrong because, by that point, the baby is "something else". The video notes that only after sperm fecundates the ovule do we have a "human organism" (which is true), but why is this change in "status" relevant to the morality of abortion? What does the sperm gain after becoming a fetus and therefore a "human organism". A future? Why? Couldn't we also say that a sperm that was set to impregnate the ovule but couldn't due to the use of condoms also had a "future as a fetus" and therefore a "future as a baby" that was denied? And then why would this "future denial" be any different from the denial of a future for a fetus? (again, I'm very much not convinced by the use of a term as ambiguous as the idea of a "future" for argumentation on the morality of anything -as if we could even know what that looks like given how few of the causes out there we have a clear understanding of.)

Glad to come across this after seeing the disgusting immoral comments on another video "Wavywebsurfs Roundhouse Kicking Activist" Truly people disregard life and don't care. Imagine aborting the child who can become the person to cure cancer? Thank you for this perfect video.

Carrying a fetus to term can literally kill the parent, even if they are healthy, so even if abortion is somehow morally wrong (it isn't) not allowing someone the bodily autonomy of having an abortion would be more unethical in most cases.

This is certainly a more interesting take than repeating the "killing human life is wrong" mantra. However, this take is rather subjective, and even from a pro-life stance not a great stance to take because it stills allows for abortion in some cases. In a general rebuttal to "future like ours", an argument that assigns some potential value to a being falls flat because the same argument could be used to justify abortion on the basis that denying someone abortion could prevent or significantly hamper their chance for a "future like ours". Of course, most cases of continuing a pregnancy to term doesn't result in this, but it does provide room for edge cases where abortion could be morally permissible in this ethical framework. It also allows for abortion if the fetus has some sort of abnormality that prevents them from experiencing a "future like ours", for example if the fetus had a condition that caused significant, chronic pain or a very short life in which they are not able to experience all the things we find enjoyable in life. And a more specific rebuttal -- 1. Contraception: If we are assuming that human life worth protecting at any cost starts at conception, it would mean that the way the female reproductive tract works, how hormonal contraceptives work, and IVF would be immoral. So many fertilized eggs just pass through without implanting or shortly after implantation without the person realizing it, and even if implantation is successful, miscarriage is fairly common in the first trimester through no fault of the pregnant person. Hormonal contraceptives work in a number of ways but one of its potential ways is by thinning the uterine lining, making implantation more difficult. Many IVF treatments fertilize multiple eggs that are not used and discarded. All of these ways definitely or more than plausibly prevent a "future like ours" to zygotes/embryos/fetuses. The first can be up for debate since most cases of miscarriage or failed implantation are not intentional (assuming intentions matter), but the latter two are done through ones own volition. 2: Value: If it isn't always the case that one decides the value of their own lie who does? What if someone doesn't ever get over depression and the rest of their life is miserable or commits suicide? Is there still the same value in their life as someone who lives happily and dies of old age because of a universal, equal life-value assignment regardless of perceived quality or length of life? If so, it would no longer follow the "future like ours" framework as an argument against abortion because it would have to accept that a life that ends in the womb, whether it was caused by abortion, miscarriage, or stillbirth, is part of the spectrum of "future like ours" since any life is equally valuable regardless of length, so whether that death occurs now or later shouldn't matter in this case. If not, then well... that's already making a case for why some life is more valuable than others. That's why I'm not a fan of any ethical framework that assigns equal value to every person's life as a basis for not killing them. It misses the whole point of intent, which I think matters.

It’s only wrong when she kills her baby when she doesn’t want the responsibility, that is it. Another thing to note is people are devastated about what they do to animals at slaughterhouses and killing a baby is so called okay and normal but I’m specifically talking about women doing it out of wanting no responsibility over it.

So if you think a fetus is a separate entity, then why doesn't the mother call the cops on the baby and have it removed for trespassing?

For people saying what happens if a women dies during pregnancy , well .. sex is sacred . You don’t let anyone in there without taking those risks. . When you let someone in , your sigining them on to your lease. . Getting pregnant is the risks and you 😅have to be willing to consider that before hand. But everyone believes that

All people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's why abortion is not only wrong, it is a violation of US federal law governed by our constitution.

I'd have some sympathy for the "right to life" crowd, if they showed just a fraction of the concern for THE BORN, as they do for a fetus, (of even a few molecules).

Sup. I’m here cus I’m tired of the abortion ads.

I don't think everybody will ever agree if abortion is allowed or not it is just a complicated topic that people are debating which will never be solved, i hate to say it but maybe people would be better off with Abortion allowed.

I never liked morality arguments based on potential future outcomes. You can easily end up in a Pascal wager were you can craft an incredible improbable ideal outcome. Of course you can argue that the fetus can posible cure cancer, revolutionise physics and singlehandedly create a new music genre. And at the exact opposite of the spectrum it could as easily be a sociopath and the next mega Hitler. I believe bodily autonomy is a superior argument as it gives a clear cut answer and works whatever the fetus personhood status is.

Attaching value to people based on their potential future seems ridiculous to me, maybe even immoral. We dont value elder people less because they might not have a bright future ahead of them. Same would go for people who are going to die in near future like cancer patients. What if we are to know that a person will not have a bright future? We know that a person is sick, or mentally ill? We shouldnt label them as less valuable. Not clear with the argument that a sperm does not have a potential on its own. if you are arguing that continious pregnancy without abortion will produce a human being with future, whouldnt you argue that sex without contraceptives produces a human life with potentual future? How is the fact that a sperm cannot leave on its own even matter? If a person cannot leave on its own and requires special action from you to keep it alive, by you not performing that activity would be essentially killing him. Why wouldnt you not murder a potential human being by using contraseptives? Finally I do think that a developed brain with electrical activity and developed neural circuitry is neccessary to attach value to life. For that reason we dont value brain dead people as being alive. Commatose do have a brain, electrical activity and neural circuitry. They are a developed humans who already developed all those features. Fetuses however have not yet developed any mechanism to experience subjective reality of this world.

By not having an abortion, a poor, possibly sick, unfit mother/parent will have THEIR future stripped and taken away because of this ‘child’ (who is unborn, doesn’t have feelings or consciousness, bones aren’t even developed etc) who they are forced to take care of. This ‘child’ will be born into a world of neglect and they may know nothing but abuse and hardships for the rest of their life contributing to possible poverty, depression, suicide and other negative statistical factors. I believe that life is valuable but why can’t those with the view of anti abortion see that we need to focus on the lives that we already have?! Why can’t you put this much thought and effort into a video about why the wars today, who are killing innocent people with potential to lead an amazing adventurous lives, are horrible and unjust?! What about the women who are being beaten to death for wearing tight jeans or for not serving their husband dinner in time? What about sex trafficked children and people? What about the valuable lives of LIVING humans? Imagine your daughter or cousin or friend is raped and becomes pregnant, a harsh but not impossible hypothetical, then what will you say to them? “Let this child of terror and vile actions be born into your life, let it rule the rest of your existence financially, physically and mentally.”…. What future would this woman have!? And, I will not rule out any experience and hardships you and your family may have or are going through of course because I do not know you, but you seem as though you live a stable life as a western American male with his great family. How the hell is it your place, especially as a man mind you, to shame and deem wrong the action of protecting an existing life of a woman? You do not hold any authority to shame or discuss what a woman can and cannot do with her body and life. This video makes me unbelievably angry as you have not quite wrapped your head around the concept of abortion and decide to discuss its impact on your own morals. Sorry, I’m sure nobody cares much for your opinion so why share hateful, confusing and MISLEADING content online?! I know my comment won’t spark any change in your opinion as you are already small minded but please take the time to reflect and possibly discuss.

What if you where a young girl and where r then when you fall pregnant from that but when you go to get rid of that child since your body is too small to bear a child safely you find that all abortion clinics are banned wouldn’t you be in ruins knowing now that you may die from childbirth at that age that’s why abortion is completely fine

Wait... people need to be told this?!

i dont get why people think abortion is right

Imagine if a 12 year old got raped and needed an abortian, would it still be wrong tho?

doesn’t that make sending someone to prison deeply wrong as well?

Yes, you have sidestepped the question of the person attached to the fetus. I do not argue whether taking a life is wrong. But I cannot, as a woman, avoid the essential question of how do you weigh the unborn fetus's life vs. the life of the human who carries all future responsibility to that potential human in a society that is not supportive of the well-being of its citizens. I say no one argues that abortion is wrong. the woman does not view abortion as positive.However, it is NO other person's responsibility but the one who bears that fetus and who bears the morality of her decision. The priority appears to lie in creating a world where ALL lives are valued and supported in society--and they are not. Make this a national debate where we all get to see the process and get to sort through to the complex issues of societal role in morality and how law seeks to balance justice. PS: so you are speaking of yourself in 3rd person? And you do not identify yourself in other videos? This makes me somewhat suspicious of your motives...

I'm Catholic Life Starts at conception. Even if my grandfather is my father. I lived, loved, heart broken, broke and rick, buy life and origie pleasures, demons and angels helping me, my only true friends. For my good and evil the left hand and the right hand. I lived so very much in A Beautiful World created by God for all of its hell, it was the little things cool summer day having drinks friends sound of the ocean and its sustenance I only asked for a thousand more years to die just for one more day god i ask.......

So killing any typ of animal is juas as wrong as killing a human?

You are doing good work . Abortion is wrong except in some cases like if baby harm mothers health and baby have serious disorders , otherwise abortion is just killing human being and it is the death of humanity . And now the end of humanity reaches home to home . May god guide us to right path

My morals say that if you can support the baby, keep it! If you can’t then put it up for adoption. The only reason you should abort is if it is a high risk pregnancy and you or your gf / wife will die from the birthing process

Fetus also mean unborn HUMAN BABY

Have you fostered/adopted children? No? Have you adopted homeless children? No? How about you got an unwanted pregnancy and you can’t financially support a child?

Yes, having an abortion would take away the child's future. But, it the mother cannot take care of the child (Health issues, lack of money, impregnated without consent, ect) then it is okay to have an abortion. The child will not live a good life with people who are not suited to be parents.

Well not only do you not need to take care of it well after it’s born and a fetus has no feelings and is not even guaranteed that it will survive birth and the fetus will not know what happened it will just get rid of it and things like grape and unhealthy pregnancies abortion is necessary for these situations and if I got aborted I would not be sad because I would not know I didn’t have memories or thoughts it just taking me out of a body it is invasive and forcing women to be baby making machines it horrible

One objection to the FLO argument (and a troubling implication of this argument): - Objection: there is a fundamental asymmetry between a fetus and a born human person. A fetus has yet to be born, and is subject to conditions that wouldn't biologically impact born people - miscarriage, for example. Thus, the 'future' of the fetus is irrevocably different than the future of a born person - it is hypothetical, a counterfactual condition. The fetus only has a future if it survives to viability and birth. In some hypothetical conditions, it has a future - in others, it does not. Born persons, having moved on from the womb, have a literal future that is no longer a hypothetical condition. Therefore, the FLO argument fails because a fetus does not necessarily have 'future like ours' that it can be deprived of. Hence, it is not necessarily immoral to terminate the fetus. - Troubling Implication: the FLO argument implies that it becomes less morally reprehensible to murder someone as they become older. The reasoning being that older and older persons have less FLO to be deprived of. Here's a nasty little thought experiment: consider two agents, A and B. Agent A accidently causes the painless death of a newborn infant, 24 hours after birth. Agent B brutally and heinously murders a senior citizen on their deathbed, chopping them up and causing them tremendous fear and suffering. On the FLO argument, agent A is far more morally reprehensible than agent B, because agent A deprived a person of years of future, whereas B deprived a person of hours of future.

I agree

5 seconds in and already I disagree. You can't rob someone of a future, because a future isnt actually a thing. It's a speculative, amorphous concept that is only given value anecdotally. The reason why it's immoral to kill someone is you rob them of what they are currently, including what they are to others based on their past. At best, the only way a future is valuable is a current trajectory, including goals and ambitions, has already been established by that person. A fetus doesn't have a conscience, connection nor memory of it's existence. If robbing someone of their future is the problem, then technically altering anyone's course into the future is equally as immoral... Which is potentially any interaction you may have with anyone, at any point, in any way.

Contraception is wrong

No! You had the right to create, so you also have the right to destroy. NOBODY has the right to interfere in either. When they try to guilt you with a moral argument remind them a rudely as possible you have the same right to choose and define your own. The biggest moral crime is telling others your morality must be theirs. this is by far more egregious. Religion and Yiddzness want need a steady supply of raw material to sustain their personal greed and domination.

There is often a specific amount of weeks where it is considered ok to abort. It is not harming it because it hasn't gotten any mind of it's own yet. In some cases the girl might have been raped or is just extremely young. If she wasn't allowed to abort it would be like forcing her to give birth (mind you giving birth is said to one of the most painful experiences out there). Not really a fair thing to force someone to do just because you "kill a fetus that doesn't even have emotions yet."

I am pro choice, and my wife is pro life. I'm really trying to understand her views but I still just don't get it. I really like this video, it makes a lot of sense, but I still disagree.

You also has overgeneralised the discussion into a matter of being "human" ... Your detractors are going to bring up a term called "person" ... What consitutes being a "human" is not enough to make that entity a "person" for many reasons... for example, a zygote cannot be in all sense of logic be considered a "person" as it lacks all the critical features of being a person, its only a cell without most things a newborn baby has ... etc etc The discussion is a lot more complex than you think ...

One of the most moronic pseudo philosophical papers I’ve ever read. Genuinely. Marquis has zero backbone or forethought. He couldn’t stand by an idea if it was handcuffed to him. I’m convinced every discussion on this paper is just silently mocking every word of it.

I think there should be a parting. I feel like people who have irresponsible sex should not be able to have abortions, but at the same time rape victims should be able to if it can be proven. Idk tell me what you think

"The fetus has a future like ours" how about the person who died giving birth?

Mr logical do you eat meat?

Must say this is the only argument against abortion that makes any sense, but I still think everyone should shut up about it and let women do what they want with their bodies. I think that it is morally fine to derminate a pregnancy before the fetus develops thinking and feeling. We need some damn population control too. Too many people here already. Exponential expansion

so you shouldnt save a woman's life just for a fetus? seems like you only care about people until they're born and after that its basically, "sayonara sucker" imagine you having to give birth to a child that will literally kill you, abortions are necessary, not in all situations but in so many, do you really want a teenager to have a child, and to have that teenager struggle through life after having so much bodily damage done after having a child at a young age and having to take care of a child? that fetus doesnt even have a fully grown brain yet, in fact its barely a human, some comment literally just said, "this is very true! imagine being the baby with no choice" it isnt a baby, its a fetus, it barely has a brain that can make thoughts. how would you feel if you were a mother that had to have a child, even if it would literally kill you?

So throwing people in jail is wrong as well? There you also deny their possible future.

I agree with that argument, and the objections against the argument. I also like how it is explained in the video. But I found a possible flaw at 4:28 "a new thing begins, with a different future". If that's the case, then each and every stage from zygote to born baby has its own separate future AND it's its own different lifeform. That's the problem of trying to quantify a continuum, it's just impossible, we can only try to _approach_ the continuum by using high-precision quantification, that's what mathematicians do when doing calculus, and that's what computers do when rendering stuff and doing simulations. That's also why it's sometimes bad to oversimplify a problem by thinking in absolutes

y’all are so weird in the comments

This video deserves a trillion views, excellent explanation! Christ is King.

I would like to try my best to refute. Let's just say that there was a 20-year old woman she has her entire life ahead of her let's now say that as she was walking down an alleyway when a group of men jumped out and raped her a few months later they figure out she's pregnant but if she delivers the kid she's going to die but the baby will live. Would you force her to deliver the baby which would kill her but the baby lives or letter terminate the baby which this argument seems to regard at the same height as her. I don't personally believe that you can regard a foetus something that's barely even born on the same level as a born human. (Sorry for bad grammar)

😯

It’s not an injustice to ask women to take responsibility for their actions. It is an injustice to prevent the Divine Will (which knows your future) and kill a human being. May the Lord give you the courage to stand up against an inherent evil. 🕊🙏

Yoo they added you as an emoji: 🤓🤓🤓

This is exactly how I see it. But have you ever had a child who was struggling with life ask you why you didn’t just abort them? Why did you put me in this horrible position?

I am pro life because I belive that takeing the life away from an unborn baby is like cooking a baby bird while its still inside of an egg only to toss it into the trash. Now think of that baby bird as a human.

Bruh the baby has no future if the mom wants to rid of him, why pushing the responsibility on the mother who doesn't want to baby. She would end up through him up or won't take care of him. More significantly, they won't have a future