Answering The Best Pro Choice Argument

In the most recent episode of the Matt Fradd Show, we spent some time going over the best arguments given in support of the Pro-Choice position. "The Violinist Scenario" is once such argument:
Say you wake up in a strange hospital, attached to a stranger. The doctor tells you that he is a world-famous violinist and that you were abducted and stitched to him because you were the only one who was a medically suitable match to save his life.
Do you have the right to pull the plug? How does this scenario relate to the situation of Mother and Pre-Born Child? Stephanie and I discuss.
"The Matt Fradd Show" is the old name for "Pints with Aquinas" a philosophy podcast, for a more recent video check out Stephanie's closing remarks from her debate with an Pro-Choice Doctor: • Pro-Life Activist vs. ...
📌 Check out the Full Episode: • Stephanie Gray | The M...
📌 Stephanie's Website: loveunleashesl...
📌 To support me on Patreon (Thank you! 😭): / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Twitter: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Instagram: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Facebook: / mattfradd

[@PintsWithAquinas]

🔴If you like this video, please consider subscribing and then hitting 🔔so KZbin will be FORCED to let you know when we put out a new video. 😉

[@bigcityjunglecatenvisageth1422]

@Jen farmer What I can't stand about her is that she is implying that because women have got a womb complete with the function, this means that all women are/should be just baby-making machines, full-stop. But she herself is a woman and so she is just putting "herself" down. Having a womb/ovaries inside a person's body is just "one" thing. We did not "ask" or particularly even "want" to have the womb. And also some women do not ask or want to be pregnant or go through a childbirth either. So therefore if we can relieve ourselves of this unwanted parasite and the suffering involved with it, then it's a good thing - definitely not a crime. Call it a "baby", a "child" or "human" or whatever - I dont give a flying flamingo. If it is not wanted and not needed in a person's life then it is just a [harmful] parasite which needs to be removed. End of.

[@thomasbailey921]

@Jen farmer I dont understand why you're so upset. Fathers who refuse to pay child support and accept the responsibility of their actions are bad people and need somebody to show them the error of their ways...

[@jainam2305]

Hi, could you link some info on the Professor she argued against? I think it would be best to engage in the content directly so as to think more critically of it.

[@mewho6199]

Here's the best, the only pro-choice argument. No person has the right to use another person's body without sustained permission.

[@thouartdust7464]

@@bigcityjunglecatenvisageth1422Please don't have kids.. They really don't deserve to be treated/seen as parasites.

[@Jose-up2wg]

I really like how humble she is and that she admits she’s been stumped before. A lot of people don’t do that, and it makes her a lot friendlier than the typical activist.

[@AeneasReborn]

Yes, people on the left and right are truly guilty of that, glad she is being level headed.

[@kevint7288]

@cinna banana in what regard is she not correct?

[@FoundWanting970]

Kevin Tran They obviously made that claim and didn’t try supporting it because it’s feelings. If I ever claimed someone in a video was wrong, I would explain why I believed that.

[@charlottem7078]

Kevin Tran i can explain. Even if you assume the fetus is a human with equal rights and the uterus belongs to the next generation(which is nonsense in my opinion, u can’t claim a part of somebody’s body). The fetus still depends on bodily resources that aren’t the uterus like blood and can permanently effect the body.

[@goatneck]

Yeah. And immediately after, she says God himself talked to her to give her tips on how to "win" that random debate.. so humble.

[@izabeera166]

It’s a difficult subject. However I can’t begin to imagine how traumatic carrying the child of rape would be. I don’t think I’d be able to and I don’t think women in general should be forced to do so.

[@gretchenmann453]

Ripping the child’s limbs apart to kill it without any pain medication and then reassembling and selling the body parts is not the answer to a violent rape crime.

[@ninjam77]

@@gretchenmann453 I don't think that this is an accurate way to describe abortion, esoecially early abortions where the embryo has not developed any kind of capacity to feel pain.

[@gretchenmann453]

Ninjam visit live action on KZbin. Watch Unplanned.

[@undercoverelf6_760]

It’s a terrible thing when someone is raped, but no matter how bad the situation, the baby is still an innocent life that should be protected and given the opportunity for life.

[@GalactoseGalaxy]

we can't just take the easy way out everytime. yes its much easier to abort your baby that you didn't want, but its also easier to kill that asshole that bullied you everyday in 7th grade. you cant kill your bully because murder is bad.. but why is it bad? its bad because you're taking the basic human rights away from someone. you take the basic human rights away from a fetus by killing it before it even had a chance to breathe. it isnt about pain, its about opportunity. your basic human rights are taken away when you're raped and thats really sad, but they arent taken away by caring for a baby inside your body and finding it a home.

[@Turn140]

I've never heard my thoughts formulated to an argument so well before. Thank you Stephanie and Matt

[@progenderrole1329]

I like the way you went "heard" you went: "THERE DANCE YOU NOW!! WOOHOO COW YAY!! TWINKLE STARS DRAWS!! THAT WAS SOJNNING?!?! OHHH DANCING JUMPING BEAN KITE LIGHTS ARE ON THE WAY!! YOU KNOW BETTER WERE BETTER!! THAT AN WAS A SNACK AND A CAR FOR EDGAR ALLEN POE!! THAT WAS CLOCKED FROM ALL THE WAY TO THE ANTLER DOME!! TWIN THE TWIN YAY!! COOKIES FOR AN ELMO OTHERWISE"

[@EEEasdfasdc]

@@progenderrole1329 meds, now

[@bulletanarchy6447]

What was the argument ?

[@schnitzel711]

When she talked about the argument that the uterus was made for another purpose and how the Holy Spirit spoke to her I started tearing down!! As a soon to be mother, I see no other greater honor to carry A LIFE inside of me. It’s just an overwhelming feeling and I wish every woman would feel that . Praise Jesus!!

[@aceraphael]

did you mean "tear up"😅? congrats on the incoming baby. I will pray a Hail Mary for you and your child.

[@schnitzel711]

@@aceraphael yes that’s what I meant. English is not my native language so I always mess up the expressions haha

[@aceraphael]

@@schnitzel711 it's not mine either :)

[@bulletanarchy6447]

@@aceraphael The moment you mentioned religion you made the rest of your comment irrelevant

[@aceraphael]

@bulletanarchy6447 ah, I see you are back. get off the Internet for your own sake.

[@stephencurran2284]

I absolutely love the concept of “steelmanning”. Taking your opponents strongest argument, worded as well as possible and responding to that. I’ve always thought straw manning was such a weak and pathetic debating technique.

[@Oatskii]

It’s a good way to show mastery of a topic

[@carsonrush3352]

Strawman arguments are called fallacies for a reason.

[@DiBaozi]

I was explaining a different approach to debating when my husband said "yeah there's a word for that, it's called steelmanning, the opposite of strawman." I'm glad I'm not alone.

[@julius43461]

I love it as well, but we must be carefully not to mischaracterize the argument, which happens often.

[@stephencurran2284]

@@valcaron the strongest argument given that you believe that the fetus is alive

[@johnbarnhill386]

I disagree with much of the arguments in this video, but as someone on the left it is extremely refreshing to see those i disagree with lay out their arguments in a way that actually makes sense and isn’t completely psychotic. It allows an actual discussion, instead of two groups of people screaming at each other.

[@punishedrab9364]

Would have assumed you liked psychopathic arguments if you were on the left.

[@guldorak]

100%. I don't agree with her position, her comparison between the violinist and the fetus, or even with her premise that fetuses are people, but I do agree she presents her arguments convincingly. She doesn't come off as a crazy person who didn't come to their opinion through rational thought or critical thinking.

[@clearandfocused8882]

Let it be known, that even though you disagree with much of the arguments in this video, you fail to present your own as a rebuttal. Very interesting. Looks like pro-life always wins over the pro-death crowd. Perhaps because the pro-death crowd have never truly thought through their "position"... (if you could call pro-death a position).

[@justinglass8949]

Agreed. I'm on the right and I really appreciate listening to anyone on the left or right make a very well thought out argument. Often times I see what kind of intelligence it takes to be able to make such a well thought out case. Then to contrast it with the intelligence of our society and politicians always leaves me staggered and with utter despair.

[@StarSpliter]

@@clearandfocused8882 So you just automatically assume this person has not thought through their position and then you intentionally positioned the discussed to be purely life vs. death (your pro death quip). How about you idk ... ask? Like a decent human being? Crazy I know but if you assume the worst from everyone that's a scary world I wouldn't want to live in. Unfortunately this issue is much more complicated that people want to admit. There's also a completely rational law vs moral argument that is occurring and is much more complex that "all killing = murder". There's specific legal terminology and concepts to take into account.

[@rossalanmiller]

1. It is a person in the womb and that person is entitled to life. 2. That person, due to the nature of fetal development, is entitled to the organs and biological processes of the mother that exist for the purpose of supporting fetal life and development. 3. Parents have special obligations to their offspring.

[@fenilogic1470]

4. If the Biological Parent cannot fulfill their Parental Obligations (most likely by money problems), the Child can be admitted to a person or a couple that can.

[@dudeman1455]

This woman has been given an unusually gifted and intelligent mind. I love when God’s servants use their gifts for their God-given intended purposes. God bless her ministry.

[@Andrew12217]

Neither she, nor the professor has read Hume then. The fact that the uterus can carry a fetus doesn't mean that it has the ethical end to carry it...

[@Gibeah]

@@Andrew12217 I haven't watched it yet, but I get the point. Just because the earth hosts an ecosystem that supports humanity, doesn't mean the earth has an ethical end to keep humanity alive. In fact, we assume it doesn't. In that sense, Mother Nature is the cruelest of all. But ethical or not, starving to death or being smashed in some geological cataclysm is rather pitiful. That's where empathy comes in. Letting the child live because that's what you'd want someone to do for you.

[@Andrew12217]

@@Gibeah that's when we go back to the violinist argument, the most commendable scenario is the one where someone endures 9 months (or even a lifetime), we usually hold saving a human life in high regard especially when it represents a sacrifice to do so. But to be so such sacrifice needs to be voluntary. Donating organs is commendable, forcing someone to give an organ... Not so much so. If we follow the guidelines that it's usually done arround the world for transfusion you can't use an unwilling person. A pregnancy necessary involves a transfusion from pregnant person to fetus. While it would be commendable to keep an unwanted pregnancy it falls under the umbrella of not consenting to an ongoing blood transfusion.

[@boxingfan8274]

@@Andrew12217 what about the consent of the baby? i.e baby's in a caring society would have rights. the babylon system is full of sophistry. Save the babies from the babylon system.

[@Andrew12217]

@@boxingfan8274 again going back to the violinist argument. If the fetus is using the woman's body it's the ongoing consent of the women that's allowing the fetus to use it. Imagine you need a blood transfusion you need the consent of the one giving you blood, you can consent to be given but cannot force anyone to give consent to giving you blood. The fetus consent (if we asume to be capable of be given and a very specific response at that, we always asume the fetus never never denies ongoing care for this kind of scenarios) go as far as consent to continue using the woman's body but has no further claim than any other fully grown human being regardless of blood relationship.

[@Khimera66]

I just wish most pro-lifers were as dedicated to antiabortion as they are to adoption and helping poor families.... But that's none of my business...

[@annaroe7851]

I can understand how you would feel this way, but in all reality it IS the people who are fighting for against abortion who are the most involved in adoption and foster care systems. The abortion topic is completely unrelated to the adoption topic. Yes, both are issues but if someone dedicates their life to fighting abortion, they are not arguing that the adoption system shouldn't be changed. Their JOB is to fight abortion, not to fight against the adoption system or adopt kids. I would agree that we need more people who focus on the adoption/foster care system but you simply can't expect someone who's job is to fight abortion to fight adoption.

[@Alan-sr1iz]

I’ll force you to bring this child into the world but you’re crazy if you think I’ll help once they’re born

[@hees0009]

@@Alan-sr1iz hundreds of women's centers around the US and Canada provide care after the child is born assuming the woman/couple wishes to parent. (Sometimes they don't, and are referred to adoption) During this pandemic, we've been packing bags with diapers, wipes, non perishable grocery items, and clothes. Moms we work with during crisis pregnancies let us know via email what sizes they need. The bags are left in the lobby so there's no contact. My aunt's neighbor's daughter (C) got pregnant and her mom wanted her to abort because she wasn't going to support the baby, but she wanted to keep it. My aunt said she would help. And she's kept her word. C has never bought diapers ever! My aunt and another family friend babysit him for free so C could finish school. She graduated last year, and her son is 3 now. My husband and I have 2 children we've adopted from situations where birthmom could not parent. To say pro lifers don't help out past birth is dishonest. I'm sure there are some, but most of us don't act that way.

[@stellac3047]

@@annaroe7851 I want know how fighting abortion is a job. I'm certain that most people take on the cause willing rather than being paid to do so.

[@alexialovesyou]

Anna Roe i would like to know how being pro life would affect anyones ability to fight to change how the adoption system works. Also how is fighting for the idea of pro life a job? im pretty sure no one is getting paid for that.

[@oliviadobben4654]

does it piss anybody else off when pro-choice is referred to as pro-abortion? as if people WANT abortions to happen

[@sheissuzanne]

Pro-abortion means you think abortion is ok. Try not to read into it

[@maryneilson3544]

i would say a large majority of “pro-choicers” are actually pro-abortion where they don’t just tolerate it, they encourage it and try to normalize it as just a simple necessary medical procedure and nothing more

[@oliviadobben4654]

Mary Neilson that’s the far left, not the majority of pro-choices

[@oliviadobben4654]

Suzanne Green its a strawman fallacy. same as when pro-lifers are called “anti-choice.” it’s a misrepresentation of what they actually stand for

[@aimemaggie]

Mary Neilson I don’t know where your majority is from because I’ve never meet anyone who cheers for abortions.

[@elishevaherzog6723]

Wow! This woman is very intelligent. This is by far the best argument against abortion I have ever heard.

[@whitneyw.7919]

hahahaha, you're kidding, right? This argument is like something you'd use to guilt your church friend into not getting an abortion, not a legitimate reasoning for enacting public policy

[@ahampurushahasmi6040]

@@whitneyw.7919 Dismiss without pointing out any flaw; there is never any pro-choice argument that is consistent

[@jacquesdaniels2435]

@@whitneyw.7919 Which part? Coz she mentioned a lot😬

[@montamiddleton9318]

Hypothetical situations should not come into question. It's like saying what if you are carrying the next greatest president. Sorry. That doesn't pass mustard.

[@janeinma]

@@ahampurushahasmi6040 the argument is nobody has the right to use anybody's body against their will. If you want to save a fetus you pout it in your body. But you are a monster to demand anyone stay pregnant. WHO clearly states forced pregnancy is a human rights violation. If you really think we want to stop elective abortions then we should castrate every single man. There is enough sperm to keep the human race going. So lets stop abortion before it happens by removing all sperm from sex. Or don't you like the idea of men having their body controlled by the government.

[@carolkegel7599]

If that professor was actually up all night trying to counter her uterus argument, then he has no business teaching philosophy. Carrying a baby requires much more than a uterus. A full term pregnancy has consequences for your ENTIRE body. For instance, I went into heart failure my first pregnancy. My son needed an emergency c section and almost didn't make it. I've had to have 2 open heart surgeries and I now live with a pace maker and subcutaneous defibrillator.

[@threemoo]

This is the thing that I really don't like about this subject. With consent the situation is entirely within normal human process and the baby's rights should take precedence. but in the case of no consent the mother is actually put at risk in many ways, health and wealth are impacted, it also damages her marriage prospects as well, it's absolutely life changing. I hate that one side wants to justify absolute murder and the other wants to completely ignore non-consentual situations.

[@lifecloud2]

I like the point you're making here, Carol.

[@olabashanda]

I’m sorry you went through that. Hard question you don’t have to answer here, but I’m curious: was your son worth it?

[@bulletanarchy6447]

There was no professor

[@bulletanarchy6447]

@@olabashanda There's a woman who had like 50 children so should we ask her if number 50 was worth it and if she says yes then everybody should have that many ?

[@Bmmrl]

I saw her at SEEK 2019! Went from ProChoice to Pro Life after her talk. She answered all the questions I had.

[@LeoniCarsoni]

She's either dishonest or she's inept with logic. If you'd like to see how, see my other comment in the main thread.

[@jmgee6344]

Doesn’t logic follow truth? Therefore how can she be dishonest when speaking truth which are in fact facts.

[@LeoniCarsoni]

@@jmgee6344 did you read my other comment that explains how her logic fails?

[@shayaandanish5831]

Berna L, I really felt great reading that a person changed their mind. It makes me really happy and hopeful for the future of really the world. Peace

[@justyceleague698]

That's unfortunate

[@jackd4]

I don’t like how they’re calling this idea “the best pro choice” argument as if answering this is proving the idea of pro choice to be bad. There also isn’t any pro choice person here to rebuttal. If a 15 year old was raped and she was forced to keep the baby, the effects of that could ruin her life due to the physical side of it and the mental side too. Choosing to abort the baby isn’t destroying a life in the same way that you’re destroying the 15 year olds life is. As a former foetus, I can confirm that I would not have noticed if I was aborted.

[@jaconator1245]

Not to mention, the mother would either give the baby up to a failure of an adoption system or have some form of ptsd that makes it hard to raise the child. A lot of pro lifers seem to think life begins at conception and legal obligation for care stops at birth

[@ptp5002]

Less than 1% of abortions terminate pregnancies that are a result of rape. Also I hope you appreciate how you have taken the most tragic possible scenario and attempted to use it to justify the other 99% of abortions.

[@XFizzlepop-Berrytwist]

ptp5002 Maybe so, but if they outlawed it in all cases except rape, I guarantee rape cases would skyrocket. XD

[@BbGun-lw5vi]

You’re right. Her arguments are quite weak. I will just make a few quick points about her two main arguments. First, the uterus is not the only thing involved in pregnancy. The whole body and organs are involved. The baby puts a strain on all the organs. Second, she makes the point of extraordinary care vs ordinary care. Being pregnant and giving birth is not providing ordinary care. Her cabin analogy is wrong. It’s extraordinary care. Having a baby through vaginal delivery often tears the vagina and that can result in complications. There is also the extreme pain. And if you’re given an epirdural you run the risk of having lifelong problems with your back. And of course, there are women who still die. Csections carry their own risks and are also very painful. The Pregnancy alone is hard on women and many have long term consequences from it. In fact, it changes your hormones so that many women have a very difficult time with weight. Kidneys can be affected. Incontinence from weak pelvic muscles Increased chance of diabetes Bones get robbed of calcium Can change hair and skin permanently (mask of pregnancy). Saggier breasts. Abdominal separation so you get a bulge. Stretch marks. Varicose veins, etc I’d much rather choose to be attached to the violinist for 9 months than carry a baby.

[@Zeeno]

Everyone always brings up rape cases however if you look at abortion stats less than 1% were babies conceived via rape. It's like me constantly trying to make the point that we need to teach in schools that humans have 6 fingers because there exist people who have 6 fingers (which however is less than 1% of people). I agree that rape victims shouldn't have to carry the come however, I don't think the 1% of rape conceptions should be used to justify the other 99% that aren't.

[@papillonvu]

I’d never heard that uterus argument before. But it is truly eye-opening. Not just in the context of the debate on abortion, but in the context of life and the “preordained” role of a woman.

[@boxingfan8274]

“The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts--a child--as a competitor, an intrusion and an inconvenience.” Mother Terressa.

[@angiek1827]

“Mother Teresa was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.” - Christopher Hitchens

[@boxingfan8274]

@@angiek1827 There is no cure for poverty, only a way to alleviate it. Jesus said "the poor will always be with you." compulsory reproduction?? i know many women who have chosen not to have children. don't know where you got the view it is compulsory or even Hitchen's got the view. He was into sub-sourcism, i am into Master-sourcism. we are worlds apart.

[@bulletanarchy6447]

@@boxingfan8274 And how many children did Mother Teressa have ? approx. zero Therefore Christianity has pitted women against their children and women against men.. Oh No!!

[@boxingfan8274]

@@bulletanarchy6447 how has Christianity pitted woman against their children, it teaches woman to love their children including babies in the womb.

[@bulletanarchy6447]

@@boxingfan8274 No it doesn't, it teaches you to believe Christianity is love despite anything that might suggest otherwise.

[@TheArtyMaverick64]

The problem I have with this argument is the fact that in terms of law a woman can consent to sex without consenting to getting pregnant, an example of reproductive coercion is birth control sabotage, for example poking holes in condoms, this is still classed as sexual assault, so in the laws eyes you can consent to sex without consenting to pregnancy

[@dantecristero]

There is always risk of getting pregnant even if you do not poke holes in a condom. That is no excuse. Acts have consecuences

[@hamstermain8327]

When men have sex they consent to the consequences so women should too.

[@DB-sy6xc]

I don’t understand. How does that no consent to the risk of pregnancy?

[@jamesoakes4842]

@@dantecristero There are risks involved in driving as well, but I'm pretty sure cutting the brake lines and disabling the airbag is attempted murder.

[@carlosbecerril3317]

@@dantecristero if you eat a free sample and get aids, are you gonna be upset? Guess not right? Since you consented to getting aids?

[@LucasRodrigues-ls8re]

In regards to the altered violinist argument, it’s also important to remark that NOT donating a kidney or any organ its passive (and almost no passiveness is illegal), while aborting is active. It’s actively pursuing to end a life, instead of not doing enough to save a life. There’s a very clear and very big difference.

[@erictopp7988]

You're still not obligated to support someone if your life is at risk. If the two of us were dangling off a bridge with you holding on to my leg and my grip slipping, I wouldn't be jailed for kicking you off. I'll say that her point about the uterus being "for someone else" is interesting and I've never heard it before, but it's still not valid. If the uterus was truly the only thing being used I might agree, but it would be foolish to say that the only thing changing in a pregnant woman is the size and contents of her uterus. This argument quickly turns into "the purpose of an entire woman is to have children, so she has a legal obligation to have children"

[@eonstar]

I'm Pro life, but is it though? This seems like the trolley question

[@WORDSMITHBERGER]

Here's where it boils down to for me. One cannot argue for fhe right to bodily autonomy while simultaneously denying that exact same right to another human being and not be a hypocrite.

[@carsonmoore9992]

@@erictopp7988 Nobody is saying that the mother needs to pursue her pregnancy even when her life is in danger. There are obviously cases where abortion is justified because the mother has life-threatening circumstances. That is not what is being argued.

[@ellysetaylor5908]

Also, it wasn't your actions that caused the kidney to fail. But it was your actions that created the human life. All of these analogies try to take out the fact that this is a consequence of your own choices.

[@o0laieta0o]

Really nice arguments. The professor could have refuted to that in a pregnancy you're not only lending the child the uterus but also your blood, it pumps you full of hormones and, in a lot of cases, changes your body forever.

[@lifecloud2]

And to me, this is the part of the issue that's often left out. The things you bring up here are what makes this a difficult choice. But the key here is choice.

[@ryanmars9552]

again added more weight to the conversation but no way countered it. As long as it was for the baby. The violinist argument is based on a situation in which the body is not premade to do or comprehend.

[@WeAllLoveMarlene]

@@ryanmars9552 well it kinda is. She specifically states in the violin argument that the body of the kidnapped person is the only one that could keep the violinist alive

[@WeAllLoveMarlene]

@@ryanmars9552 well it kinda is. She specifically states in the violin argument that the body of the kidnapped person is the only one that could keep the violinist alive

[@hoosierhillsqfk1985]

the woman made the choice to have sex that led to pregnancy.... this example involved a kidnapping completely against the person in the example's will.

[@fucentauriel7202]

15:45 This counter-counter argument stumped me for years, but now I would argue that it's the definition of sexism. The nature and purpose of an organ has no bearing on a person's ownership of that organ. If we accept that the uterus is exempt from considerations of bodily autonomy, then we're accepting a world in which men have autonomy over their entire body, and women have autonomy over less than their entire body. That's an inherently unequal world, and it opens up a dangerous door.

[@jackwillson9797]

Ah yes, if everything else fails, just label it sexism. Jokes aside, this doesn't really counter the counter-counter argument as much as instead of reinforcing the idea that sexism is actually justified and equality not. Men and women are different, and only women have this body part, so it's justified that men have more bodily autonomy than women. If you really want to counter the said counter-counter argument, it would be better to say why uterus's purpose to bear a child shouldn't hinder mother's ability to abort it.

[@ryanmars9552]

Oh sexism you are the safe haven of gender ignorance. you cant make women and men biologically equal

[@ryanmars9552]

@@jackwillson9797 nice catch to the counter counter counter argument but im gonna have to counter the counter you countered to counter the counter counter argument after you countered the counter counter counter argument from countering the counter counter argument. Simple answer because its alive and shouldnt be killed to save the mothers day to day living by stopping its altogether so actually managed to make a worse counter counter counter argument than her

[@dwo356]

@@jackwillson9797 Why does it matter what the uterus's purpose is? It's not yours or anyone else's uterus. There's no argument there. Men and women not having the same body parts doesn't mean sexism is justified or that one should have more bodily autonomy than the other. When I had sex with my wife, I understood that for the next 9 months, if she became pregnant, that she is the one that is doing all the sacrifice and work and thus the decisions were hers. My responsibility is to support her. If I wanted a child it's on me to make sure I'm with a woman that wants one too and we're on the same page. If I didn't, it was on me to make sure that didn't happen before even having sex. It isn't up to me to control my wife and thays what would happen if we take away their rigjts to bodily autonomy.

[@jackwillson9797]

@@dwo356 "Why does it matter what the uterus's purpose is? It's not yours or anyone else's uterus." "Men and women not having the same body parts doesn't mean sexism is justified or that one should have more bodily autonomy than the other." Because a child is living and concieved in the women's body, so while it is a separate body entity a pregnant woman doesn't have the autonomy to get rid of the child within - but not part of - the mother's body, for it's murdering a life. In that scenario a woman should have less autonomy than a male, for males can't possibly get pregnant. As for how it matters? Well, not for me at least, would that matter either? No. I am talking about the logical fallacy in such counter-counter-counter-argument, regardless of whether or not it matters to me. The same way I could talk about some kid starving in Africa even though I won't be affected by it at all. "When I had sex with my wife, I understood that for the next 9 months, if she became pregnant, that she is the one that is doing all the sacrifice and work and thus the decisions were hers." You might need to clarify what you mean by "decisions". Because both you and your wife's rights stop where a human's life starts. And if it's abortion, it is not a feasible decision. Also, it is also your choice to give the right to decide to her. Since you occupy 50% of the responsibility and rights to the child in the mother's womb, you simply gave it to her, it doesn't mean you don't have the right to decide in the first place. "If I didn't, it was on me to make sure that didn't happen before even having sex." And also on her to either not have sex or have valid contraceptives. You both have a 50/50 responsibility to prevent concieving a child and supporting a child, if it does come to that.

[@laurenj432]

She’s the most articulate and patient pro-lifer I’ve ever seen

[@roshanmaharana]

All the pro life women that I've encountered are patient. Pro-choice women that I've encountered were using all kinds of bad words.

[@SakuraMoonflower]

Gosh, if she's your best, you guys are losing. She literally admits she sees pregnancy as a punishment for women enjoying sex. XD Regardless of consent, regardless of marital status, she admitted she sees pregnancy as a punishment befitting "the crime" of having sex. XD So a married woman gets impregnated by her husband? That's what that whore gets for enjoying her husband. Punished by pregnancy! Is she happy to be pregnant? Who cares- she is Punished. XD She's off her rocker and you are too if you agree with her on that. XD

[@badger6882]

@@roshanmaharana people putting you down, disrespecting your opinions, and ignoring your lived experiences will do that to you

[@eet212]

@@badger6882 So being treated rudely is an excuse to act rude? You're hearing yourself right?

[@badger6882]

@@eet212 It's not an excuse or permission, its an explanation. It's not her being hysterical or blinded by her own privilege, like others here are saying.

[@Agtiss]

I can't believe that we live in times when you have to engage in elaborate philosophical discussions to prove people should not be killed.

[@fitz3540]

I mean, you don't HAVE to. It's not like they actually care whether your argument is better or not. They're just evil, and they will justify their behavior no matter what.

[@robinthestate6548]

The reason we do this because there's a lot of people who are puzzled by this subject. I myself I'm pro-life 100% now, thanks to this video, because these kind of philosophical arguments make smart people understand why they feel the way they should feel. I wasn't sure on how I felt on abortion on the case of rape but now because of this video I know how to feel. It's pretty crazy because I am in a weird spot because I am a Cuban conservative, atheist. I love this video because in my scenario as an atheist talking to other atheists I don't get to say God says so because they aren't believers like me. Also I'm in a weird place because I am minority inside of a minority inside of minority. (I in no way feel oppressed btw) but it does put me in a pretty unique situation where there is not that many who agree with me on everything. (Given that most conservatives are judeo/Christian believers and most atheists are liberal/leftist)

[@ignitiusthetheologian2727]

The world has always been this way, philosophy is the basis for all ideas, especially that of moral nature. That very claim itself that you made is philosophical. These things are not self evident either. To conclude, I would barely call this discussion "elaborate", it's rather simple.

[@andyisdead]

Why do you think abortion is not a complex issue?

[@jaxonarnold8039]

*clumps of cells without sentience Not people

[@stillpril8942]

There is a difference between responsibility and fault I had a very messed up childhood which caused me to become the messed up adult which was not my fault that was my parent's fault but as soon as I realized that I was messed up it became my responsibility to heal and become a better person especially now that I'm a parent I can't just screw my child up and say oh well it's not my fault

[@MrRight-fj4yi]

We are responsible for ourselves and our behaviors. No one else. Yes we can have sucky parents and yes they can really screw us up. But we must work to overcome our issues the very best we can. We owe it to ourselves, to our children and to God Almighty.

[@ar.catect]

This is the most thought out anti-abortion argument I've heard. Although I disagree, it's so refreshing to see people willing to examine their beliefs and hear out the other side

[@randomchannelname24]

which part do you disagree with?

[@misssquizza5616]

Disagree in what way?? If u dont mind sharing.

[@nitishsreeram2511]

@@randomchannelname24 that consenting to sex is also consenting to abortion. That’s like saying consenting to lawfully driving is also consenting to run a person over in the case of an accident.

[@syncronium3524]

bro whyyyy. How can you think it's okay to kill innocent children?

[@darkbrotherhood3607]

@@nitishsreeram2511 Can you rephrase this? It isn’t clear to me what the first line means, and by extension the metaphor.

[@l.francesca4780]

Some counterpoints: Autonomy: Even if you are the perfect match for your child's needs, you are not required to donate blood, marrow, or organs to save your child. Your parental relationship and "duties" don't supercede your own autonomy. Why should the foetus be granted extraordinary rights to the parent's uterus for life saving purposes on that alone? "It's your fault." : Apart from admitting you want to punish people for having sex, we still agreed, as a society, that autonomy supercedes any obligation. If you drive drunk and get into a car crash and cause the violinist to be in his predicament, you are still not required to provide the violinist a nine month period of using your body. "Consent to sex is consent to consequences" : Leaving my window open to let in the air is not consent for you to enter through my window. Neither is it consent for you to throw things into my house. Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy any more than it is consent to an STD. If a person capable of providing semen does not disclose that he has not had the vasectomy they promised, is the childbearer still required to carry to term? Because I'm pretty sure there are consequences for lying about your HIV status. Should be the same. "The uterus is designed for childbearing" : And? The appendix was designed to have food matter pass through it. Doesn't mean I consent to appendicitis when I decide to eat. "Well the difference is, appendicitis isa consequence of something going wrong! Pregnancy is a consequence of something going right!": Firstly, "going right" is subjective and I'm sure many pregnant people classify that as something going wrong. Secondly, fertilized eggs fail to implant remarkably frequently. Losing the food lottery and getting appendicitis is no different from losing the sex lottery and getting pregnant. If a little homunculus came about as a product of appendicitis, would you force people to suffer through it and die? Because a living obstruction is dependent on your appendix to live? What does this mean for ectopic pregnancies? "Adoption is an option!" : Adoption is an alternative to parenting, not an alternative to pregnancy. "Abstinence is the only 100% effective method to prevent pregnancy!" : So is gay sex. Are you saying you just want to punish straight people by requiring them to deal with pregnancy? Seems exclusionary to me! Discrimination! "Abortion should be the last resort!" : Pregnancy is always, ALWAYS a health risk. You are asking living women to risk their life on a potential life. People who can get pregnant should have the right to decide if they want to take that risk, especially in cases where they did not consent to the sex. "You shouldn't be able to murder a living being that depends on you!": Enjoy your tapeworms and also enjoy watching your pet die slowly because euthenasia is not legal anymore. Oh, you didn't consent to the tapeworm when eating that new food? Tough luck. You decided to eat and the risk of tapeworms is low, but never zero! "But humans are different from animals!": And? A fetus is different from an adult. "Fine, you can have abortion, but only when the mom's life is in danger!" : And when is that, exactly? When the pregnant person is suicidal because they're carrying the child of their serial rapist? When the pregnancy is progressing abnormally and the risk of infant and parental mortality increases? When the parent comes in bleeding profusely, but the fetus still has a heartbeat? When the risk of sepsis rises? When the parent starts going septic? When the parent falls into a coma? People have died like this, because doctors were too afraid to remove a child that couldn't be saved. There is no hard line when someone goes from fine to struggling or from struggling to dying. There is only a hard line where someone goes from dying to dead. Who gets to be the judge?

[@AudreyRobinel]

On top of your counterpoints, that i find precisely on point, i'd add that there is no need to argue with the woman defending pro life point of view here. Indeed, she is not there to debate and exchange views, but only to "win". She said that when she heard an argument she couldn't counter, she panicked, fearing that she coulnd't find anything to say. When i hear an argument countering what i say, if i am willing to discuss, i try to take it in, and understand how it my affect my views. A good argument should make you reflect, rather than scramble to find a "riposte". This woman is not interesting in debating the philosophical concept, but just to find ways to comfort her initial beliefs. I'd bet that no amount of discussion will ever change that. I form my beliefs (at least i try) on reflexion, considering arguments before deciding the thesis i believe in. She believes stuff, and then finds ways to support her beliefs. This is bad faith debating, and leads nowhere.

[@herb2110]

well said

[@pixmma9627]

I do think you consent to consequences albeit tacitly. When you drive a car you are hopefully aware of the consequences that could befall you and you decide to drive anyways. It doesn't mean there isn't fault or blame to be laid, but the idea that consenting to sex is consenting to possible consequences. That seems consistent to me. Consenting to mountain climbing is consenting to possibly falling because there might be faulty equipment or error but falling is a possible problem.

[@herb2110]

@@pixmma9627 so if you fall off the mountain, do you not have the right to deploy a parachute, and negate the consequences of the fall?

[@pixmma9627]

@@herb2110 like I'm not saying more beyond that point. Consenting to an activity will give you responsibility for consequences regardless of whether there is foul play. That's all I thought of the above point.

[@jamesgarrett7844]

Wouldn’t her argument sort of fall apart when we consider that the uterus is not the only organ keeping the baby alive? Pregnancy doesn’t just utilize the uterus; it’s a phenomenon which affects the entirety of a woman’s body. Does that mean that the baby has a right to all of your organs, so long as it has a right to one of them?

[@allisonhellman9538]

I hadn't thought of this but good point! I also think there are issues with the idea that the uterus is for the use of the fetus. By that logic, tubal ligation, hysterectomy, or any choice that can affect fertility should be as immoral as abortion because they permanently deprive any future offspring of this use, which makes no sense.

[@thesoloeffort1837]

Yeah, it’s not a great argument that the uterus is unique. A better argument is that there is a difference between killing and letting die. In the kidney example, refusal results in letting die. In the abortion example, the result is a killing.

[@beccaO0906]

I love different perspectives. The uterus is unique that is houses a growing baby... The other organs are supporting not the primary places of growth. I know a woman with a partially missing liver who still carried a healthy pregnancy. My sister with poor functioning reproductive parts had a difficult (nearly impossible, thanks modern medicine) pregnancy. Regarding the other options being immoral... They are preventive, not procedures that directly kill a developing life. Plan B and birth control are also preventative, and I wouldn't advocate against those measures. God Bless!

[@veronicawo3033]

A baby that has been born must have access to the entirety of your organs to stay a live too...if you didn’t exist to feed and care for them, they would die. Your organs support your life and the baby’s.

[@antonschultz111]

Also just because you CAN doesn't mean you should be OBLIGATED TO.

[@starrnanigans6402]

Here’s what really, really bothers me about this argument of hers: she says the woman, whether she wants to be a mother or not, in every conceivable situation, is morally obligated and should even be legally obligated to carry out a pregnancy no matter what the consequences to her are, because it’s inside her uterus which is an organ biologically made for reproduction, and it’s her child. But when the man asks her, “What if it turns out that adult she’s hooked up to is her child that she gave away at birth? Is she morally obligated to remain hooked up to them or give them her organs or blood?” And her response is essentially “Oh no that’s *different.*” She dismantled her own logic to prove its not about the life of the child outside the womb that pro-lifers are primarily concerned with, but the act of pregnancy and the grand “what if’s” surrounding the unborn. And all tied to religious belief, which is something meant to be personal and not enforced upon an entire population.

[@Detailabyss]

Let’s be honest here, the vast majority of people having abortions aren’t individuals practicing safe sex. And to devalue the life of a child because you made a mistake is insane. Let’s be clear Hitler thrived out of the ideology that some humans are lesser just like the US did with slavery. When you devalue a human life in the womb you get closer and closer to playing God. Also her response made since. Once the child is outside the womb then it can make its choices as it progresses through life. The scary part of abortions is not even the murdering of children it’s the fact that parts of society are so willing to devalue life because they made a mistake.

[@LoreCatan]

@@Detailabyss it's not devaluing life, it's saving women's lives, abortions are medical care. Birth scares happen even when practicing safe sex, for a number of reasons, from a broken condom to failing birth control, and in those situations, if you feel like you are not able to take care of that child in your current living and financial situation, or you feel like you don't have the temperament for it, not having the child is a totally valid choice to not make a future child's life hell. But I guess you don't care what happens to the baby after it's born, do you?

[@Irohhj]

@@LoreCatan key word “feels like”. So to that logic I feel like not worrying about the baby after it’s born, what’s wrong with that ? Id argue that’s not a very good solution huh. So instead of pretending abortion solves all your life’s problems let’s talk about things that help deal with pregnancy. Adoption , Pregnancy crisis centers, therapy , trusted loved ones, guardianship, parenting. Sadly this isn’t enough for women, and you want to pin it on the people that are trying to help. Who really is the one that doesn’t care what happens to the baby ?

[@LoreCatan]

@@Irohhj "let’s talk about things that help deal with pregnancy. Adoption , Pregnancy crisis centers, therapy , trusted loved ones, guardianship, parenting", none of which talk about the effects of pregnancy on the women's bodies, their hormones, their mental health, etc. After my mom had her third child, she developed tinnitus and it drove her crazy for a while. She still has it, and it was very hard for her to learn to live with it, because her ultimate paradise fantasy has always been a quiet, calm beach. But "sadly", all of these options that do nothing for the mother's health aren't "enough for women" and we just "want to pin it on the people that are trying to help", the tragedy, right? [when has that happened ever, I'd genuinely like to know when have women put the blame on people who are trying to help? What does that even mean] "Who really is the one that doesn’t care what happens to the baby?" I'm sorry I dare to care about the mother's life more than that of a fetus, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the consequences of pregnancy, and bad parenting/awful foster care. "key word “feels like”. So to that logic I feel like not worrying about the baby after it’s born, what’s wrong with that?" What's wrong with that is that you call yourself pro-life, when that couldn't be further from the truth. You don't care about the baby, you just care about the morality of it not being born. Quality of life should always be above life itself.

[@Michelle-oz6dr]

She doesn’t dismantle her argument because the adult would not be in her uterus. Also this violinist scenario completely discards 99%+ of abortion cases, where the sex was consensual and reproduction is a known consequence of sex.

[@AlreadyTaken999]

Hi. Doctor here with some interest in moral philosophy. Stephanie's arguments have a few issues: 1. There is general disregard for scale of obligations or "punishments". In arguments made here, Stephanie appears to use various examples - paying for a broken window, feeding a helpless infant in a cabin, etc. - as analogues to demonstrate her moral position as (self-)evident. I'd argue this is conveniently ignoring the reality of scale in the issue discussed. Pregnancy, even beyond the substantial initial obligation of 9 months of time, health conditions, etc., causes lifelong changes to a woman's body and has demonstrated ties to lifelong decrease in income and socioeconomic status, inflicting lifelong harms to both the woman and any other children she may have. Since she references our current legal body as evidence, it is worth noting that this is already baked into that framework. If you break a window playing baseball, you may be required to pay some amount towards replacement, but you are certainly not expected to wash a new window as long as it’s in place or otherwise have an obligation without clear finite end. We don’t give a life sentence to acts which do not deserve one. There are clearly competing interests and moral values in this debate, and in discussion, it is if anything MORE important to consider duties/obligations on balance. 2. Her base assumption that women hold some culpability because they engage in acts they KNOW to cause pregnancy is inherently flawed. Leaving aside the already-presented point that sex and pregnancy is generally divorced in modern culture, I would argue that the state of sexual education in the US especially is such that there exist a great many people, men and women, who are not adequately informed of potential consequences to make a rational decision they can be held culpable for, especially in a lifelong way. In the thought experiment of the violinist, even if the kidnapped victim had expressed themselves as a great music lover/member of the society and therefore had some theoretical increased risk of abduction, it would not change that person’s moral right to disconnect themselves from the violinist. The person surely might have greater internal conflict/consideration about the decision, but it is far from a moral absolute as would be necessary to justifiably legislate around this. 3. There are a few references to referring to “basic or ordinary” vs “extraordinary” needs around 12:30 and 20:00. This is entirely arbitrary and poor ground for a moral framework. It is easily argued that carrying a baby to term is extraordinary in itself and that doing this is an extraordinary act/commitment - one which, as referenced in (1) has lifelong implications for both the mother and any other children she cares for. I’ve personally seen/cared for women who would unfortunately be unable to feed their other kids if they were to have another. By Stephanie’s reasoning at the end of the video, this ought to identify carrying a child to term as an extraordinary act which ought not to have a moral/legal duty attached. 4. The uterus as a dedicated organ for fertility and therefore owed to an unborn child is an interesting argument. I’d argue the problem with this is that the uterus itself can only be regarded as part of a moral entity, not an independent one. It does not function outside a the mother’s body and its use necessitates obligation from the mother and every part of the mother (including her kidneys). The uterus’s status/purpose is also insufficient reason for this to be taken automatically as an obligation. Consider that food itself is meant to be eaten and to sustain the body, yet we do not consider it a moral duty to give our excess food away to be eaten by another, regardless of whether they require it to survive. It is considered our belonging (and therefore a part of us as a moral entity, if you will) and therefore its use can only be with the assent of the person who has it to begin with. Some of how this is read is obviously going to hit/miss based on the reader's fundamental assumptions and honestly most people engaged in this debate aren't going to come at it from an angle of logical reasoning. I'd generally argue that, in face of moral uncertainty and in light of our tradition of valuing personal liberty/autonomy, it seems exceptionally heavy-handed to legislate a requirement to carry to term. Overall though, I trust myself and mothers I speak with/care for to make a moral judgment without the interference of men I've never met at some state house.

[@kennylee6499]

I appreciate the well-articulated and thoughtful response. Here are my thoughts: 1) While the scale may be different, the underlying point is the same. That’s the way analogies work. They illustrate a point with simpler, easier-to-understand situations. That point being, there are consequences to your actions. Yes, breaking a window will result in a one-time fee. Obviously, pregnancy will entail much more. That’s simply the name of the game: those long-term obligations ARE the potential consequences of having sex. Perhaps you will return to normal like most healthy women after 6-12 months. Perhaps you’ll have saggier skin or darker moles. Or perhaps you will develop complications or have unforeseen side-effects. All terrible, unfortunate circumstances. But ultimately, no moral inconvenience justifies moral evil. None of those justify murdering the baby. 2) Indeed, there are many who don’t truly understand what they are getting themselves into with sex. But her base claims are not inherently flawed. Bringing back the baseball analogy, perhaps the batter didn’t *know* the full potential consequences of playing in the street. Perhaps they weren’t educated enough. That still does not remove accountability for their actions. Ignorance doesn’t shield you from consequences. In the US, ignorance from the law is not an acceptable defense. In any case, it certainly does not justify abortion. 3) I agree, Stephanie did not elaborate on her definitions which is unfortunate. But it seems the important functional distinction is between obligation for mere sustainment of life, and anything more. With pregnancy, the bare minimum is sustaining the baby’s life. That may come with unwanted duties or (as you pointed out), maybe worse things like destitution. But as stated previously, those are consequences of having sex that should have been considered. There are welfare programs, and adoption is always an option. 4) The original argument was that the uterus cannot be used for a child, because it is a part of the mother’s body, just like a kidney. Stephany argued that the kidney functions in the mother, for the mother. In contrast, the uterus functions in the mother, for the child. In this hypothetical, pregnancy has already occurred. So whether or not the existence of the uterus is reason to get pregnant (or as you say, be “obligated”) is beside the point. By very nature of pregnancy, the mother is going to be involved heavily, whether she wants to or not. Most of it will be passive functions that occur naturally, so no conscious effort is required on her part. As for the food… it IS a moral duty to offer excess food for another’s survival! If it is within your means, and you are able, you are obligated to give what is required to sustain human life. If a starving child was next to you, by your logic, we aren’t morally obligated to give them leftover pizza!? It doesn’t matter if it belongs to you. If the issue is consent, then that has already been addressed before: having sex entails responsibility for the consequences. You can’t consent to the action, and not consent to the effect. From a purely logical standpoint, there is no discussion. Abortion is murder, and carrying to term is the morally correct decision. Of course in reality, this is much more emotionally charged, especially with rape cases. But if we value personal liberty and autonomy, we ought to consider the personal liberty and autonomy of not just the mother, but the child as well, because they are as much a person as everyone else. There may be men you never met at a statehouse passing these laws, but those men aren’t the ones making the moral judgements - the people are.

[@rickmarty1750]

@@kennylee6499 because the gasoline is literally 9/11 liquid

[@suptumberlumbertumberlumbe9305]

@@kennylee6499Kells and windmills and dumdum gomez doorknobs and shay mccay dark wood cabinets while there's oil and grease on the high school chemistry lab table while there's lots some complaints from classmates about that all in the different room across the hall you go in and sit down one day. Next, Andover trip in 2 days but then when you're on the bus and when it's a bit dark at six in the morning on the bus you hear the noise while going fast, it reminds you of compounds of the oil and orangish red grease

[@ForgeofSouls]

always interesting to hear actual points of argument rather then overly emotional people scream at one another. Some more than others.

[@stuartl7761]

Yeah. Prochoice myself, but this was really good. You could tell they were genuine and having a discussion in good faith.

[@elizabethdickinson8814]

Exactly what I thought as well. It’s inviting, wether I agree or not.

[@hogannull7022]

She doesn't have any actual points. She's sitting their trying to imitate an intelligent person for 20 minutes. I feel sorry for everyone who lost brain cells watching this.

[@derpyoreo2611]

@@hogannull7022 she made many points. The purpose of the uterus, the natural human progression, your moral obligation or lack thereof to care for someone, the disparity between fathers and mothers when you examine the aspect of child support, and more. Disagreeing is fine, and you don’t have to argue in a KZbin comment section, but comments like yours do not promote a thoughtful and intellectual discussion, and only weaken your position.

[@cwkay6847]

@@hogannull7022 If you don’t think she made any points maybe you should watch it again

[@SkibidiMemeRizz]

If America had to treat every religious belief, people will be upset. You don't have abortions, that's your right, but don't you dare put your beliefs on others.

[@mybuttsmellslikebutterbut207]

Murderer

[@nomms8172]

i agree

[@nomms8172]

@@mybuttsmellslikebutterbut207 don't need to attack anyone for having different opinions dude, they were being respectful

[@SkibidiMemeRizz]

@@mybuttsmellslikebutterbut207 You murder people for putting them in adoptive care. See how this gets nowhere?

[@mybuttsmellslikebutterbut207]

qOmega really because I feel pretty much alive. My grandmother was almost aborted in 1948. Back then abortions were not practiced, so my biological great grandmother drank bleach in an attempt to abort my grandmother. Alas my grandmother was born and left at the entrance of a church. She was given up for adoption. She wasn’t murdered in adoptive care. And although she never got adopted, she found a family in the nuns that took care of her.

[@katherinepierce2300]

I don't like philosophical debates about real life because they turn something that will actually effect some people's lives into cute, little, nicely packaged ideas and then the philosophizers convince themselves that because they can think of a counter or an argument to a scenario, then that's what other people should adhere to or believe as well. As if they have found an answer for all based off of their safe, imaginary testing of their own morality. Why is that problematic? Two reasons: 1.) It leads them to portray anyone who doesn't agree with them as selfish for being concerned about their own life because they have already convinced themselves that they have the morally superior answer and 2.) They belittle the reality of the situation for someone who does actually have to go through it. I personally think that if you aren't in a position to have to walk the walk, then stop all the talk, especially when you are talking to people who may actually have to walk the walk and you are just trying to convince others of what they should or shouldn't be doing, knowing that you are sitting in a place where you'll never actually have to follow through with your own sense of morality. It's really easy to tell yourself what you will or will not do, if you know you'll never have to follow through and that your decision on the subject will never really cost you anything. In real life, pregnancy effects real women. Real pregnancy doesn't exist within the luxury of 15 minute spans of time, at the end of which you can put all the concerns away and tell yourself that you know what's best. Real pregnancy effects real people's outcomes. These types of debates can have a place when it comes to your own life. They offer little to no value to anyone elses. Instead of imagining fanciful situations to support your ideologies, how about you find a way to apply them to real life? How about we focus on better child welfare for the children that are born and placed into foster homes or given up for adoption, or how to help the poverty rates of single parent households, or how to better prevent accidental pregnancies from occurring, etc? These types of debates pretty much just focus on telling you what is or isn't moral and then the participants wash their hands of all the realities that surround the subject. Maybe time and effort could be better focused elsewhere. Maybe we should collectively raise the bar for calling ourselves pro-life? Maybe it should be less about people's thoughts on morality and more about the actions taken to actually support the stance that life matters? Maybe force yourself to put your money where your mouth is and not simply stop at deciding yes or no to a question.

[@jessegrove5456]

Kinda agree and disagree. I do think more should be done… but for most people, it is their philosophical opinions that actually motivate them to help others.

[@katherinepierce2300]

@@jessegrove5456 I agree with you. Personal philosophical questions can motivate people to help. I think that answering yes or no is just step 1 to a series of steps that need to occur to actually promote a good life for the both the mother and child. I've noticed that a lot of times, like in this video, people just stop at step 1 and I don't think that that's very helpful to the real life application of the decision.

[@jessegrove5456]

@@katherinepierce2300 glad we agree. Have a good day!

[@patrickcasey357]

When a woman gives birth, the baby exits her body, her uterus remains. Not so with the kidney analogy. The violinist argument is ridiculous.

[@bulletanarchy6447]

The point of the violinist argument is that even if it was a born person, she would not be obligated to donate her body as life support

[@elyssatruman1292]

I’m adamantly pro-choice but hadn’t thought about my position actively in a while. I really enjoyed this video as food for thought, but I can’t find myself buying into the argument that a person is any more obligated to give their uterus to someone than their kidney. Its function to support another human doesn’t change that it’s still your own organ. That said, I really appreciate the nuance behind her arguments even if I ultimately disagree with them.

[@aymericst-louis-gabriel8314]

Your not obligated to "give" your uterus. You're obligated to provide your child with ordinary care. And per her argument, given the Biological role of the uterus, letting a fetus use your uterus is ordinary care skin to feeding your hungry baby with formula.

[@thegodofsalad]

I think theres just a little more nuance than just a woman lending her uterus. For example, there is a lot of damage that happens to a womans body giving birth. Or at least that what my mum tells me 😉

[@quinifer3622]

Yeah, I don't get why it's my duty to have children. That's awful.

[@heidi8969]

Good for you for looking at different sides!

[@omi8015]

thegodofsalad Idk about that. My mother in law had 12 kids and she currently a smoking hot body builder. Her body is that of an Olympic athlete.

[@ppaaccoojrf]

The consent part of this is nonsense. Even if somebody consented to being connected to the violinist in order to save their life instead of being kidnapped, I don't believe it is unreasonable for that person to change their mind and decide they don't want to be connected to the violinist anymore at a later point. It's a difficult decision to make but the violinist is still not entitled to their body.

[@awesomerthanyoutim20]

how is nobody else seeing this 🤦‍♂️ it’s glaringly obvious. I think that her obvious ignorance of willful stupidity is stunning. my issue is that people don’t go around “randomly getting hooked up to babies and therefore have no responsibility to them”. They’re culpably fucking up. If that’s the “strongest she can make her opponents argument” I don’t think she’s ever listened to her opponent.

[@cass-bd5jr]

yea lol. even as a pro-lifer i thought the argument wasn’t too convincing . i have to disagree with the “change their mind” part. the fetus is already developing and has a heartbeat just a few weeks in :/ if you know that sex = reproduction, then why wouldn’t you use contraceptives including birth control? taking a life bc it’s inconvenient for you? something to think about.

[@ppaaccoojrf]

@@cass-bd5jr I see your point, I myself have very complicated feelings about this issue and struggle to consider myself in either side. I'm just taking issue with using consent as an argument here when the original analogy completely destroys such an argument. If the argument is about personal responsibility then I completely agree, and I see absolutely no issues with arguments about the preservation of life (which is already a part of the violinist argument anyways). The main issue I raise on this topic is the involvement of the State in personal decisions and the religious connotation of many of the arguments (which I find completely unnecessary and quite distracting from the issue).

[@mynameismyname7795]

No, the consent part is sensible. This new rule of ending consent midway of a process is what is nonsense, and it encourages irresponsible behaviour... hence why it's not allowed in business contracts (without penalties). You consented to possibly have a baby when you agreed to have sex. Then nature gave you a baby. It's too late to withdraw consent. If you chose to buy a non-refundable item from a shop, you don't get to take back that choice. It's done.

[@amihere383]

@@ppaaccoojrf The entire point of using consent to counter the violinist argument is to point out the fact that it's wrong to start with. In the vast majority of cases it would be more like the person agrees to providing the violinist their body for 9 months, then they actually attach their bodies and the person says "oh this is gross" and backs out. That's what actually happens for abortions. No woman should ever be surprised by a pregnancy if she's having vaginal sex regularly. Even with contraception.

[@memejuliyamemepuchkova4882]

“We can deal with the exception of when someone hasn’t consented; in the case of sexual assault, and nonetheless gets pregnant. While they haven’t consented to the act that brought about the pregnancy, by virtue of being the parent of the child, biologically the rape victim is the mother of that offspring. Parents have a responsibility to care for their offspring in a way that they don’t have a responsibility for strangers” Nothing taken out of context, nothing twisted around or added to this. These are her own words. She has no argument for a rape victim having an abortion aside from ‘sorry this thing happened to you, but this is your problem now’. 8:38-8:57

[@jenmai9326]

And now rapist dad gets 50/50 custody of said child, furthering the trauma the mother experienced.

[@bybeatrizatta]

'Parents have a responsibility to care for their offspring in a way that they don’t have a responsibility for strangers”. That's her belief, her faith. That is not reality. Parents do not have an innately responsibility to care for their offspring. Parents choose to care for their offspring. The moment a parent doesn't abort and doesn't give the baby up for abortion after birth, they are CHOOSING to be held responsible. If after that they don't feed the kid, they should go to jail for not complying with the responsibility they chose to have. She indeed has no argument for rape cases except her faith.

[@pedazodetorpedo]

Exactly, her argument adds insult to injury for rape survivors (she calls them victims). She has clearly never experienced sexual assault since she has zero capacity to empathise with women who have. It's a very childish view of the world and it's very telling that she offers no practical solution for a rape survivor who is forced to bear a child nor for the child and their future prospects either.

[@cortster12]

@@bybeatrizatta Parents choose their responsibility. Agreed! We need to get rid of child support then for this belief to be consistent.

[@bybeatrizatta]

This might come as a surprise to you. But as a feminist, I agree. I think men are giving few options of birth control that they control the correct use (condoms and vasectomy) and even they could fail. I don’t think it’s right to force fatherhood in men. I do think that they should have only the time the woman will to decide (fathers will have to make their decision during early pregnancy). Of course this creates gray areas - what if the woman doesn’t tell him? What if they are uncertain of who the father is? Etc. But I’m sure we can define an addendum for each.

[@Reginald_Ritmo]

The greatest flaw of the violinist argument to me is that it removes the causual element of the issue. Had the subject of the inquiry been responsible for the violinist's peril, I would find it more accurate.

[@rossalanmiller]

I believe that is intentional as a means of strengthening the argument for abortion in cases of rape. In that case the woman would be involved in the person's peril but realistically it was out of her control.

[@erikastewart940]

but if you accidentally got in a car accident with the violinist, and you caused them to need the medical treatment, that still should not give them the legal right to use your body without consent.

[@Addison.Renfroe]

@@rossalanmiller that's what I struggle with. My father was the result of rape, so I do not feel quite right saying "Yes, my grandmother should have had the right to kill you." In the famous violinist argument, the couple made a choice that resulted in a child. They directly instigated the situation, so it would not be moral to kill the child, or "unattach", for an inconvenience you made. But as pro-life as I am in cases of rape, I struggle to justify it using the same logic. The woman didn't have a choice.

[@davinriedstra3928]

The violinist argument can be played with a little to shed light on the prioritisation of values and how they play out in various circumstances. For instance, if a person knowingly chose to be hooked up to the violinist, but after one week or month of discomfort and inconvenience, decides they don't want to do the whole 9 months, then what's permissable to do? Or what if it's not just for 9 months, but you are financially and legally responsible for providing for the violinist, who will awaken amnesiac but gradually relearn how to be an adult over the course of 18 years? Or what if the patient was never a violinist to "save", but a newly discovered species who can be elevated to humanlike intelligence, but only by receiving human blood regularly, and you have no way to know whether that being will be good or bad to humankind, but you will be held responsible for what they do (at least socially) forever?

[@kielhawkins9529]

@@davinriedstra3928 The issue with this all is that the whole argument stems from the violinist being tied to some random stranger. Instead it's not a random stranger, but your child, your offspring who is a part of you and yet a separate being themselves. So the question is, do parents have a moral obligation to care for their children?

[@TheCharleseye]

The violinist analogy falls apart when you consider the fact that the other person wasn't kidnapped and did, in fact, knowingly consent to the one act that would result in a violinist being attached to her.

[@170221dn]

Yes, exactly the argument falls down when the person did not consent.

[@pyrotek45]

@@170221dn not really, lets say a person did consent to keeping the violinist attached, they still reserve the right to pull the plug whenever they want to. that's the point.

[@GrammarSplaining]

@@170221dn That opens the door to abortion in cases of rape.

[@170221dn]

@@pyrotek45 I am talking about someone who does not consent

[@170221dn]

@@GrammarSplaining Indeed

[@TimberwolfDan]

The violinist argument is insanely childish and the comparison doesn't make any sense.

[@ajwillis2030]

Elaborate

[@koolxhades]

It's not a childish argument, but a seductive argument to weak minds. I studied the argument in my ethics class and we probably used the same text edited by Beauchamp. I think many of classmates fell for it.

[@HansKeesom]

I heard the nine months for the first time. If I found myself in that situation, sure, I will endure it for 9 month knowing I save someone's life that way. The parent that does not give it's kidney to it's child and let's it die, is guilty of murder. A parent should even give the second kidney to it's child, even if it means the parent dies.

[@artsenal714]

Let me propose a scenario: If I was severely injured and I was loosing a lot of blood needing urgently and fast a blood transfusion otherwise I would die and you were the only person in the room who has the same blood type than I do, making you the only one that could donate me blood and save my life, would you say you’ll had a moral duty to give me the blood? Do you think if you don’t give me the blood it would be murder? What would you do in that situation? In my opinion, I’d say no, even if it’s your fault I ended up in that situation and regardless if we were strangers, friends, a couple or family. That’s why I’m pretty much pro choice. Because I think even if the right of being alive it’s real, no one has the right to use someone else’s body to live unless the person wants to voluntarily lend their body. I think the person who’s lending the body, should have the choice to not lending it, even if that would kill the other person. That’s why I’m not only against ilegal and criminalized abortion, I’m also against savior siblings and in some cases surrogacy. I’m also against very late abortions unless the life of the mother is endangered. I think when the pregnancy is very advanced and the mother doesn’t want to continue, a caesarean can be done instead. For example at 7 months, the fetus can be taken out of the womb and doesn’t need it’s mother body to survive. It’s just what I think.

[@HansKeesom]

@@artsenal714 I would say officially not bu in any other way I would be you a murderer, making a small inconvienince for myself more important then the life of someone else. Donating blood is not lending my body, heck even getting pregnant is not if you get pregnant in a normal non criminal way. It is just one of the functions of that body, the whoom was made for it afterall. But it is good to know you would not be a blooddonor, although I would be that for 9 months if that would save your life.

[@seniorsperspective5967]

Having a child is not a nine month commitment.

[@HansKeesom]

@@seniorsperspective5967 correct, but being pregnant is and that is what the violinist example is about.

[@progenderrole1329]

@@artsenal714 *vaccine existing* is to *20th booster* AS *running stop signs* is to *T-bone accident* AS *showing up around 3 every night* is to *barely showing up ever*

[@Deperuse]

Wow. I am impressed, and so late to this. Great testimony, great arguments, God bless, Ave Maria! Thank you very much.

[@suptumberlumbertumberlumbe9305]

20TH boooooster!!

[@progenderrole1329]

*vaccine existing* is to *20th booster* AS *running stop signs* is to *T-bone accident* AS *showing up around 3 every night* is to *barely showing up ever*

[@shaynatattersfield4043]

OK, a few issues. Consent to sex should absolutely not be considered consent to pregnancy. Consent To kissing isn't consent to getting mono. Consent to sex isn't consent to getting an std Birth control seems to be getting harder to obtain, making it harder to 'play ball' safely. And there are cases where the other player deliberately throws the ball at the window. People normally go to a park or something to play safely. Shouldn't it be easy to find a safe place to play ball? And of course, the ritcher whiter neighbourhoods will have more parks. Pregnancy can permanently alter your body. If we're using the kidney argument, in this case you can't know if you have two fully functioning kidneys. The remaining one could be damaged or you might not even survive the surgery. If we go back to the violinist argument, let's say when you wake up they tell you that they used your genetic code to make a child. Technically you're that child's mother, but you didn't consent to that. And, while your plugged in for the nine months, you'll be incredibly sick, unable to work, unable to do many things you love, and slowly lose your ability to move as you please. Nobody has a legal obligation to use their body to make the next generation. If the wombs job is to make babies then people who don't want babies should be able to remove it. Which can be extremely difficult to do. In many cases it even requires a husbands consent. Even if your not married and have no intention to become so. Also, the breasts job is to make milk, but your not legally obligated to use them for that purpose. Sperms job is to fertilise an egg. It's not a crime to throw it away. Why are you legally required to use your womb but not legally required to use sperm? Why is abortion a crime but 'wasting' sperm isn't? And babies are incredibly expensive, there are even cases of people stealing diapers and formula. And the fostercare and adoption systems aren't nearly enough. Some kids are taken from their homes due to poverty (and racism) only to be sent to centres that veiw them as a means to earn money. Using money given to feed children to in rich themselves. Rape isn't bad because its an act preformed by a strong party onto a victim. (also men get raped too) It's bad because someone is using your body without consent. It's bad because it's something you have to live with for the rest of you life. A fetus won't remember "dying". A rape victim will It can be violent and physically damaging It is incredibly psychology damaging Disgustingly rape can be difficult to prove. And there's a lot of awful victim blaming. So I will reiterate, rape is Never the victim's fault Yes I like that you used a steelman argument. Yes I like that you were polite. But I don't agree with you.

[@deponensvogel7261]

Nobody remembers dying. That's the point of death. As to your other points: You bring up a lot of unrelated stuff. Whatever happens after the child is born is not part of the debate. The debate centres on the question whether it is morally acceptable to kill the emerging human being in the womb. In the proposed argument, women are not obligated to use their uterus per se, only in the context of actually having a child in there. An obligation to supply sperm and breast milk does not exist in that line of reasoning because the failure to do so would not result in the child's death - whereas cutting it out of the uterus does.

[@yami1389]

@@deponensvogel7261 there's is actually an application to use your womb, since many doctors will refuse performing hysterectomy unless the woman had at least one child. Also men can get their tubes tied easily, with no issue from the doctor, while women can't. And the morally acceptable part that everybody is ignoring, is this: is it morally acceptable to let an unsupported child be born into this world? Because, sorry to say, most likely no person who's against abortion will adopt that child. And I think they meant that the rape victim will remember the rape and the death of the child.

[@deponensvogel7261]

@@yami1389 I don't think that this is an argument worthy of attention at all. Evaluating the potential value of a human life possibly coming into this world and deciding by that metric whether it has a right to life or is actually better off dead - euthanized - is the one sure thing human dignity prohibits you from doing. Even the sad, desperate, ugly, hurtful kind of life is dignified. That's also why I find it highly problematic and disturbing to have a special abortion regime for sufficiently disabled people. Why are you so certain that nobody contra-abortion is going to adopt a child?

[@yami1389]

@@deponensvogel7261 None of the loudest people are actually helping. Idk, as someone who's extremely suicidal and has been for quite a while I'd genuinely rather I had been aborted than born into a family that genuinely wanted to abort me. Sorry, i dont think I'm gonna reply next time. Have a good life

[@blackbear601]

@@deponensvogel7261 thank you for responding. I was going to type something identical

[@ruecumbers]

Watching this made me realize I'd never actually heard an arguement about abortion before now that really went past 'my body my choice' or 'you're killing babies.' There's so much negatively charged energy around this whole thing from either side that it totally drowned out any actual conversation for me. I've always been pretty ambivalent about the topic and at the moment I still am, but this gave me a lot to think about.

[@uncopino]

but all this is built over the assumption that an embryo is a person. which is not by the way. plus this video is exactly a “my body my choice” strawman vs a disguised “you’re killing babies” argument just embellished with a bit of ethics speculation. basically the violinist argument is “my body my choice” and they dance around the premises a bit with the assumption that “you’re killing babies”. this is how religious pricks, anti science movements and conspiracy theorists argue. don’t fall for it

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

Well at the end of the day that's because that's really all ultimately what all arguments one way or another come down to despite how they are dressed up in language. At the end of the day you are killing. The only possible circumstances where intentional killing is justified is when the results of not killing are of an equal or even greater coast. It is true such circumstances do occasionally arise, but they are vanishingly slim. Anything else, to kill an innocent for any reason less than to _literally_ save another from life or the most grievous bodily harm is murder. Blood for convenience, one way or another.

[@uncopino]

@@Laotzu.Goldbug i disagree. an embryo isn’t a baby.

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

@@uncopino embryo, baby, fetus, hippopotamus, moyocellular agglomeration, call it whatever you want, the semantics are irrelevant. The only question is: "under what circumstances are willful killing justified, and does this situation meet them."

[@uncopino]

@@Laotzu.Goldbug define killing. see? you can’t escape semantics

[@donnamontanarella2403]

This was a very interesting and different discussion. Stephanie really impressed me. She is a very wise woman. I have liked and subscribed.

[@kennylee6499]

@@freedommatters7677 it was an analogy to highlight the underlying point: actions have consequences

[@BrianHanifan]

The very fact that they use precautions (birth control), shows that they are aware that the act bears a risk of pregnancy. They know it's a risk. They prepare against it. They take the risk anyways. Then get pregnant and claim that they have no responsibility towards the child that was placed in their womb.

[@oooshner4277]

No, and especially not if they were using condoms/birth control/whatever to stop an unwanted pregnancy. If I go drive somewhere, and crash, does that mean I consented to the crash? No. If I used a seatbelt and turning signals and my mirrors, I acknowledged the risk of crashing and I took measures to prevent it, did I consent to it? No, I still didn’t consent to it. If a skydiver’s parachute fails, and they knew it was possible that it might, do they consent to dying? Should they be forced to die from that fall because they knew their parachute might not deploy? No, they don’t. And the exact same goes for your comment.

[@BrianHanifan]

@@oooshner4277 If you have sex, even if you try to prevent pregnancy, you don't get to kill the child you made. You made a child. You knew that might happen. I know you knew because you even tried to prevent the pregnancy. You knew what could happen and it happened. You can't avoid responsibility for your actions by killing your child. It would be more like someone saying that they can't be held responsible for spreading HIV because they used a condom. You are still responsible. You knew you had HIV and we know you knew because you had sex with a condom for the purpose of not giving it to your partner, you didn't tell them you were HIV positive and now you've caused harm to another and are responsible.

[@queenofhearts7503]

This

[@sordidknifeparty]

And as for men paying child support, you nailed it dead on the head. Women should have a right to their body to choose whether or not they continue to carry a baby, and men should 100-percent have the right to opt out of fatherhood. Having a child together should be a contractual issue, not the sole decision of a single party

[@EB-bl6cc]

Agreed, it's confusing that the pro-choicers expect men to be obligated. People want to have their cake and eat it too, apparently. (also confusing because if abortions being legal was SO important to them, you'd think they'd be very willing to concede the male child support thing in order to get more men on board and greatly strengthen their movement. Just saying)

[@KilelSix]

@@EB-bl6cc We do not all expect the men to be obligated. I am pro-choice and I've believed for years that the father should be allowed to relinquish responsibility. The only thing is that this should come with the caveat that the father is barred from participating in that childs life for so long as they refuse to pay child support. Potential all of the benefits, none of the costs type deal otherwise.

[@KilelSix]

Except in rape cases. The rapist has then forfeited their right.

[@sordidknifeparty]

@@KilelSix I agree a 100%

[@KilelSix]

The difference here being is that the father does not have to carry the child. This is an asymmetrical issue and it has an asymmetrical solution as a result. The father should be allowed to "abort" responsibility at the cost of being barred from having any impact in the child's life, but the mother should not be forced to carry to term just because they want to abort but the father does not.

[@jonmkl]

Good God.. am I the only one that would stay plugged in to the violinist? I would be destroyed by that situation if I unplugged him. I would just charge him an exorbitant amount of money for the privilege lol.

[@anac4630]

haha same

[@jilbageorgalis1568]

Yes, I couldn’t kill him...that would be awful!

[@ameanlimabean]

The argument is that you aren't legally or morally responsible to do that if you so choose however I'm sure most people would choose to save another the violinist like you

[@seanocansey2956]

Haha nice

[@rimgrund1]

@@ameanlimabean Actually, I think you are morally obligated to stay plugged in. You're not obliged to volunteer for that role, but if that's where you find yourself, you're bound. Which is a different moral question, but does also cut off the rapist exception.

[@freakymeff]

i honestly don't understand how it it immoral to abort, but absolutely ok to give birth and then abandon them? In this society, knowing what we know about the children who end up in the system? there are very, very few cases of happy situations. i think the US is suffering from a deep moral disconnect at this point: if life meant so much for you, you wouldn't find issues with more "social" measures in form of universal healthcare, unemployment support, birth and child care, gun control, etc. You'd even find that women in general do not reach for abortion as first resort, but rather last resort: when they don't have financial support, when they know they'll lose a job or won't afford to pay someone to take care of the child, when they need to save their own life, when the pregnancy was forced upon them, etc. Abortion should always be a choice women have, because it is OUR body. But if you were really pro-life, you'd work on encouraging the already existing one, that is in need of care and protection.

[@optimisticzebra8498]

It's archaic to think that a woman who was raped and impregnated should have to have the child. I'm sorry that makes no sense. I'm not a fan of abortion, I hate to see it used as a form of birth control but I do think in the modern world we can understand the few circumstances in which terminating an early pregnancy is completely understandable and we need to agree to disagree. Instead of shaming that mother, let's focus on punishing the rapist

[@bilbusbungledore7222]

Lol imagine being killed because your dad is a rapist

[@bilbusbungledore7222]

Also ignores that women can rape men, get pregnant and then get an abortion

[@michaellawlor5625]

Funny thing about pro choice is, the baby has no choice. 🙄

[@Hugo.345]

Funny thing about pro choicers is that their mothers were pro life about having them..

[@88feji]

uhh ... I thought you would need to at least have a basic thought process begun in order to choose ?

[@leslietuma5937]

It has nothing to do with the baby but the mother

[@_gongon]

@88feji Yeah @Michael never said babies had a basic thought process, thus they neither have a choice. Clarifying this your comment just reaffirms @Michaels comment, which also is a little nonsensical. Also, I don’t understand your use of an sentence mark at the end of your sentence because you are no asking any questions. Also I just wasted like 3 min writing a comment that is part of two dumb comments. I am pro life tho.

[@BhBc8f8]

@Davidson 1 yeah that was really a dumb somewhat inconsiderate comment.

[@AlphaSeagull]

The thing is, no matter how many arguments anyone makes in this video, there is NO other law that inhibits on Body Autonomy. If my best friend was dying and in desperate need for a blood transfusion, and I happened to be the only compatible donor, there's no law that states a Doctor can shove a needle into my veins without my consent even if it's essentially at no harm to me. And even if I GAVE consent, I can rescind that consent at literally any moment I wish, the transfusion could be 99% done but legally I can change my mind last minute and deny that last 1%. Would it make me a bad person to deny that consent and leave my friend to die? Maybe. But would it be illegal or otherwise charge me with murder? No. Because that's how Body Autonomy works. Legally regardless of any consequence, you cannot force a person to undergo bodily changes they don't consent to. If I die in front of a person in desperate need for a kidney transplant, they literally cannot even take my fresh kidney without my express written consent beforehand. But a pregnant woman? Oh sure nothing wrong with forcing her to have a child she likely never wanted in the first place, can't afford to raise and no one will adopt if she puts them in foster care. Nothing else matters in this argument because the fact is, it's a constitutional right for a woman to have this choice, and you're desperately trying to take it away based on your OWN values and decisions.

[@dratrav]

I'm pro choice, I just also like playing devils advocate, I think it helps strengthed opinions and arguments But these arguments arnt entirely the same. A closer argument would be to say you go under surgery for a rare disease, the problem is it has a chance to make it where you can no longer use your arm, if you dont get the surgery you just struggle to sleep. You decide you want to take the risk for better sleep, you end up losing your arm, now you are angry at the doctors and demand they put your arm back on, but they donated it to a new patient who needed it. Which at that point is it even YOUR arm? You gave permission for sex and went all the way threw with it knowing what could happen and that you could regret it similar to your arm, now you are pregnant. Is it still even your body or is it the childs? At that point you actively knew what could happen and that you might regret it, yet decided to get the procedure done. The "worst" possible outcome happened and now you want the decision to be reversed In this situation another's life is drastically effected by you reversing the procedure, do you still maintain the rights to that arm/ body when you willingly knew the risks and went threw with it anyways?

[@ivanascioffi]

@@dratrav How is removing a body part and surgically attaching it to another person the same as a cluster of cells that develops inside one's own body without any outside intervention? You don't have to separate a woman's womb from her in order for a fetus to grow, in fact if you did that it would die.

[@naeemakhtar4036]

​@@dratrav the thing is, not everyone who wants an abortion gives permission to sex, so this analogy wouldn't work.

[@picklejho69]

@@dratrav Tell us you think every woman wants sex regardless of the answer to the question without telling us you're a rapist.

[@gorkemaykut5230]

@@dratrav making abortions illegal would put rape victims in a bad spot

[@aguilacec]

I can't believe we don't know more about this activist. She's great!

[@bulletanarchy6447]

She is dreadful

[@progenderrole1329]

@@bulletanarchy6447 depression isn't real

[@gabrielteo3636]

If you think gestating and then birthing a child for 9 months is ordinary care and minor, then you have not had a child. Some people would prefer giving a kidney than gestating and birthing a baby. You can change it to donating a pint of blood instead of donating a kidney. Are you legally obligated to donate a pint of blood to your child? No. How may people would rather donate a pint of blood than gestating and birthing a baby you don't want?

[@cumter_69420]

Although my own views don’t align with hers on the matter, I found it refreshing to hear from Ms. Gray’s perspective in a thoughtfully-presented, coherent manner.

[@stm7810]

Why do you hate freedom? do you want to live in north Korea?

[@Dhorpatan]

@Hunter My goodness I see people fawning on Stephanie all over the place. I wish I could come back in another life and have human beings praise and kiss my behind like they do Stephanie.😍

[@meusana3681]

her entire argument is "a uterus is for making babies, therefor god says you don't own it." Well a kidney transplant is for saving lives, therefor you must be obliged to donate a kidney too, right? Utterly missed the point of the violin argument and redirected focus off it. You can't break down an analogy by first accepting its validity, that's why analogies work in the first place. This is like saying "yes, your ruler did in fact measure 1inch, but here's why my 1 inch is actually equal to 2 inches". A ruler is an analog measuring device, by definition. If an analogy is sound, then the conclusion is correct by default. If the point you try to measure is on the 1inch line of the ruler, then the thing is 1 inch, unless you made a false analogy by not starting at zero....Catch my drift? I can only break down an analogy by pointing out that you never started at zero. (holy crap, I just had to make an analogy of an analog device in order to explain analogies, trippy) The possible outcome of a transplant patient is analogous to the possible outcome of a pregnancy, the purpose of which is to ensure the well-being of the same living organism. (yes, a fetus is a living organism, just like an amoeba or a virus is. Please stop arguing that they're not, its a bad point.) You can't just point at specific organ purpose and deduce that it's not valid for organ A or B. You need to produce a falsification of the analogy, show how transplants and maternity isn't analogous. You can't say they are but (insert special pleading).

[@aabahdjfisosososos]

@@stm7810 most abortions are literally for no reason given

[@treyt6474]

How do you disagree then? Ive never heard a rebuttal to these, just topic changes or strawmen. Are your preconceived ideas preventing you from seeing the immortality of abortion or do you actually have a rebuttal?

[@shadchu3o4]

the video lowkey lost me the moment they started talkinga bout how the victim of sexual assault that got pregnant is now obligated because it's your blood. like there's not enough legislation or support to tell the woman to carry it to term and change her entire lifestyle due to someone's misgreavances.

[@blisguy]

More instances where a woman's body is controlled by a man.

[@MrCmon113]

Plus the assaulter shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.

[@mikekasich836]

there are no victims of sexual assault seeking abortion it's a made up strawman by eugenisists There is absolutely no evidence for the abortionists claims that the majority of abortions are because of rape or incest

[@BramLastname]

They seem to conflate moral and legal obligations (Especially the lady, the guy is much more neutral in tone) There's no reason I should be legally obligated to take care Of someone who is essentially a parasite. They talk about this subject as if waking up pregnant without your knowledge Is equivalent to consenting to getting pregnant Or even just give some food to a child. A 9 month long encumbrance that forces someone to change their lifestyle And sometimes even severely risks death Is not something to be taken lightly, Especially when it involves being a victim of illegal and traumatic events.

[@bulletanarchy6447]

@@BramLastname I think you are over defensive about it, gestation is a reproductive process by definition that process ends with the completion of something. A parasite is not, a parasite is existing in it's natural environment, a human body or whatever body it can exist inside, that body did not produce a parasite it is invasive. A woman's body has carried an ovum on average for 30 years before the sperm cell that fertilises it was created. I don't see that you need a whole list of excuses to terminate something that is not yet separate.

[@katamas832]

Well, the Violin argument is kinda weird for me. There's no way I can even remotely treat an adult equal to a fetus. Like, how? There's just no comparison beside DNA makeup, the fetus lacks many essential cognitive functions that an adult has, or a late-term fetus or born baby has. Until that point I see it mostly as killing a rodent feeding on your lifestock, it's not the best solution but you gotta do what you gotta do, because that's gonna cause you more issues later on, and is already causing issues. You're more important than the rodent, and likewise the woman is more important than the fetus. That's my perspective on this. I value a woman's bodily anatomy and well being more than a fetus' life.

[@EdwardCullen667]

As do I. 🥰 I think it’s because we share this thing called common sense. Unfortunately it’s quite rare these days…

[@stayathomemarine]

Who was the one who allowed the 'rodent' into your farm to feed on the livestock to begin with? It didn't just sneak in. I believe women and babies are both equally valuable. I don't see any life more important than another. A life is a life and all are equal

[@katamas832]

@@stayathomemarine Yes, it kinda did. Similarly to seggs, you can take precaution like protection, and it still might fail, like the fence might have a small hole in it that you couldn't have possibly noticed, the rodent might dig underground, or find a scaffolding to climb over it, or straight up this rodent can just climb the fence. Nothing is foolproof, and when something goes wrong, you shouldn't just "well, this happened, lets just have the consequences mess us up", no, you should try to fix the issue. I also find the "accept the consequences" part weird, it's the equivalent of doing a safe sport and accidentally breaking your arm, and you shouldn't seek medical attention because "it's what you signed up for". Consent to an activity is not consent to accidents that happen, nor should the problems the accident caused be ignored. What exactly do you mean by "a life", I'm not sure I understand it and wouldn't want to talk past one another.

[@DethSymphony]

@@stayathomemarine All life is NOT equal. How does a baby provide as much value to society and those around it as a grown woman? Have you ever seen a baby working at a hospital? At a store? Or doing important research? A baby only has intrinsic value to it's parents and only POTENTIAL value to society. Meaning it will likely add value to society as it grows up. But as a baby, it's pretty fucking useless.

[@ssze0626]

How would you define “essential cognitive functions”? If you are a human person, why are essential cognitive functions necessary to be considered a person? The unborn child and even just-born infant are still continuing to develop and have the potential to gain as much cognitive intelligence as the normal human adult. Would you argue infanticide is justifiable since they lack these essential cognitive functions? Do people/grown adults that are mentally impaired to the point of lacking these “essential cognitive functions” not qualify as human and therefore is it justifiable to kill them?

[@saza8993]

The violinist argument is the worst argument I've ever heard.

[@SusRing]

To quote Monsoon from MGR "How easy it is to ignore the loss of life, when it suits your own convience."

[@suzanneyoung1729]

Tell that to the Drone Masters, CIA, DOD, Big Pharma & other multinational corporations - for starters. & all the hawks in Congress & elsewhere.

[@laurellee8472]

100%

[@bulletanarchy6447]

It's interesting that you don't consider pro life convenient for anyone

[@willmathis8645]

Are you illustrating your ideology with a villain's monologue?

[@SusRing]

@@willmathis8645 yes, yes I am

[@sevenlewis3687]

Can we get it straight that pro choice folks are not “pro abortion?“ 🙄

[@sloppyjoes7]

No. We cannot. You support abortion. You are pro abortion.

[@YadraVoat]

Until they realize how extreme current US policy has been, yeah.

[@iRant4u]

It's projection because they're not pro-life, they're anti-choice

[@vaughnd222]

I agree! I support the *right* to an abortion. Birth control fails (I am an example) and if you're using such, then you likely are not in a life situation that is healthy and conductive to a stable raising of a child. While it might be "selfish" to abort a child and continue on life childless, bringing a child into the world without the means to care for them is arguably worse in my opinion. It's not an easy argument to decide, and each person is unique (if you are mentally unfit for example, you might not want to have a child that would suffer the same way you are since it's often hereditary) you can't make blanket statements on if someone should or shouldn't because only that person can know if they have the means and ability to support someone else for 18 years (or more in today's economy)

[@S91761]

@@vaughnd222I totally understand what you are saying. If we are using birth control, then we are not ready or capable to raise a child. But if we all now that contraceptives can fail, can't we remove the posibility by just not having sex? Or most people are not capable of doing that? Maybe educate children that if they are not ready to raise a child, they should not have sex? I personaly think that it would help, if we change the perspective of sex for the newer generation.(but not the way religion has done it) What are your thoughts on that?

[@worldadventuretravel]

Abortion is not about religion or morality. Abortion is about economic control and domination of women. That's what it has always been about. In the late-stage capitalist, decaying U.S. empire, abortion is also a way to force poor women to have poor babies desperate enough to be cannon-fodder for its endless regime-change wars. In a country that only cares about children when their in utero and has absolutely no social safety net for women OR children, arguing against abortion is not only disingenuous but sociopathic.

[@farmerchick3040]

I find it frustrating that people think being pro life is all about religion...its actually about science and constitutional rights.

[@timducote5713]

Yes, in addition to Ethics and Morality.

[@bradenpittman1801]

The uterus argument falls apart when you think about all the other ways pregnancy affects your body, if only your uterus was affected by pregnancy the argument might hold weight but that obviously isn't the case, you're giving your entire body up for 9 months, likely longer, when carrying a child. That isn't even to mention the long term complications often associated with pregnancy and giving birth.

[@aaroneisenman6873]

actually no, because the same and/or similar effects occur after any organ donation. So it still comes down to what the fact that the uterus is there solely to incubate an unborn child.

[@Grace17524]

Thank you. Why does she say something like "with a kidney you have to contemplate your mortality and your current responsibility as a parent" uhh is that a fucking joke? Lol apparently Nephrectomy (kidney removal) has a mortality rate of 0.9% while pregnancy in the US has a mortality rate of 0.02% in 2020. I think we should really focus on our health care system and our mortality rates which are very high compared to other 1st world countries before we blame women for considering such things. Imagine you had to decide to stop taking a life saving medicine or treatment to carry your baby safely or go through a risky pregnancy, leaving your living family and babies behind. People say "that never happens" but it does and it's fucking horrifying

[@finnchristensenkraft1771]

@@Grace17524 im sorry but pregnancy in the US does not have a mortality rate of 28.3%, it is actually 0.02% (28.3 death per 100,000) according to cdc.gov

[@SeekerLancer]

@@finnchristensenkraft1771 For now. Don't expect it to stay low if abortion is banned. We're already seeing cases of miscarriage going untreated in Texas because doctors are afraid of legal action being taken against them.

[@juanmajmt]

not to mention, the analogy was never about "what x organ was made for" it's about "who's the owner of x organ", hence bodily autonomy. Saying that the uterus is solely for another being, while true, is irrelevant and introduces something for the sake of the counter argument. Shame on the philosophy" professor" and god, they both are bad at this.

[@gabrielmorales2842]

Stephanie Gray is one of the smartest and best pro-lifers out there. She is awesome. Thanks for having her on the show. You're doing great work sir and helping me out a lot.

[@88feji]

But her "uterus is for making babies" argument is like saying if a person has put some coffee beans in a coffee making machine, he/she MUST MUST NEVER press the stop button just because the machine's function is for making coffee ...uhh, thats ridiculous. She still has not provided any arguments to why just because you have an ongoing process means you must never stop or reverse the process .. Ultimately the argument still go back to the issue of personhood, whether an unborn fetus can be regarded as equitable to a born person with all the same rights.

[@mackness29]

​@@88feji I would argue that a woman whose life is in danger due to something like an ectopic pregnancy that would be a justifiable situation to have an abortion, mainly because if the pregnancy continued the mother would likely die resulting in the death of both the child and the mother... doctors must save as many lives as possible given the situation. Otherwise you cannot reverse a person. Life is a continuum. Once a new life has begun, to end it through willed premeditated choice is considered murder in most circumstances. When did you become a person 88feji? I would argue when your unique strand of DNA was formed when your moms ovum met with your dads sperm and became fertilized. Once that strand of DNA is joined it has all the biological information necessary for a new human to develop. Your eye colour, your hair colour, many aspects of what make you you that are rooted in biology. To end that is to end another growing human being (whether they are an embryo, fetus, or labelled otherwise). Personhood... I would argue that having ones own unique strand of DNA is what makes one human different from another.. a human fetus although dependant on a mother for food, shelter, etc... is not an extension of the mother. Connected to the mother but not the mother. This separateness I would warrant the to the initiation of rights for the unborn child.

[@gabrielmorales2842]

@@88feji I think the difference is that a cup of coffee isn't a living innocent human being so it will be quite alright to press the stop button. Her uterus is for someone elses body argument is for people who call the baby parasitic or who say the baby doesn't belong there or is violating the woman's body etc. She always says why. She says it is wrong to "stop" the process via an abortion because an innocent unborn human being is killed directly and intentionally. Well yes, that is the main issue at hand. If the unborn is not human, then abortion shouldn't be controversial and women should be able to get abortions at any time for any reason. BUT, if the unborn is a human being, it changes everything. How we treat the most vulnerable humans in our society matters. Also says a lot about us as a society. What are your thoughts?

[@LeoniCarsoni]

@Qwerty actually the pro life stance is a push to grant an unborn child MORE rights than a born one. No born human has a right to use someone else's body against their will.

[@LeoniCarsoni]

@@gabrielmorales2842 plants are vulnerable too. The immorality of an action has nothing to do with vulnerability. Is aborting a fetus more immoral than killing a teenager?

[@zaryariver6732]

Interesting angle on the topic. What I rarely hear discussed is how sex is almost always necessary for a healthy relationship. If you want to be in a (heterosexual) relationship and yet not have children, it's as if you're not allowed. I believe this is a fairly extreme stance to have. It is unrealistic to think that people who don't want children should never have sex. Also the argument that you have an obligation to the fetus as its mother to give birth to it would mean that the father would have an obligation to support the woman while she is pregnant. As well as if you have an obligation before birth, why should this stop after the child is born. If the child is given up for adoption in the USA likely the child will suffer abuse in the foster care system, and if you are able to give them a better life should you be obligated to do so? When I think about it, it doesn't seem like the argument that the parents have an obligation to the unborn child holds up very well. This topic is extremely complex and the implications of either sides of the argument are a hard pill to swallow.

[@dominic64tblightning24]

if they're put up for adoption as a baby, there's a long line of people waiting to adopt. the foster system is people abandoned at an older age generally

[@Darvobrad]

Even more - a father cant say: "O no, Its mine, but I don't want it."; But the mother can decide to give it for adoption and be held responsible. Those anti choice supporters fail to see that the most important thing is not if you are pregnant or not, but if you are ready for the responsibility that pregnancy brings with it - raising the child as a decent human being. We are not animals, so sex should not be considered a legal agreement to raise a child. Also just think about it - who is doing abortions? Why they do it? If a woman has took the hard decision to make an abortion, then its better for all to not force her to raise that potential child. If the reason is medical, or social, or economic, or criminal - its understandable. But even if the reason is, that she is a person that refuses to be a responsible grown human - well its better for everyone involved to not force such a person to raise a kid. According to her logic, my spermatozoids also have the right to live and fulfill their function, when I nut in a tissue paper a am committing a crime against them, since I am the strong party, and they are the vulnerable one... And for those that will say its ridiculous to claim, that gametes can be compared to an embryo - you are just discriminating haploid cells, how "non inclusive"!!!

[@Jay_in_Japan]

There are non-procreative forms of sex 😉 Plus, if you're in a heterosexual relationship and don't want children, either partner could get sterilized, and then you can have all the sex you want

[@Jay_in_Japan]

And yes, the father would have an obligation as well. Why specifically doesn't the obligation argument hold up well?

[@zaryariver6732]

@@dominic64tblightning24 This isn't true in the USA. For example in Texas the statistic is that 62% of babies are adopted by the time they reach a month old. In my eyes 38% of babies likely to end up in foster care is way too high of a number. The foster care system is brutal and needs to be overhauled. For the most part we have gravely failed the children who are in the foster care system and we will add to that number exponentially if millions of women now need to give up their babies for adoption because they could not abort or take a plan-b.

[@TheBmonster1]

This arguement is stupid comparing walking around and waking up in a hospital to having sex unprotected and taking responsibility for that decision by caring for the kid you made.

[@maddymckinney1490]

At around the 20 minute mark she says when deciding to save your child’s life by donating your kidney you have to factor in how it might harm your health or jeopardize your ability to care for your family. How is this different than when a pregnant woman’s health or ability to care for her family is in danger from pregnancy? Honestly interested in how that could be discussed. Even if my life were at risk equally in both situations, I would struggle far more to end the life of a child who may be experiencing pain and fear than the life of a fetus that cannot feel or comprehend the experience as a fully developed child could. Really I don’t think this analogy holds up because every pregnancy is unique and complex. Generalizations made by either side will never be as valuable as careful consideration by medical professionals on a case by case basis.

[@caffeineman72]

Abortions performed to preserve the life or the health of the mother are so rare that they do not register statistically, according to Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood, who did more to promote and spread abortion on demand throughout the world than any other individual. In 1967 he commented, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life.” As far back as 1981, former Surgeon General of the United States Dr. C. Everett Koop said “The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent.”2 He was backed up by reformed abortionist Bernard Nathanson, who said not long after, “The situation where the mother’s life is at stake were she to continue a pregnancy is no longer a clinical reality. Given the state of modern medicine, we can now manage any pregnant woman with any medical affliction successfully, to the natural conclusion of the pregnancy: The birth of a healthy child.”

[@illyrian9976]

The Catholic Church makes exceptions where abortion is allowed if the life of the women and the child are at risk. In that case the abortions goal would be to save the women, not to kill the embryo, which is an unintended consequence which would have likely happend anyways if the abortion didn't happen. But this would be a rather rare event compared to most abortions that happen today.

[@michaelcombrink8165]

With the kidney it's random, nobody caused it With inception it was caused by 1 party if rape, by 2 if consensual A more accurate analogy would be you put a gun to someone's kidney, Does the law look kindly on you putting someone on life support If you did pull the trigger, would the victim win damages and medical fees up to your ability to provide So maybe you allow abortions to the same degree that your allow putting people in the hospital comatose on life support, with 30 years of rehabilitation ahead of them All of the arguments are moot at some point, What are the goals? What methods work to achieve those goals? We all want happy healthy free just society We all want respect for all We all want safety and protection for all We all abhor rape We all care about mothers fathers and children We all feel sympathy and desire to help those in struggle The question shouldn't be how can I get myself into the worst situation possible and choose between lesser evils We should get as far away from bad situations as possible How about debating alcohol in the abortion debate? How many inceptions would be more thought out if people didn't get naked while drunk How about abstinence, what if that was encouraged and taught in schools, 12 year olds shouldn't be told how to crash a car and handed extra airbags, without a lot of emphasis of how dangerous, life changing, expensive, difficult etc that crash could be Yes I agree, kids mess around with things and some teaching is needed, but it sucks, first of all 2 year olds have questions, but you don't start or with pubic hair, explain functions as necessary so that kids don't think they're dieing etc, but focus a bunch on why and how, You can explain every part of a car, where and how to add gas turn it on, but that doesn't explain why you want a car that's on with gas, explain that you can get places, do things, do errands, carry stuff etc Intercourse is more than function it's a tool, that has many uses, relieve stress, bond, make babies etc. and like everything if used improperly can cause serious damage Kids should have exercises going through what their life would look like if they got pregnant at various stages of life and various scenarios, they should visit teen pregnancy homes and prisons and visit dropouts paying child support, They should also visit classmates of these kids that were parents before they were ready They should visit and hear from parents that have tried to get pregnant, parents that have had miscarriages in all the bloody detail with all the tears They should visit with would be parents that had abortions They should visit with multigenerational happy families Divorced families Unmarried families Abused and abusers Addicts Recovered addicts Teaching people how a fire starts is necessary, but it is irresponsible to not teach fire safety, and no, handing a kid an Ikea fire pit and a gallon of gasoline does not cut it Boys and girls should protect eachother, not egg eachother on to see jumps off the cliff first not knowing how shallow the water is and how few survive the fall

[@nerfherder48]

Kidney disease is an unintentional abnormality that humans are not meant to develop. A fetus growing inside of a uterus is its intended purpose. As for financial strain or increased stress, the woman is already pregnant. The child is already here. Im sure the person that got kidney disease wishes he could simply abort the disease, but it doesn't work like that. Because children are not a disease, instead of seeking to kill the child, plans to give up for adoption can be made.

[@optimisms]

@@illyrian9976 But we don't always know in advance which pregnancies will risk the mother's life. The act of childbirth itself comes with innumerable risks, many of which cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy prior to labor. Women with otherwise healthy pregnancies die in childbirth too. The point of the "pregnancy is dangerous" argument is not to say that we should only allow abortions in the case of life-threatening _pregnancy_ it is to point out that the entire act of pregnancy and childbirth is complicated, dangerous, and can often be harmful or life-threatening to the mother, and we should include that in our discussions about abortion because too many only want to talk about the harm to the fetus.

[@whattheheckification]

I remember this violinist argument from my ethics class in college. Even while discussing it in class I started to come to the right answer, though I didn’t flesh it out as well. I was already thinking, your child in your womb is way different than a stranger artificially attached to you.

[@matthewsmith1927]

It’s absolutely ridiculous; something a teenager might come up with. The glaring flaw, of course being the woman in the scenario was “kidnapped and against her will combined with the stranger.” We all know how pregnancy happens in the vast majority cases. I don’t understand how it’s considered “philosophy” to the the fatal flaw in this scenario. You really don’t have to be smart to see it.

[@NoSoupForYouu]

@@matthewsmith1927 Actually it's quite easy to understand how this happens in their minds. They've separated pregnancy from sex. Our culture no longer looks at sex as the act of unity or of procreating anymore. Think of a scenario where its a boyfriend and a girlfriend rather than a hookup, they commit adultery because in their mind thats how they "express love with one another". They've completely removed the child out of the equation and only becomes an accidental byproduct. It's disgusting

[@marccrotty8447]

@@matthewsmith1927 Philosophy studies logical fallacies. The volinist argument is readily examined in logic.

[@matthewsmith1927]

@@marccrotty8447 what logic? The logic that getting pregnant is conflated with being kidnapped against ones will? Lol. gtfo 😂

[@Grizabeebles]

@@matthewsmith1927 -- It makes sense if you believe a woman is allowed to agree to have sex on the specific condition that she doesn't get pregnant. Imagine a man and a woman agree to go bungee jumping together and the bungee cord breaks. They survive, but then six days later a complete stranger walks into the woman's apartment and starts living on her couch for the next nine months. I feel like you've never willingly considered the idea that sex is an agreement between two people and "having a baby" is a completely unrelated agreement two people make on behalf of a third person who doesn't even exist yet.

[@marie-jeanne_decourroux]

The "violin argument" is ridiculously illogical, because it is not the fetus that conceived itself, but its mother and father (and if they did not want him, then mostly even in irresponsible negligence !) .🙄

[@bulletanarchy6447]

I think it's just that she doesn't understand the point of the argument

[@charissanelson142]

I've watched this video before and just watched it over. I really appreciate the conversations dynamic. Easy to listen to!

[@OrtegaSauce]

Right away she says "pro-abortion" I ain't pro abortion. I don't wanna kill every fetus. I want women to have the right to choose.

[@OrtegaSauce]

Is there a third group called pro abortionists? All they do is call the group pro abortion

[@douglasthompson9070]

Then you're in conflict with yourself if you're not pro abortion but you are for the right to choose. That's the point of this argument.

[@OrtegaSauce]

@@douglasthompson9070 to me saying pro abortion or pro death is very polarizing and looks really bad for those who are pro choice. Because pro life people want all fetuses to be born, but that doesn't mean pro choice people want all fetuses to be terminated. If my gf got pregnant we wouldn't terminate. Does that automatically make us pro life? Idk if I'm making much sense, I'm not great at articulating my ideas, my bottom line is that pro choice people don't want all fetuses dead, they want the mothers (and possibly fathers, but that's a different conversation) to have the right to choose, hence why I say I'm pro choice, not pro abortion.

[@XtopherBryson]

Pro abortion doesn’t mean that you want all fetuses to die. Pro abortion literally means that you are in favor of abortion. Not that you demand it from everyone, only that you are in favor of it, if it happens. And this is true for all pro choice people. Maybe it doesn’t sound as nicely as you would want it to, but it remains true. You should actually embrace the term, since it is literally what you are in favor of.

[@OrtegaSauce]

@@XtopherBryson I'm in favor of choice. Hence, pro choice.

[@on1yslightly215]

A lot of her arguments are based on the idea that going down to one kidney has absolutely zero risks for the one donating a kidney, when in fact, it alters your life expectancy quite a bit and health risks become more likely.

[@waldoman7]

I do not see how any of the arguments are dependent on that, or if they are, how that is significant. It would just mean she needed a better example

[@FacebookAunt]

Pregnancy has long term and permanent health consequences too. Death. Abdominal adhesions. Rectovaginal fistula. Permanent skeletal damage. Chronic pain. Heart disease. Diabetes. Stroke. Mental health problems. Permanent physical brain alterations. Anemia. Chronic hypertension. Incontinence. Vaginal prolapse. Chloasma. Facial and body skin discoloration and disfigurement. Increased shoe size. Fallen arches causing permanent foot pain. Carpal tunnel syndrome. Skin tags. Heart burn. Bladder dropping. Rectocele where the rectum herniates into the vagina. Tooth loss. Varicose veins. Hemorrhoids. Pregnancy is absolutely heroic. This isn't a routine part of a normal life, this is heroically putting your life on the line.

[@Grace17524]

She seems to do the opposite. She says kidney removal requires you to contemplate mortality and current obligation to parenthood to living children. As far as I see, child birth in the US has a higher mortality rate so I don't understand her acting like pregnancy doesn't cause death let alone health affects. That women she talks about who was assaulted apparently isnt going above and beyong "giving the basic needs that are already there" to the child. She's sacrificing her health and body

[@heathcliffO_o]

I never liked the violinist argument because it IS a little hyperbolic and it is NOT exactly a 1:1 comparison. I much prefer the version of this argument that states something to this effect. "say a child gets poisoned through no fault of their parents, the doctors manage to stabilize them but it turns out that the child is septic and their kidneys have completely failed, can you legally compel the mother to donate her kidney?" The obvious answer is that she absolutely should do this, but society absolutely CAN NOT force her to. Basically I don't agree with abortion but I recognize that it is not my PLACE to tell someone else not to.

[@michaelhunter6086]

Stephanie seems like a smart lady but her obvious religious bias is taking over her view. The basic care argument and parental responsibility are doing a lot of heavy lifting here. A parent has a responsibility of care to their children because they consented to having that child, got pregnant and carried it to term, not because just because a virtue exists once they become pregnant. Rape is bad not because a stronger party is attacking a vulnerable party, it's bad because one person is forcing sexual intercourse on another without their consent. If a vulnerable weak person attacked a stronger person unsuccessfully, it would still be assault and is immoral. What is basic care? If their was no food in the cabin, one would not be expected to chop 🪓 off their arm too feed to the child. There are risks associated with pregnancy and a woman can't be forced to unwillingly take them on. Using the argument about how the uterus' purpose is to incubate babies is her refusal to engage in the plugged in violinist hypothetical completely. She's allowed to make her choice based on her beliefs but so can everyone else. If the fetus wants to choose life, it better grow up.

[@deanlowdon8381]

She lost me when she said God spoke to her…

[@keanuovareeves]

I don't appreciate her calling sexual assault survivors "vulnerable". Many people who were not in vulnerable positions are still assaulted.

[@krjohnson29]

It seems to me that at 10:20 she is using the term "vulnerable" in the relative sense. No one is invulnerable, after all.

[@hamnchee]

How can you say that a person who was raped was not vulnerable to being raped?

[@atme3297]

In context she wasn't calling sexual assault survivors weak people, she's saying someone took advantage of them at a vulnerable moment weather that person was intoxicated or physically not as strong as the attacker and etc

[@andrieslouw6588]

Vulnerable: Adjective: exposed to the possibility of being attacked or harmed, either physically or emotionally. It's the best word to use in this context. It is at the least, a watered down description of someone's that's about to get raped. She could in fact, use a series of stronger terms to describe it. And it would still not suffice the state of someone that's being raped. A good choice of word in my opinion.

[@andrieslouw6588]

By definition, you cannot experience any harm without being vulnerable. Impossible

[@slameba]

Let me spare you 20 minutes. The real premise of this video is not the "violinist argument" but happens at 30 seconds in: "So, moving beyond the idea that abortion supporters will say 'the embryo isn't a person', what is happening is some abortion supporters are saying ''the embryo is a person, is equal to you and me " After this we have 20 minutes of philosophical nose picking about an argument that doesn't work without considering embryo a person. So for all the talk about "steelmanning" and "aquinasing" the argument before dismantling it, we just nonchalantly handwave the actual root of the topic by saying "some people think this". It's like if I said: "moving beyond the idea that some people will say "the Earth is round", what is happening is some some people are saying 'the Earth is flat' ", to start explaining why we are at the center of the universe.

[@ZeroNumerous]

The reason it's moved past is because there's simply no discussion to have if it isn't moved past. Person A: "The embryo is a person." Person B: "The embryo is not a person." Person A: "I believe you are wrong, as an embryo is the basis of a person." Person B: "I believe you are wrong, as an embryo is not a full person." That's it. There's no discussion to be had past that. It's an unnegotiable impasse where neither side can present any argument to convince the opposition.

[@Whodjathink]

@@ZeroNumerous Then this would show that we ourselves need to study further and come to a more sound conclusion on just what a "person" is.

[@austincarlson9270]

​@@Whodjathink well I suppose there is evidence that each side can give to another about the topic that might not change the others mind but will reinforce their opinion such as that a fetus has a heartbeat and can kick legs. Just an example

[@pupsi3523]

@@Whodjathink there is no way to study that. It is a strictly philosophical and ethical topic because the construct "personhood" is not clearly definable.

[@armin-senpai9194]

thanks for saving me the time mate!!

[@chipblood]

I'm going to watch this 20 times and commit this to memory. Great guest. Thank you!

[@bulletanarchy6447]

Why?

[@bulletanarchy6447]

I can guarantee her argument is drivel

[@progenderrole1329]

9/11 gas

[@thestarseeker8196]

Oh my God. Thank you video crew and comments section for being an area which isn’t overrun by lunatics of one end or the other. I was about to punch somebody, maybe myself for existing amongst a populace which refuses to think critically. This may be small within the noise but please take my appreciation.

[@caswanden454]

I feel you were so close to the point when talking about the kidney analogy when you mentioned having to consider whether giving your kidney would cause you health complications or impact your ability to provide for your family. Pregnancy can and often does have severe medical consequences that last well beyond the duration of the pregnancy and can potentially be life-threatening. In many cases, the pregnant person is unable to work for much of their pregnancy, thereby putting their family through undue financial hardship. In the worst cases, the pregnant person may actually die as a direct result of pregnancy or childbirth. So by requiring people to continue with unwanted pregnancies, you are requiring them to take on the same or even greater level of risk as compared to donating a kidney.

[@johntippin]

This is incorrect, at least for the USA. Maternal mortality is very rare, and happens at lower rates than kidney donor mortality, i.e. 23.8 out of 100,000 vs 3 out of 10,000 for kidney donors

[@caswanden454]

@@johntippin and as regards complications? Inability to work, long-term side effects, the overwhelming changes that happen to pregnant bodies and of which many are permanent? If death is the only outcome you feel is severe enough to care about then it's possible we place fundamentally different values on human life.

[@DarkMage501]

@@johntippin The US has a much larger maternal mortality rate than every other developed nation, specifically for black and indigenous women. Even if it were 1 per 1,000,000, a woman should have a choice if she wants to take that risk.

[@Sumilidonuser]

If I recall, she did already stipulate medical consequences in her argument. Extraordinary circumstances have no moral obligation. The fact of it is that there might be a struggle to provide, but there would be no moral consequences if there weren't. That (at least in her mind) isn't an extraordinary circumstance. That's a regular part of raising a child. It's why she didn't get onto that point, because you could always put the kid up for adoption. If it's finances DURING pregnancy that we're talking about, I agree to the extent that it's not reasonable to expect a pregnant woman to work as hard as she may need to in order to provide. The part I think conservatives need to concede is that entertaining the morals of support means that society at large may be responsible for helping support those within it. By doing so they may have to shoulder the responsibility of financially supporting THE WOMEN BIRTHING THE NEXT GENERATION. It's an important thing to get figured out and dealt with. BUT I'm no activist or policy maker, I'm just a guy on the internet. It's not my job to figure out and fix things, it's my job to be irrational and angry on the internet, so uhhhhhh HOW DARE YOU FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T IMPACT MY OWN LIFE IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

[@psuw]

You cant work during a kidney transpl. Either. Its about the time afterwards

[@mk14ist]

Still pro-choice, but this is clearly a smart and well thinking woman, great to listen to!

[@nitrogenax2327]

care to explain why you are?

[@BM-fz9yc]

Maybe because unlike 99% of Americans, they aren’t afraid to listen to people they disagree with?

[@nitrogenax2327]

B M no I mean why are they pro choice

[@wylieryanjonlean3661]

That doesn't make sense if you can't provide a decent counter argument.

[@mk14ist]

@@nitrogenax2327 I personally think the societal benefits of allowing woman to chose to have an abortion are too large to pass on. Also, especially if the pregnancy was not started with the consent with the woman, it is too heartbreaking to force the woman to carry to pregnancy to term. Furthermore I don't think it's right to grant an unthinking, unconscious feutus the same moral value a birthed human.

[@bulletanarchy6447]

The funny thing is, there are comments from people, who genuinely believe Matt Fradd is a pro choice advocate that is coming round on some of Steph's points.

[@annakareninacamara6580]

The first 3 minutes almost made me sick. I had never heard of the violinist argument, and it's so unsetteling to hear a baby can't live in the mom's body, even thought is acknowleged as a human life. This is so absurd that I wouldn't have an answer if it popped up on a debate. So I really thank you for this video!

[@bulletanarchy6447]

You didn't actually watch it did you ?

[@mongoose6685]

As someone who lost 4 years of his life studying philosophy, I venture to say: it really doesn't matter that much how and why the person got pregnant. If she knows she is bringing a child in a horrid life (absent father, abject poverty, illness, violence, emotional neglect) I really can't see how the government has any right to impose that life on the mother, the child and the rest of society - which invariably will have to pick up the pieces. If people cannot be forced to be good parents and the state does not systematically care for neglected children (we all know child protection services are abysmal and often simply return children to unfit parents) then the obligation to bring any unwanted person in the world is clearly never quite taken seriously, even by pro life advocates that accept such poor child caring services.

[@eroldemiral9513]

According to your argument we should also kill little kids that have a horrid life. Doesn’t make sense

[@networknomad5600]

From your comment, it sounds a lot more like we need to reinstall social values and community culture into society first and foremost. Also, it's not "imposing that life on the mother." Biology does its thing regardless, that's not the government. Don't conflate the two.

[@granthillmann6378]

So only working class women should be allowed abortions because the environment the child will be born into isn’t ideal? That would just be a “mercy killing,” and doesn’t really make sense. No one will know the future that individual holds and there are countless stories of people taking full advantage of life and becoming successful even thought they grew up in tough, working class environments. I do agree that the foster care system needs reformation and that the government needs to do a better job assisting children.

[@mongoose6685]

@@granthillmann6378 I never mentioned class or having to be rich. One can be born in "priviledge" and be abused and neglected to the point of perpetual insanity. If the mother/parents can't or won't take care of the child, in some cases, nobody really will.

[@granthillmann6378]

@@mongoose6685 But suffering in general is ineradicable from life. Anyone who has have lived has suffered greatly. Some more than others, sure, but still, everyone suffers. That’s not a reason to end a human life. Maybe you hold anti-natalist beliefs, which, if that’s the case, I politely disagree. But If human life has intrinsic value, then no matter the circumstances of the environment, it is morally wrong to end that life, even if it is a “mercy killing.” And the last point about no one caring for the child is where I agree. There are a lot of options to combat that problem, but something should be done to help those who cannot help themselves.

[@Kyuukoks]

She is very smart, but I feel that some of her analogies don't apply to abortion situations due to the lack of parallelism. Such as for the baseball analogy, there's a difference between breaking the window of someone else's houses and breaking the window of your own house- it is your choice to fix the window or not, while you have to pay for breaking someone else's window. No one can force you to fix the window of your own house, but you should reap the consequences of breaking someone else's window (if they request you to do so). This same baseball analogy can be used against her argument regarding the man paying child support, and women having to take the responsibility to give birth. It is up to the house owner to decide whether or not they want to fix the window, and whether or not to request the window-breaker to pay or not. Therefore, if the child is had, the partner that does not have custody or may choose not be involved in the child's life (could be the mom or the dad- the mom does not always have custody over the child, which she seemed to assume, trying to make it a sexist thing) should pay, if the parent taking custody requests it. This is because the non-custody parent is not helping to fix the window and therefore should help pay for it. Now, honestly I am pro-life for myself but pro-choice for everyone around me, because I do not believe in forcing my values on others as I do not know or understand others' circumstances. A lot of her arguments were value-based, which changes from person to person and are hard to refute in general. Even logical arguments differ, as more than one thing can be logical, and logical also differs from person to person. I respect her perspective, but I can't say I agree with a lot of her arguments. Her views on the uterus and sex simply don't align due difference in values. My counterargument for the others are also more value-based and harder to explain through a short comment (this one is long as it is), so I'll just keep to argument above. All I have left to say is that, it is important to ensure that abortion is legal, because womxn that need to have one (pregnancy is more complicated that popping a baby out of your vagina, and let's not even get started on raising a child), will resort to using unsafe means to have an abortion, which is unsafe for the baby and the womxn. Just like we claim that we don't have a say on how a child is raised and that it is up to the parents, we also don't have a say on whether or not the parent chooses to have the child.

[@geliz2486]

Great comment!👍🏼

[@veronicasardo76]

Very cool of you, i am a trans woman so i cant say that if got i prego i would abort it cuz i mean if i got a baby i would be shocked cuz wtf and happy cuz i i didnt think it would happen lol but i support my cisters and brothers for when they need abortions to continue safely trou their lifes

[@tomato1606]

The paralell works just fine. It is about cause and effect. You act in a certain way you are expected to bear responsibility for those actions. Besided the mother does not have "ownership" over the newborn you can not do what ever you want to it like you can break your own window. The mother represents the weaker party in case of child support. It is not about paying for the damage done to her but the right of the newborn for care.

[@saje239]

@@tomato1606 That sounds like you're upset with the woman who set up the analogy which used babies as property. The commenter simply pointed out that you're obligated to fix or be accountable for damages to someone else's property/body, but not your own. Every individual gets to decide what to do with their own property/body. She or you would need to defend the position that a person should be legally obligated to repair their own house to make it analogous.

[@bersuleria]

hey i think your comment is great but please replace 'womxn' for 'womyn'/'womin' or something similar cuz its ableist and im sure tts/voiceover (for blind people) cant read it . i just read that somewhere tho im not sure hehe

[@wingsofmae]

Risk of permanent damage to a women's body is above and beyond... Your child is in a burning building. Many say they would risk their lives to save them (beavo). Should you have the right to choose that risk?

[@insight827]

But having children, as you explained, is a huge responsibility. You have responsibility to your child. But the thing about responsibility, the key to responsibility is that you chose it. Responsibility should never be forced upon you - and if it is, then you should not be forced to accept it. So your argument for the rape case falls flat.

[@ccdecker]

The argument for the "purpose of the uterus" falls apart when we consider the purpose of miscarriage, which is officially known as "spontaneous abortion." It is thought that up to half of all pregnancies are rejected by the body due to a lack of fetal viability. Usually the woman is unaware she was ever pregnant. If God and/or Nature is killing up to half of all pregnancies because the fetus is unable to thrive outside the womb, then abortion - spontaneous or induced - is clearly a very natural and normal process that should not be interfered with.

[@ZeroNumerous]

Then the argument falls to what is or isn't a viable fetus, and unfortunately the majority of abortions are not for fetal inviability.

[@valentinasof]

Purpose of miscarriage? Miscarriage is a potential state of the pregnancy it is not an organ. You can have a kidney that works well and then it fails. Since kidneys can fail, we can rip out healthy kidneys from your body. Spontaneous or induced.

[@knucklehead2493]

Actually 72% of conceptions get aborted This data does not include induced abortions In the US 11,000+ fetuses are aborted in the first 24hrs AFTER birth An additional 10,000 will be aborted within 12 months of birth LIFE DOES NOT BEGIN AT CONCEPTION Life begins when the fetus can sustain it's own life

[@kayceeisonfire]

I don't think it's fair to compare "natural abortions" or miscarriages to induced abortions. If a miscarriage occurs, it's because there was a problem in the process of fertilization/implantation/growth and development of the child and the pregnancy would therefore have never continued. In the case of an induced abortion, most are done for the sake of convenience and/or because the pregnancy was unwanted. The baby would likely have grown to term as usual if there was no interference, unlike in miscarriages. But either way, the argument about the uterus still holds up because it is only used for reproduction whether or not the child develops past the fetal/embryonic stage.

[@smugsenko]

I think trying to define "The Purpose" for things is not possible. (this is kinda an argument about Christianity) 1. It's like defining truth. In life, everything is a spectrum. 2. It's not our duty to say what is right or why things are "designed" the way they are. 3. And like why do we have appendixes? Purpose? If humans were created in their modern form, scientific discoveries that the appendix once had a use are not applicable. I find the "test from God" explanation to things very infuriating.

[@SeoulNotFound]

Imagine telling someone that was raped they have to go through 9 months of remembering the rape everyday

[@XoxoxoKaixo_]

Okay. Then let's make abortion legal, but only in the instance of sexual assault. Is that fair?

[@7kVestra]

I think most people who are sexually assaulted do not forget

[@Auxified]

@@XoxoxoKaixo_ I think many people support this position in theory, but implementation is the issue. Proving r*** is too difficult. Tons of r*** happens today that won't be processed legally because we lean into the idea that it's better to have free r***ists than convicted innocent people.

[@bluewolfnerf1686]

Imagine telling a child who was the result of a rape it'd be better if they never existed. I know which one I'd rather choose.

[@XoxoxoKaixo_]

@@Auxified Of course it's hard to prove. Especially when women lie about being ra***all the time. The point is, if it were somehow able to work. Would everyone then be satisfied? Don't get me wrong. I'm a firm believer in 'two wrongs don't make a right'. So I think it's wrong either way. But would that make everyone happy? Or are they just using those victims as an excuse to justify their argumentation?

[@BoneFrossil]

He lost me at pro abortion which is vastly different than pro choice.

[@cosmicprison9819]

The first person who invokes God loses the argument.

[@arthurjeremypearson]

God dammit

[@optimusprhyme9256]

She’s arguing by consistently using false equivalence and straw man tactics... she isn’t at all speaking directly to the human and embryo point at all to prove her points, she’s using abstract, non comparable fake scenarios to aid in conveying her agenda rather than speaking with fact and about the actual thing she’s speaking about. Those kinds of arguments can not hold up in a lawful scenario and therefore should not be held with any credit.

[@andrewdavis8076]

Hello Optimus, I noticed you made that comment the lady speaking in the video is using scenarios to promote her points of views of prolife. Well do not those who are pro choice do the same, that is that individuals who are pro choice use scenarios to promote their points of view. Such as the unplugging of the violinist. This is just something I observed, and then come to the question. If those who are pro choice are able to use various scenarios which are made up, why is it not allowed for those who are prolife to use the same methodology to promote their views? I just want to say, by no means am I attack your view or your point, I'm just looking at the overall picture and how your point figures in to that overall view.

[@andrewdavis8076]

Also if you bring in a lawful scenario, then you are adding in a new arena to the discussion. If you add lawful, where is this lawful scenario present, how does it interact in the topic of discussion. If you look at the very basics of morality, there is good and evil. Well then you have to come to the point where definitions are made between what is good and what is evil. We could call this an objective moral law (laws written on our hearts that come naturally ie. Murder, rape, stealing, lying ect. are morally evil.) Well if you have an objective moral law for any law to be given there must be a law giver. There must be a point of reference to objevtively draw out the definitions between what is good and what is evil. The problem comes to the point we are at right now in society, society is trying to reject the moral law giver. If you dont have an objective moral law giver, then you dont have an objective moral law that has definitions that are made from an objective source. If then you dont have a moral law, you can't objectively define between what is good and evil. What comes next is that morality becomes subjectively defined by each individual. We become the definer of what is morally good and evil. Being able to do whatever we want, when we want, how we want, and no one can tell us what to do and how to do it because it's our choice to subjectively define morality as we see fit. Once again, this is not an attack, these are merely my views pertaining to the topic, and the comment made. I would love to engage in a meaningful conversation. But will not engage in non constructive or negative conversations.

[@danieldsouza2812]

The violin argument is a big strawman, basically a scarecrow. But the purpose of the uterus is to form the child to completeness. The violin argument is moot anatomically and medically speaking as the attachment is not a temporary phenomenon, but rather an attachment until the death of one of the people. From a legal perspective, breaking into private property is illegal, see Rerum Novarum, as well as kidnapping. Morally, parents are responsible for their dependent children. Often times difficult arguments that midwits find profound are just compound fallacies that also fall flat in realistic application.

[@regs3941]

@@andrewdavis8076 I'm not Optimus Phryim, but I'll try to validate the violinist scenario for you: The core point is, that you suddenly find yourself physically attached to a stranger who's in need of your body and if unplugged would die. All this things the violinist and a fetus have in common. (Yes, a fetus is a stranger to a woman, even though they share genetics). Analogies are often a good tools to give us a more unbiased view on something, that we are so used to because of our cultural history or everyday life (Just notice, that you can't remove organs from a corpse, if the dead person hasn't given consent while alive, yet a woman fully aware and fully alive is not allowed to decide over her body - and that's the reality we live in!) So I would say, the core points of the violinist scenario match and even in the video, Matt and Stephanie found some minor inconsistencys, they formed the scenario to really make it one by one comparable: I am responsible for this guy's poor health, I know him etc. It still sounds very odd and wrong for us, if we should be lawfully forced to give our body in that scenario. A vast majority of people would disagree that such a law should exist. However the violinist analgy helps us to see a parallel to abortion rights, because it matches point by point - so why is the conclusion so differently? Analogies should help to find our own inconsistencies and to overcome them. The argumentation in the video really drops it there: their comming on the top of the violinist analogy and finally Stephanie's final argument is faith based. That's weak. Edit: And to compare the violinist analogy, which I think is very accurate and good, to a weak one: Stephanie brought up an analogy herself. A father and his son go and play baseball and crash the neighbours window. According to her, if believed one should not carry responsibilty for an unplanned pregnancy, the father need not pay the reparation of the neighbours broken window. But does this analogy really work? I don't think so. There is a mayor mistake: Reparing the broken window you broke accidently, aquires only money - or some time from you, if you can do it yourself. The father doesn't have to give a part of his body or has to risk severe health damage. It would've been a better analogy, if said: they accidently hurt the neighbour badly and he's going to fie soon, if the father wont donate some organ or so. Should he be forced to donate? But then we'd have the violinist scenario again only with a different setting

[@jitkalaurynova747]

I'm not leftist, but I am pro-choice for personal reasons and I really liked this video. The points miss Gray made were logical and made sense nad her whole demeanor overall was very put-together and pleasant. However, I don't think that this is the strongest argument for pro-choice. I think the best one is the fact, that if abortions are banned, women will get them nonetheless. Better scenario, they travel abroad, but that is pretty expensive, so the majority of women who for one reason or the other feel the need to get abortion will have them performed in awful conditions by untrained people looking for "easy cash". Now by banning abortions, you may save some children, but those kids saved will be paid by increased death rate of women dying because of those illegal abortions. Is that the price you are willing to pay?

[@avatarofcloud]

I will happily pay that price.

[@gk5108]

The law is broken everyday - homicide is banned but continues to happen nonetheless. Should we as a society just scrap all laws because the crimes they ban continue to happen?

[@jitkalaurynova747]

@@gk5108 I honestly don't know where you got the information that 90-95% of women die during abortions, maybe if you count all the countries, bur if we are talking about the US, but my source (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm) says, that in in 100 000 legal abortions, only 0.41 deaths, not percents, but deaths itselfs occured. This means that you would need more than 200 000 legal abortions to have 1 death, so I think your data is not correct. Regarding your arguement about WOMEN deciding to pay the price. The US has been through banning abortions and the government knows very well how it ended. Because of this, their decision to bann them again would be a conscious decision to let certain amount of people die. You could obviously argue that the amount of lives saved would be higher, but let's be real, of those unwanted children, many wouldn't live a happy life, if htey would live to see adulthood at all. Maybe the parents wouldn't be in a good financial situation, maybe they would decide to get rid of the baby themeselves. Also, abortion rates are higher in areas with increased gang violence, so if a child was born there, chances are it would be killed by someone else... You see, I think society in general is not prepared for an abortion ban. Do I think that abortions should be used as a form of anticonception? No, of course not, but I also don't think that the US social system is that good, that it would be able to provide for all the children that would suddenly become dependent on it.

[@YouWontGuesslt]

@@gk5108 “And here is one truth: No matter what the law says, women will continue to get abortions. How do I know? Because in the relatively recent past, women would allow strangers to brutalize them, to poke knitting needles and wire hangers into their wombs, to thread catheters through their cervices and fill them with Lysol, or scalding-hot water, or lye. Women have been willing to risk death to get an abortion. When we made abortion legal, we decided we weren’t going to let that happen anymore. We were not going to let one more woman arrive at a hospital with her organs rotting inside of her. We accepted that we might lose that growing baby, but we were not also going to lose that woman.” - Caitlin Flanagan

[@nolongerjuicyboiz4413]

Firstly, far more babies are aborted right now, than women who would die from botched abortions if abortion was illegal. And if abortion should be allowed because of all these 'consent' arguments, then not paying child-support should also be allowed. So I don't exactly imagine there would be a net benefit, even ignoring the deaths of millions of fetuses. You'd just move the suffering from people who accidentally get pregnant and who don't want to be pregnant, onto single mothers.

[@huntercandreva2176]

I think this was an amazing discussion and I really enjoyed hearing each side of the argument. I argue that the premise of “responsibility of ordinary needs” with the cabin example, which the core of her argument is predicated upon, fails to fully analogize with pregnancy, giving birth, and abortion. I believe it is distinctly different because what is required to feed and care for a child, with resources readily available, is fundamentally different then carrying a child to term. The cabin example lacks a real risk to health or births extended factors, such as losing ones life to childbirth, the hormonal changes that are induced, or the physiological change to the body after birth, and thus fails to fully encapsulated the significance of the intrusive and painful nature of actually giving birth. I argue that while giving birth may be ordinary, its demands on a individual are extraordinary when it comes to providing care. Therefore the responsibility to carry to term becomes again analogous to the professors altered violinist example (with kidneys) Furthermore, just because an organs design is to provide for another, there is no level of entitlement from a foreign body to that organ. An example of this would be breast feeding. The purpose of breasts is to produce milk for the child, to provide for another, yet there is no recognized entitlement to that organ and it is up to the owner of the organ to decide who gets to use it. This again legitimizes the professors altered violinist example where showing the intention of the organ to be irrelevant. P.S. im very disappointed she didn’t share the response he stayed up all night thinking of P.S.S this reply is 2 months later after over 70 comments on here. If you guys actually want the strongest two forms of this argument, not only did I find the person she her argument came from, but it’s followed by, by far the strongest string of counter arguments I’ve ever seen. This chapter of this book blows this video out of the water! If you are truly interested in the best form of this and its counter argument, please read “Ethics, Left and Right” by Bob Fischer, Chapter 10 on abortion. Its phenomenal.

[@SkylearJ]

I think the ultimate conclusion is that those who want to justify the death of babies will always find a justification to do so, yourself being an example of that. There will never be amicable ground between those who want to preserve the sanctity of life and those who wish to destroy it.

[@huntercandreva2176]

@@SkylearJ I feel like this line of thinking fails to even try to consider or contribute any idea to further a discussion about what is right and what is wrong. It appears to simply ignore the entire issue at hand and seems to turns a blind eye to the possibility to changing ones mind. Regardless if you believe the two sides will always disagree, and even if you are correct there will not be amicable ground (which I think is wrong), society still needs to, and will eventually, choose a line of thinking. Exploring the merits of each side is the only real meaningful way for us to get close to the ‘right’ answer. I at least enter into this discussion with an open mind and im attempting to find what I believe is moral through throughly analyzing and responding to extremely strong arguments from each side. I challenge you to do the same instead of seemingly giving up and saying people can never find a middle ground. I challenge you to be more like the individuals in this video. Also, painting my argument to simply “Justifying the death of babies” is not only a straw man argument but its ill-willed and misses the point. You don’t refer to a difficult subject of war as “justifying killing people” or denying immigration as “an excuse to get away from a specific race” just as its silly to refer to the topic of abortion as “justifying the death of babies”. The reason these comparisons are just poor is because they completely doge very significant elements of the issue at hand. War has to do with the well-being and protection of a country, immigration has to do with economic, tax, and a variety of other issues, the same way abortion still has to deal with pregnancy and the birthing persons individual issues too.

[@SkylearJ]

@@huntercandreva2176 it irritates me to see people take on a facade of intellectualism. Call it a strawman if you must, but the argument is what it is. By and large, I'd be surprised if you found anyone who'd disagree that in the case a pregnancy would kill the mother, most would agree it becomes a medical necessity. What I, and what I believe the lady in this video, are arguing against is the notion you can abort for any reason you deem fit. This is tantamount to murdering a baby or a child or a person for being a mere inconvenience to you. In this light, it strikes a rather concerning light akin to Stalin versus his political enemies.

[@huntercandreva2176]

@@SkylearJ First I just want to say, thanks for at-least referencing and responding to the video and my original comment and I just want to say im not trying to appear as an intellectual, im trying to participate in an intellectual debate. That being said, on the topic of pregnancy, while they may not be very prevalent, there are many individuals who don’t care if it could killing a mother. Honestly, my and (id argue) your point are both kind of irrelevant though because my original point was just to exemplify the extreme nature of pregnancies. You could replace the chance of killing the mother with changes in hormones, extreme physical discomfort, or the effects on their body after the pregnancy. More importantly though, and what I think its a crucial idea in this entire discussion, is what you said the lady in this video is arguing against. I believe her idea is actually much wider in scope than just “aborting for any reason you see fit”, I believe her idea is actually what the child is entitled to, specifically pertaining to the uterus (this is also why is said “justifying killing babies” doesn’t fully encapsulate the discussion). I agree actually that aborting for any reason is similar to murdering because its simply an inconvenience and that feels very wrong, but I don’t believe the discussion ends there. At least personally im not ready to concede that the child (or any person for that matter) has any entitlement to anyone else’s body, and until I discover a more convincing argument from either side about the issue (different from the modified violinist argument), I believe the crux of the issue lies there. Do you think the child is entitled to a birthing persons organ, and if so do you think the law should dictate that? And if so id be happy to discuss and find a better way to think about that issue with you.

[@buttsmcgee50]

It’s fairly well accepted that the exception is if the mothers life is in danger. It’s a non point that has been addressed far before this video was a thing.

[@helenabelyakova7175]

Also, the uterus doesn't get disconnected as in the example with a kidney. A woman doesn't lose her uterus as it would be with a kidney. Also, removing uterus would probably be less dangerous for the body than a kidney removal. Can't be even compaired.

[@deenadamico2673]

"After those first 9 months the violinist will be detached from your person, however, they will require round-the-clock care, feeding, supervision, and ongoing medical care that you will be responsible for." "I wasn't prepared for this and didn't choose this. I'm not in a position to pay those expenses! Is there any assistance available to offset those costs?" "Pffft no. What are you, lazy? Some kind of leech?? It's not our job to figure it out, it's YOUR violinist! Oh, and here's your hospital bill."

[@nerfherder48]

Did you not finish the video?

[@podawe8051]

@@nerfherder48 lol clearly not. And the second part about caring for the "violinist" is an entirely separate argument.

[@deenadamico2673]

@@podawe8051 you're right, and it's conveniently not one I ever hear anti-abortionists willing to engage in! The message is very much that Pregnancy = natural consequence of sex so deal with it; Challenges of child-rearing/high cost of daycare/high cost of healthcare/lack of affordable housing = natural consequences of babies, but conveniently not your problem/not relevant. 🤔 Wonder that you are so invested in women's reproductive choices, yet wash your hands of the matters facing those women should they be forced to follow through with unwanted pregnancies. Can you explain that logic?

[@hunterkauffman9400]

She's the most wellspoken pro-life activist I've listened to. Great listen even if I dont agree.

[@cherylsvoboda4094]

Kudos to you, Hunter, for complimenting the speaker even if you do not agree. I hope that you get to experience whatever is necessary so your mind, heart, and soul will be open to seeing the child's perspective.

[@xiphactinusaudax1045]

@@cherylsvoboda4094 This is the correct response to Hunter. The other Hunter in this comment section said a similar thing and now he has 46 replies mostly people trying to drag him into an argument about abortion and the rest is others arguing about abortion. So yes, Hunter, great for you to respect others' positions. Quite admirable from both sides

[@bulletprooftiger1879]

Anti-abortion activist. Not pro-life.

[@xiphactinusaudax1045]

@@bulletprooftiger1879 Anti-abortion is known as pro-life

[@Rubyllim]

@@cherylsvoboda4094 kinda disrespectful but ok

[@ferretterrier7828]

I’m still pro-choice but I appreciate the comprehensive and intelligent argument she makes.

[@Thinkoutsidethebox15]

I agree with you. There are people who try to remove every factor of pregnancy and still get pregnant. I believed the depo shot was super effective until my friend became pregnant on it. She kept the baby, b7t it blew her mind that it happened.

[@ericsmith8129]

Sure you can.

[@squidward6187]

This woman is a powerhouse. The way she talks is so clear, concise and articulate. Godspeed! Appreciate learning about steelmanning. I never heard the violinist argument before, but it strikes me as gaslighting at its finest. It sounds intelligent but can be broken down in many different ways. When I was listening to it, immediately I was like, "she made the choice to have sex! The woman in the analogy did not have a choice, she was kidnapped! Not the same!"

[@bulletanarchy6447]

So orchestrated.

[@SimpleVisionVideos]

You are correct that the situations are not equal but that's because the violinist story is an analogy for the situations that are non-consensual. The defense for the pregnancies that occur when there IS consent is that a person assumes the responsibility of the risks (example: breaking a window) that are associated with a certain act (playing baseball near windows) regardless of if they intended that to happen (even if they weren't trying to break the window) they tied that to how the court assigns responsibility by legal definition. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with what they are saying, I just thought that I would clarify the defenses for consent vs non-consent.

[@bulletanarchy6447]

@@SimpleVisionVideos It just sounds like BS pro life story to me

[@brunolevilevi5054]

Thats not even close to what gaslighting means, and by your logic you would have to agree with abortion in cases of rape, even if you consider it killing a person right?

[@streetsdisciple0014]

@@SimpleVisionVideos ​ She already demonstrated she can’t be consistent with regards to consent as that it irrelevant moving forward…Even if the woman is impregnated against her will, she still thinks the child should (ought) be carried to term. The consequences of Breaking a window and carrying to term are two different scenarios and In order for it to be analogous, the obligation would have the window breaker’s bodily autonomy be overridden to compensate for the damage. Then there is the imposition of so called responsibility. With the broken glass, both parties agree there are consequences while in this topic - both parties don’t agree obligations need to be met. The ones advocating for such obligations are using natural functions to prescribe moral oughts and presupposing intentions.

[@CJ-mq3mk]

From my perspective, I have always thought that the power of the violinist argument is not that it cannot be countered, it is that in countering it, you almost always have to argue how an unborn baby is uniquely different than a born human. Thus, it weakens the initial pro-life presupposition presented here. All her arguments seem to point to the fact that an unborn baby in the uterus is a unique and unrecreatable situation. it seems that would just strengthen those who argue that as the situation is unique...our laws can also be unique in how they govern that situation.

[@poutineausyropderable7108]

Wow. Great eloquence.

[@nathanbernadet4313]

I don't follow, how would you have to argue that a unborn baby is uniquely different?

[@nolongerjuicyboiz4413]

But that is what makes it weak. It entirely relies on conceding that the fetus doesn't have the same rights as humans who are past the fetus stage. But most pro-lifers don't concede that. It's just a convoluted argument that a fetus isn't a life with the same rights. Not only that, the whole violinist and and consent argument also accidentally shows that men should be able to consent or not consent to a pregnancy, and so they should be allowed not to pay child support. So all the 'good' that pro-choice does for women would be undone by the fact men don't have to financially support mothers anymore.

[@reedy_9619]

I find it to be a terrible comparison. It doesnt hold too well imo. Simply because being kidnapped is not comparable to consensual sex. Also, if the violonist was hooked up to you without his knowledge (if it wasnt his decision) he wouldnt be to blame for the situation which means you are both kinda stuck in a weird situation and both being taken advantage of. In this case id be encline to stay hooked to them unless there is a significant risk of death or injury to myself. If it’s their decision then no (you dont owe your abusers anything). If you signed a contract and that getting hooked to that guy in case he needs it was one of the conditions for you to get your benefit then you couldnt say you have a say in the matter.

[@dexdomain6406]

Wouldn't it be a false analogy since it suggests that all pregnancies are forced just like how the violinist was forced onto the person without their concent?

[@ashenguard_1437]

The dissonance here lies in the assumption that a human life is equal to a fetus, some people might concede to that but I assure you the vast majority of pro choice advocates will not. So unfortunately you will fail to convince the vast majority of pro choice people even if you derail this particular analogy, because most people never found it equivalent to begin with.

[@squidlytv]

True. I don't think the video is attempting to persuade those types tho.

[@munchmoo6586]

@@squidlytv but I feel like if you think that a fetus is equal to a fully grown human then you wouldn't agree with abortion anyway. (to be clear on my stance, abortion is healthcare and fetuses don't have the same rights as babies seeing as they can't think, don't fully function and cause extreme amounts of pain to the mother during birth)

[@squidlytv]

@@munchmoo6586 People are weird.

[@NiteSaiya]

The fetus being considered a human life is the crux of the entire debate and it is indeed entirely subjective. That's why anti-choice people fight so hard to avoid that detail. They will debate every single other hypothetical, especially those that implicitly assert that a fetus is a human life, because they know that at the end of the day they are forcing their subjective, baseless belief onto everyone else.

[@SerialSnowmanKiller]

The thing is, I have debated people who ACTUALLY ARGUED that even if the unborn child is equal in value to an adult human, then the mother should still have the right to abort. They do exist, as much as the idea boggles the mind. So this video is directed towards them, among others. As for those who don't acknowledge that point, my argument towards them goes thusly: In order to argue that racism and sexism are inherently bad, you must first accept the premise that a human being has innate value, and that we can't just deprive people of that value by claiming that they are subhuman. The thing is, by that premise, WE don't get to decide what is and what isn't human. One way or another, that decision has already been made for us. That means that we don't get to decide whether an unborn child qualifies as a human or not. It is, or it isn't, and what WE think doesn't change reality.

[@williampennjr.4448]

1. I didn't chose the circumstance that got me hooked up to the violinist. 2. If the violinist did not choose to be hooked up to me then i don't have the right to to kill him. All i could do is sue the hospital. so I don't see how any rational person can call it a good argument for abortion rights. The kidney analogy is even dumber because withholding help from someone is very different than actually causing the harm. ...Even more so when providing that help would seriously harm you. Not having an abortion is just letting nature takes its course, just as not having an organ transplant is.