Destiny BREAKS, Laughs As Abortion Debate Gets HEATED

Destiny breaks character as moderator, laughs in abortion debate between Zen Shapiro and TheAlexKirschProject...
Date: 13 May, 2022
Follow Destiny
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/...
►DISCORD - discordapp.com...
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
►MERCH - shop.destiny.gg/
Check Out My Amazon: www.amazon.com...
Buy My Merch: shop.destiny.gg/
#Destiny

[@destiny]

Skip to 1:27:10 for Destiny's thoughts on this difficult debate from the pro-choice POV Timestamps and chapters fix soon

[@bennywolfe4357]

@Russian Waifu I agree, but are you a Russian bot?

[@happyhappylol1]

HOW TO U GET ON TO DEBATE THIS SHIT?

[@DarrellVermilion]

@@bennywolfe4357 Are you implying that Russian women are mindless automatons? Just when I thought the toxic masculinity couldn't get any worse smh 😢

[@VintageBassArchive]

This debate pulled me into a dark slimy canal

[@VintageBassArchive]

Pro life ppl pretending women are not people but babies are entitled to the ride

[@jangles3054]

Man what a conundrum. On the one hand, this guy argued so badly it almost converts me to be pro life. On the other hand, if I had been aborted, I wouldn't have had to hear this debate. That's tough

[@Torenjoyer]

Mood

[@JBPVFL]

😂

[@XNaturalPhenomenonX]

This shit was so frustrating. He clearly was incapable of engaging with the important questions.

[@XxHistorikxX]

That's tough

[@JshPerky]

Reading this comment restored all the brain cells I lost watching this debate

[@averytheloftier]

I don't see how this guy can call himself pro-life after absolutely murdering such a helpless man

[@CarsonHughes85]

Best comment, ever!!

[@ThinWhiteLuke]

Did you see Zen Shapiro’s debate with Richard Spencer? It’s not very long, it’s hilarious.

[@afelonsperspective]

Bravo

[@lrn_news9171]

Lol😂

[@lrn_news9171]

@@ThinWhiteLukeRichard was an idiot

[@509drone2]

100% clear example of "well this is just the popular narrative/opinion and that's why I support it" argument.

[@DustbinFunkbndr]

“My friends wouldn’t like me if I didn’t display the same labels they do so I blindly say I support their positions.”

[@VapeFBV]

Lol exactly. I thought I was the only one wanting punch my own face listening to super highlight face guy until I started reading the comments. My opinion is shares immensely.

[@509drone2]

@@DustbinFunkbndr lol 100%

[@User71956]

Wait, why is that bad? I mean if that's what he thinks, then that's what he thinks. It just happens to be the popular narrative.

[@tragiceso5121]

@@User71956 they’re joking that he supports it BECAUSE it’s the safe/popular narrative and that it’s not coincidence, this is due to him not arguing the points particularly well, or having any depth to it.

[@DustbinFunkbndr]

Idk if I’ve ever seen someone speedrun a debate loss so fast…

[@Jankyito]

@Sleeve T Rocks there is a way to defend that with the bodily autonomy argument but this guy was to stupid to even understand why he wasn't making any sense. Even though it's ridiculous the defense argument for pro choice given those 2 premises is that you shouldn't have to sacrifice your body for the life of another. Mothers go through alot of terribly shit from extreme hormonal changes to skeletal changes from the shift in center of mass to their skin becoming deformed to morning sickness to the extreme limitations being pregnant puts on your work and social life. So the argument would be that a person should not have to be forced to sacrifice their entire life for nearly a year and near permanent changes to their body for the life of another.

[@Jankyito]

@Sleeve T Rocks then I would challenge how much the prolifer actually believes that you should sacrifice yourself at least to some extent for the life of another. I would ask if they are pro vaccine mandate, as covid vaccines are so incredibly safe and side effects last maybe 2 days instead of 9 months so if they think a mother should sacrifice her entire life for nearly a year for the life of another you virtually have no argument against vaccine mandates. Then I would ask if forced organ transplants should be carried out by the government as well, not organs that can't grow back and cause permanent side effects but organs like the liver which can entirely grow back. Should a person be forced by the government to donate a part of their liver (which grows back) for the life of another. Then you have things like inaction. If you see a person drowning should you be forced to try and save that person with a good chance of suffering some amount of damage and even possibly dying. A pro lifer that believes that a mother should sacrifice herself entire for her unborn fetus would also need to answer alot of questions about how much sacrifice should a person be expect and even forced to do for another.

[@wellnvmthen5063]

How the pro-choice guy can be comfortable enough to argue infront of so many people while also knowing so little is beyond me.

[@sigmundsigma6888]

Are you pro life

[@ataridc]

and people say autism isn't a super power

[@BlackCheezit]

@@sigmundsigma6888 this guys looking to go off on someone

[@SAFbikes]

“Now now now I don’t want to argue about necrophilia” who the h e double hockey sticks brought that up ever???

[@Sprite_525]

@@sigmundsigma6888 he’s just saying the guy was a bad debater, not that the position was bad.

[@jmlebl2]

This guy arguing for the pro-choice side needs to censor himself and never speak in public again on this topic. The fact that he could be so stunned by the generic pro-life arguments, as though he didn't see them coming and didn't prepare for them, is really embarrassing. What makes this guy think he ought to speak publicly on this topic?

[@tragiceso5121]

Ego is blinding

[@EGstill85]

Or at least do a cursory web search before enthusiastically hopping on stream to offer the conclusion of his argument countless times

[@thlkmura]

What's more insane to me than the lack of preparedness is the complete confidence in his piss-poor debate skills. This was a lesson on hubris.

[@theredman4752]

It's almost like the pro choice side has some problems with its arguments. Almost as if both sides have valid, strong points, as if virtually no issue is completely black and white. What a novel concept

[@ihsahnakerfeldt9280]

@@EGstill85 I said this elsewhere and I'm gonna say it again. The bane of this guy's performance wasn't even his lack of preparedness. It's his lack of the most basic understanding of logical argumentation and debate. Imagine using "if a woman got an abortion, how does that affect you?" without being able to pause for a split second and anticipate your opponent's very easy rebuttal to this sad excuse for an argument.

[@powbong7735]

Debate begins Zen: "I've outpaced him intellectually"

[@pauliePwalnuts]

I've always felt I'm decent at reading people. Do you think vooosh believed what he said? I'd almost always go no they don't but with him im not sure? His arogence and love for self might win out?

[@backandtotheleft5623]

I think Alex's strategy was to make the pro life portion of the audience wish he had been aborted to justify his stance. In which case, he probably won the debate

[@Taylzz]

I'm Pro-smile towards this comment.

[@ihsahnakerfeldt9280]

This comment deserves WAY more likes lmfao

[@dwyoung55]

"So assuming we both agree that medically necessary abortions are okay, what about in the cases where it isn't medically necessary?" This guy: "But, what if its medically necessary though?" Oh lawd

[@AndrewWilson-fb8ge]

honestly one of the saddest debates i have ever seen. I think we are all stupider for this conversation being had

[@LiftingAccidents]

The pro life guy was coherent and reasonable even though I disagree with him. The pro choice guy was a bumbling idiot.

[@Delta169]

I award the pro choice guy no points, and may God have mercy on his soul.

[@Arimil1234512345]

@@Delta169 10/10 meme.

[@Delta169]

@@Arimil1234512345 I figured it was well suited for this.

[@DarrellVermilion]

@@Delta169 you figured right 💯

[@hartyewh1]

This should be called 'Zen Shapiro helps novice pro-choicer to formulate their stance". It's a fucking workshop, not a debate.

[@EusebiusAT]

I'm just 12 mins in and I've successfully been convinced to abort this viewing experience. Good job top-right-guy!

[@niclastname]

I'm pro-choice, and this pro-choice guy is HORRIBLE at arguing in favor of it and takes the most extreme stances on it that it just makes it look even worse lmao.

[@nouda6567]

so then from you, is the choice of a mother more important than a human life and why?

[@timekeeper2538]

@@nouda6567 Absolutely, life is worth nothing without bodily autonomy and what's developing inside the woman has no sense of self nor does it value life in any way or form.

[@brad5696]

@@nouda6567 I'm not him but the answer would probably be because at certain points in pregnancy we would not assign personhood to the fetus. If you're pro choice after that well then thats harder to justify. Bodily autonomy can and should be infringed upon given certain circumstances. Mandating vaccines for example.

[@nouda6567]

@@brad5696 I agree

[@nyquillusdillwad9119]

I am reminded of times that I have seen Fox news bring on a "liberal" to argue a position, and it feels like they are just there to make the argument as poorly as possible.

[@russelld2925]

A person who starts out the debate claiming he isn’t interested in definitions or exploring hypotheticals isn’t capable of having a good faith debate.

[@nsaylor9]

MAybe but I’ve seen too many debates get sidetracked with semantic bullshit, so I can’t blame someone who wants to avoid that to stay on topic.

[@tuscanyiscol]

@@nsaylor9 probably because the people arguing didn't agree on definitions. You have to hash out semantic definitions before two parties can discuss anything. If they can't agree on a definition, it's the end of the conversation. Saying you don't want to talk about definitions just implies you anticipate consensus or you think that you are irrevocably correct.

[@napalmholiday9708]

"Let's agree to permit abortions due to rape, incest, or medical necessity and only discuss abortions of convenience." "We DOnT kNoW thEIr SiTUAtiOn"

[@MrMctastics]

He has a dialogue tree with one branch

[@AO-xc8mz]

Accepting abortions for rape and incest is the biggest contradiction for someone that is pro-life. If the argument is that abortions are bad because you're killing an innocent life. Then you cant say that its ok to get an abortion if the kid came from rape or incest. The kid has done nothing, they are still "innocent" in those cases, so it shifts the argument from "protecting innocent life" to "I want to punish some people that had sex and didnt want a kid but not others". Because they are clearly ok with abortions when the life of the mother is not in danger, they just want to punish some people for making a mistake.

[@chris.pbacon440]

[@DarkTruth1]

Yes we do.

[@h2lo704]

Yeah, coz' there's still the situation that the women may be abused, or a housewife that is being neglected by the husband, or a wife, where the husband cheated on her making her sick of the thought of bearing his child... he is not wrong there actually.

[@chriscueva1866]

Wasn’t sure if the pro choice guy was a troll for the first 25 minutes.

[@xwrathsx]

After watching the last Zen Shapiro debate on your channel, I never thought an opponent would make him look not only coherent, but intelligent. Can you get someone who is actually pro abortion to debate him cause I don't think any pro lifer got any insight to help them understand the other side. In fact I am pro life and can make more coherent arguments for abortion.

[@xVQxV.]

When zen says 800 deaths and 800,000 abortions so 99.9% of abortions are for other reasons, that is bad data. What if the number is only 800 bc thousands of mother protecting abortions are preformed. As I’m typing this I’m absolutely baffled at how this guy thought 800 moms dying a year=99.9% of abortions are for other reasons

[@-47-]

Yeah it's a bit stupid, but the other guy was way more stupid so it slipped right through.

[@notan3144]

@34smlS If you are replying to 47 I apologise, but if you think that being in a debate is an excuse for not having thought your statistic through before hand, that's worrying.

[@Jackie-Owe]

@34smlS shut up

[@notan3144]

@34smlS I agree haha

[@tb8654]

I'm confused by this comment, would someone mind explaining it to me?

[@bennybyers1409]

The pro-abortion guy sounds like he’s never been challenged on anything in his entire life

[@Pharomid]

This is 95% of humans on ANY political belief, which is annoying, but a sad truth.

[@MrMctastics]

I would recommend that you go outside and touch grass

[@mello4399]

@@MrMctastics I recommend you to go get some maidens

[@MrMctastics]

@@mello4399 Ranni QUEEN

[@smokystew8923]

"You just want to talk about principles and hypotheticals." Wow, it's like you're having a debate or something.

[@kyle8971]

This "debate" is a clear example of "just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you should voice it."

[@NewMaite]

Tbh, this kid is a good representation of most pro-choice kids online. He was like the embodiment of them 😂 No real idea of the ends of which his ideas can stretch to and simultaneously be pro-life in some scenarios. Ridiculous.

[@scpfilechildrenbarrow2212]

A lot of pro-choice folk are like this.

[@scpfilechildrenbarrow2212]

@@markantony12 I don't spend too much time on Twitter, just places like KZbin, Quora, and sometimes Reddit if I'm feeling masochistic. The amount of pro-choice folk completely misunderstanding the pro-life viewpoint there is incredible. It's just one strawman after another.

[@Nicolae_Mew]

I love that Zen, upon picking up his opponent's lack of debate tact, essentially just started walking him through pro-choice arguments which he already had rebuttals to. It stopped being a debate and quickly became a lesson on how not to debate.

[@jogadorjnc]

I thought it was impossible to make Zen Shapiro sound reasonable, but this dude somehow managed to do it a couple times.

[@VapeFBV]

That's a lazy sloppy attack on someone because you don't like his views which is pretty typical for the left today. Instead of a cheap shot, attack his argument and provide your own thats better but you won't.

[@joeypinion4660]

I think it’s pretty reasonable to not kill the innocent.

[@misantropology]

Does he sound crazy in other debates? He displays an impressive amount of patience and restraint here, given how obnoxious the pro choice guy is.

[@hummerlimoVODS]

@@joeypinion4660 A fetus is innocent in the same way a tree is. We don't automatically grant it moral consideration just because it's "innocent".

[@deanmccrorie3461]

@@hummerlimoVODS Spoken like a true nazi

[@misterkurt6867]

This Zen Shapiro guy sounds like he has had this same argument/debate hundreds of times with multiple different people, while with the other dude it feels like he came to that position the same day. It would be like trying to debate vegan gains after watching a few pro meat eating clips from Joe Rogans podcast, dude did not stand a chance lmao.

[@mariomorales9984]

carnist copium, no amount of prep can be enough against a vegan argument

[@shadowwizarddrip]

Oh, he has

[@SomersBugtopia]

@@mariomorales9984 And yet Vegan Gains can't make those arguments sound good.

[@Thepurplepotatocat]

@@mariomorales9984 based

[@walesdoesntsuck6635]

@@mariomorales9984 I don't agree with you but I like your comment

[@kiralawliet5612]

Wow, the pro-choice guy didn't make any sound arguments, and was unbelievably bad-faith on top of that. He got destroyed. Worst representation ever.

[@jasonvinson5407]

I agree on the arguments, but bad faith? I don’t think so, just defense mechanisms to protect his ego. Once nailed down he conceded and stuck to the fact he was contradictory on his principle. Felt like it was good faith that he stood up and said no i wouldn’t support a baby being aborted before umbilical cord cut, knowing it destroyed his argument. Or am i giving too much credit in thinking he knew it destroyed his principle lol

[@jasonvinson5407]

Guess my point is i don’t think he was deliberately doing anything dishonest or misleading to try to win, know what i mean?

[@JimC607]

Hypotheticals are a good way to gauge how strong/weak your stance is on a certain issue by applying it to different potential situations. People who just flat out refuse to entertain hypotheticals are so aggravating and not even worth debating. You admit you haven't fully thought your arguments through by refusing to discuss a hypothetical.

[@CherryMacabreler]

There are 25 other letters in the English alphabet to choose from but Alex only takes the L's.

[@LuciusSicarius]

Really wish people (left or right) would realize that just because you've memorized talking points, basic arguments, or whatever for your particular issue does not necessarily mean you can debate it.

[@ihsahnakerfeldt9280]

This guy failed at a very, very basic level that doesn't even pertain to the abortion debate per se.

[@EpFiDude]

I'm just listening to the opening statement of the pro-choice truck driver guy, and can sense it's going to be a disaster. He basically said "You can't challenge my positions with hypotheticals" and "I will not let you pin me down on a specific definition of a term I use". It's so obvious where this is going, and checking in the comments just confirms my suspicions to me.

[@Sinbios]

Yeah his whole rambling opening statement just boiled down to "women have the right to choose" and didn't defend it whatsoever. What a waste of time 🤦

[@albertjohnston1026]

Nothing against truck drivers, but anytime I hear someone identify themselves as a "truck driver" in a debate I instantly think of Joshua for Congress. And this person... they did not help remove that association.

[@johnniiee146]

The prochoicer just wanted to white knight into some minge. He didnt know he would be forced to think this hard.

[@DemothHymside]

I can't watch debates where the person with my position is basically crashing and burning through the worst forms of argumentation. I don't mind watching someone who holds a different opinion / position argues well because I'm fine with having my ideas challenged, but this is essentially like watching a boxing match where the guy I'm rooting for trips on their own shoes, hits the turnbuckle, and knocks themself out.

[@frostyham]

This abortion stuff right now reminds me of the anti-sjw era: low level of skill in the discourse means the people with the more "fringe" argument (people who are on the defensive more) are much better at arguing their points because, especially in the online space, they usually aren't agreed with anywhere they go and are forced to argue their position. People like this guy arguing pro choice are full of delusion about the soundness of their arguments because they don't get challenged very much, if ever.

[@yvonnelee4385]

Bingo

[@TheFoggyHollows]

Wow. I am actually friggin baffled. This is probably the worst god damn debate performance I’ve ever seen. Incoherent, inconsistent and unprincipled. This actually made me wayyyy more confident in my pro choice stance and simultaneously, my ability to argue my core values. Dude needs to take a step back and rethink how he got to these conclusions and the mental gymnastics he had to lean on to end up at the positions that he did. Embarrassing.

[@octavioussage7284]

If I actively watch the worse possible pro choice arguments should I become "wayyyy more confident" in my position... Everyone agrees this guy couldnt argue for his position.

[@SillyPutty125]

@@octavioussage7284 Missing the point. It's like being in class and watching other students fail to answer a question you didn't find difficult at all.

[@falseprophet1024]

43:32 And it was at this moment that Destiny had to remind himself he was the moderator, and that he couldn't tell pro-choice guy how dumb he is. Its never good when the moderator, who agrees with your position, is laughing at your arguments..

[@spuddie3207]

The pro-choicer responds to hypotheticals like the guy in the opening of Blade Runner.

[@displacegamer1379]

46:30 he just justified slaves and things of that nature without even knowing it.

[@Nazareadain]

"Medical necessity" "we already agree on medical necessity" "medical necessity" "We still don't disagree." "did I mention medical necessity?"

[@volcano8043]

This Pro-Lifer is smokin hot. He wins.

[@brandonolsen579]

when you start a debate by saying your opponent should not try to point out moral inconsistencies with your argument, you might want to rethink your position.

[@VasilyZaitsev08]

Destiny allowing this poor Alex fellow flail for 90 minutes is proof that destiny is ontologically evil.

[@X9898]

We don't get to see it often enough but destiny is a god-tier moderator, not because of his debating skills, but because he is such an impatient asshole. Love you Destiny

[@zachariahphillips]

As soon as the pro-choice debater began with “Here is a list of things I don’t want mentioned” and one of them included sentience, I knew he was going to suck.

[@nyquillusdillwad9119]

56:41 I am offended as a person who defends abortion rights in debate using the bodily autonomy argument. Extending the bodily autonomy argument past the point of delivery is stupid because at that point the baby can be put up for adoption, so no the autonomy of the mother is not violated. No one has a right to your blood supply.

[@Shadowh8ter]

Its a nonsense argument not because of what Destiny said but because 0.0 people have abortions because they don't want the baby consuming their nutrients. People are having abortions because they don't wanna deal with the financial consequences of having a child or simply weren't planning on having a child despite often having unprotected sex and would rather get rid of it than carry it to term. It's a stupid argument because you're making an argument nobody genuinely cares about or believes in and its often just a desperate attempt to try to pretend most people getting abortions aren't irresponsible drains on society who just wanna have raw sex and vacuum up a baby when it rears its unfortunate head.

[@russelld2925]

This is when ideologies smash into reality. Cellular reproduction has been the primary, driving force of evolution for two billion years. And now we have people literally resisting evolution and reproduction. Evolution doesn’t care about what rights you refuse to grant.

[@happyhappy85]

Exactly. I can't believe the pro choice guy never even came close to saying that. This debate would have been over in seconds if he did.

[@tb8654]

@@happyhappy85 that part of the debate wouldn't have been over at all since all someone would have to do is give the hypothetical of "If adoption didn't exist, what then?" or just counter by pointing out that it still does not have bodily autonomy due to relying on other humans

[@attackmaster519]

@@tb8654 So anyone who lacks bodily autonomy loses the intrinsic right to life?

[@VoidOctopus]

If you can't engage with hypotheticals literally just drag your knuckles away from any social or political conversation just talk about Fortnite or paw patrol instead jfc

[@Corvid-]

"I don't want to define terms." 😒

[@ManShapedReplicator]

The pro-choice side of this debate is an actual living, breathing strawman. This is literally the stupidest pro-choicer on earth vs the smartest pro-lifer on earth.

[@Tavat]

Where was the straw man? You sure you know what that term means?

[@ManShapedReplicator]

@@Tavat A strawman is "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." The pro-choice guy presented such terrible arguments, he was far easier to defeat than any competent debater arguing in favor of the pro-choice position. Hence, he was a living, breathing strawman. No one had to strawman him, because he was actually made of straw.

[@Tavat]

@@ManShapedReplicator Ah I gotcha. Clever. I thought you meant he strawmanned so hard he became a caricature of that. But you’re right-he IS literally a straw-man with these positions. 😂

[@kennysnow7647]

I agree this pro choice guy isn't the brightest but in no way is the pro life guy the smartest pro lifer. His arguments can be destroyed by anybody with at least half a brain, which is more than this pro lifer has.

[@joeybones5027]

its almost hard to watch LMAO

[@DeepFriedHaggis741]

Pro choice guy is a classic example of someone who has taken a position without ever actually thinking about why he holds it

[@asz4928]

Aka just an average brainwashed normie

[@joshcastro739]

This pro choice guy has no place debating, maybe even speaking

[@johnniiee146]

Not only is the prochoicer terrible at debating he's also very unlikeable.

[@AnEnemyAnenome]

Holy shit, I'm not even 5 mins in and this pro choice guy has already ceded so much ground and basically says "yes, it's a life no it's not innocent, idk what sentience is and I will refuse to debate any of these; now let's debate Roe v Wade." If the pro life is moderately competent this is going to be a bloodbath

[@Lewa500]

Spoiler alert: He is moderately competent.

[@AnEnemyAnenome]

@@Lewa500 18 mins in (listening 1.5 speed) this is going very, very badly for that guy haha

[@HealthFitness_Hacks]

Playing the piano was hilarious lmao 🤣🤣🤣

[@mase3683]

Can someone PLEASE tell me what song destiny was playing on the piano at first i cant get it out of my head

[@russelld2925]

Jesus Christ. This pro choice guy needs to take a class in epistemology. And logic. I’m pro choice in the first trimester but this guy argues for the position terribly. He doesn’t know how to justify his principles at all. I don’t even think he has principles.

[@Ridistrict]

Pro choice guy is one of those "I can't imagine an apple wtf are you talking about?"

[@crisjr6478]

And you wonder why pro lifers are gaining ground.

[@Tavat]

It’s not because of the strength of their arguments or the weakness of the other side. It’s because the court is intentionally packed with ideologues.

[@Shadowh8ter]

@@Tavat You make it sound like an overwhelming majority of the country is pro abortion and an extreme minority of the country are anti abortion and they just happen to control the courts lol. This country is split on the topic.

[@Tavat]

@Henzo8i8 From a utilitarian consequentialist position, the obviously correct conclusion is to allow abortion in all instances up to a certain point, and then in some instances after that. We could draw the line somewhere it’s been drawn for quite some time. But the point is to create the most good, and it’s been proven that having access to safe and legal abortion does the most good for every single party involved-except for the clump of cells that wasn’t even born. People making a huge issue out of the existence of abortions are brainbroken.

[@crisjr6478]

@@Tavat that’s the point we literally have hearings to make sure folks on the court hold up to certain ideals. You might not like it but that’s literally the point of the Supreme Court

[@EGstill85]

I've never pondered about the intricacies of current day Bangladeshi taxation policy, but I'm incredibly eager to jump on stream in front of thousands of people to explain the plethora of reasons why taxation within Bangladesh is unjust!

[@stevelogan7551]

If it takes you an hour of changing your mind numerous times based on hypotheticals and examples you probably don't have a very good argument.

[@Rhenkei]

You could say that the baby’s bodily autonomy depends on the mothers bodily autonomy and the value of hers is only dependent on her so in a direct way the baby only lives due to the mom’s bodily autonomy which is in her control and therefore in control of the baby’s necessarily.

[@ReleaseMyKrakken]

bingo

[@Jackie-Owe]

Boom. I dont know why Destiny think this is a bad argument.

[@johrnarlor]

I don't think I agree with that argument. Can you not justify abortions throughout the entire pregnancy using that logic (unless ofcourse that is something you support)? Also even born babies, and even young toddlers to a huge extent do not have any bodily autonomy and mostly depend on the parent. For example, as a baby, you can't exactly move freely yet. If you are in your crib and your parents are sleeping, there is no way you'll be going outside or moving around the house doing your own thing. If your parents don't prepare food for you, you can't simply go to your local shop and buy something. For several years, you are completely dependent on the people around you and your mother also has complete control over you and your bodily autonomy. Can you therefore just throw your baby in the garbage bin so to speak? Just some thoughts I have about that. I might be missing something ofcourse.

[@royaltea1917]

@@johrnarlor So in the first trimester the fetus is entirely dependent on the pregnant person and can't survive outside the womb. In this case the adult's bodily autonomy is paramount as no-one has the right to another's blood, adult or baby. Further in the pregnancy it is possible for the fetus to survive a premature birth and so the issue becomes more complex, however I would also argue that the trauma and risks of birth must also factor. Reasonable people can debate when the viability of the fetus means that a healthy pregnancy should be carried to term, I won't pretend I know where that line should be. After birth we are no longer talking about direct dependence, we are talking about care. Humans aren't entitled to another's blood, however humans can have a duty of care to each other. An analogy could be that a doctor cannot be punished for refusing to give her own kidney to a patient, however she can be punished for allowing that same patient to die from not refilling his IV.

[@gokuspride7440]

Pro choicers need to concede the morale high ground to the pro lifers just like meat eaters do to vegans

[@dusanradojkovic8190]

No, not necessarily. All morality is a matter of perspective. The idea of forcing someone to carry something in their body that causes them immense pain and distress, when they have the physical option to do away with that as soon as possible, can be seen as a very immoral thing. Granting a fetus special rights over someone's body can, as well, be seen as a very immoral thing.

[@SonicoBomo]

Never heard anyone say that bodily autonomy isn't considered before birth. Usually, it is some arbitrary time after conception.

[@raibaru1980]

This reminds me of those scenes in movies where a guy plays chess alone. Destiny jumps into the discussion as says 'well he would say this' and before the other guy can respond says 'well he would say that in response'. We need a super cut with just Destiny going back and forth with Destiny!

[@justmaybe4476]

15 minutes in and if I was the pro life guy I would’ve left.

[@thenonartist4366]

I'm pro choice and I agree lmao

[@DustbinFunkbndr]

Pro life guy should’ve left to save time. Pro choice guy should’ve left to save face.

[@Jolron14]

Im 12 minutes into this debate and holy shit, this pro-choice dude is providing the worst pushback I've ever seen from this otherwise really strong position. All of his arguments are like level 0, boneheaded takes. I wish they had somebody more competent on to talk to zen.

[@Jolron14]

​@34smlS Ya even I, a complete moron, would do a lot better than this guy.

[@northdakotagamer]

Couple of quick questions on the conscious experience argument 1. The earliest successful birth was just over 21 weeks or before the 24 week conscious experience cutoff. Would it have been morally acceptable for someone to have walked into that room and killed that baby or any of the other pre 24 week births? 2. The conscious experience that and adult has is more developed than the conscious experience that a child has that is more developed than the conscious experience that a baby has. Why is the cutoff at that 24 week conscious experience? 3. Playing off of number 2, how do we know for certain that the thalamo-cortical complex is the only possible place we can have conscious experiences? Is it impossible that some form of conscious experience is had sometime between the first neural activity around 6 weeks and the 24 week mark? How sure of this do we have to be?

[@FuddlyDud]

Fantastic points!! To build on this, we don’t experience human sentience until about 5 years old. 18 months is about when they experience self-awareness. Personality traits don’t start showing up till around 3-6 months after birth. The 24 weeks argument is also silly since we can somewhat measure the amount of alpha, beta, theta, etc. waves in the brain. Not looking forward to quantifying human worth by levels of neural activity in a growing child that is growing it’s brain by millions of cells a day. 0_0

[@Vantier]

I'm pro life now wtf 🤨

[@cceste6885]

I can provide pro-life conversion therapy for free if you ever feel like you want to change back for the better

[@thatoneguyinthecomments2633]

The woman has no obligation to incubate another human being if she does not want to. If she wishes to end the pregnancy at any time that is her right to do so. Regarding the fetuses rights, it is not entitled to the mother's body. After viability there is an argument that the way in which the pregnancy is terminated should make all attempts to preserve the fetuses life, such as a C-section in a hospital with adequate NICU facility's to try and preserve life. Before the point of viability there is no realistic possibility the fetus will survive outside the womb and there's no obligation for anyone to attempt to preserve its life.

[@thatoneguyinthecomments2633]

The real issue is the assumption that the termination of a pregnancy nescessarily requires the death of the fetus, which simply is not the case.

[@nuancedproductions3548]

Should child neglect be considered a crime then? If a parent has no obligation to provide for their child then why should it be a crime to simply leave your six month old alone and simply never feed them until they starve? Intuitively most people seem to believe that when you have a kid you have an obligation to provide and nurture them, and conversely that a child is entitled to sustinence from their parents, the only difference seems to just be that they haven't passed through the birth canal yet which leads us straight back into arguing about ontology.

[@Mant111]

The woman absolutely does have an obligation to incubate another human being if said being's creation was a result of her choices and actions. It's called taking responsibility. This isn't some immaculate conception we're talking about.

[@firstofskin4058]

I'm a bit confused about destiny's position when he was talking about life being linked to having a conscious experience at the end of the video. He mentioned we consider people "dead" or "brain dead" when they no longer are able to experience consciousness and because of this you could make the argument that abortion is not murder because no consciousness is being experienced. But is there not a difference between a brain that is "brain dead" due to injury, genetic mutation etc and a brain that will be perfectly functioning given time?

[@FirstLast-yc9lq]

Yes, probability of life trumps his argument there.

[@Winasaurus]

I think he's specified it really specifically before as "the continuation of a conscious experience", so someone who was conscious and will be or could be conscious in future, killing them is immoral. Whereas for abortion it's not a continuation, it's the start of a conscious experience. And so you can argue the "you don't know what youre missing" kind of line where because the fetus had no conscious experience, then stopping it from having one isn't immoral because you haven't taken an existing thing from it, but prevented it having one in the first place. Which kind of tracks to other areas of morality, I think most people would argue it is immoral to, for example, give someone money and then take it away from them, but it is not immoral to just NOT give them money in the first place. Or if it is, it's still LESS immoral. So you can argue that but where the money represents the conscious experience.

[@sergelysak]

I'd argue it is worth protecting even potential conciousness simply because of the threat of popation collapse. Admitedly, I haven't thought much more about this.

[@percilenis8464]

Bro, holy shit, I don't even like this Zen Shapiro dude, but the pro-choice guy is absolutely letting him walk over himself. It's so fucking easy, stop trying to defend the idea that until a baby leaves a mother's body it's not worthy of moral consideration. It's obviously not true. You can extract babies from the womb at 22 weeks and they can survive, so this idea that you until you carry to term the baby can potentially die so its life is basically meaningless is just stupid. It's really fucking simple. There is perfect answer on when life that actually deserves moral consideration begins: it's arbitrary. It's an arbitrary line that you have to draw at a reasonable place based on scientific data and public consensus. Is an a 16-year-old ready to consent to sex? Most are, many aren't. You're not going to catch everyone. There are really immature 16-year-old kids who have no fucking idea of the dangers of sex, and there are many mature 16-year-olds who do understand and are ready. Same logic applies here, Christians draw this line at conception even though this process could literally start and end in one day, but that doesn't mean you draw an equally stupid arbitrary line and say that until the baby is fully out of a woman's pussy, you can basically impale its brain and it's all gucci gang. Just draw a fucking arbitrary line at 16 weeks or 22 weeks or whatever the fuck is close to when a baby is viable outside the womb on average and admit that it's basically arbitrary because they're no easy way out on either side. If you're a Christian moron who thinks life begins literally when an egg and sperm combine, you're presiding over the worst moral atrocities thanks to Plan B and your line is just as arbitrary. If you're a soyboy yas-queen libcuck moron who thinks abortion is based, you're literally digging yourself into a hole where it's basically fucking ay-okay to stomp pregnant women's stomachs because the baby's life means fuck all until it comes out of her pussy.

[@jakecarpenter397]

I agree, but people won't accept being able to disagree here. It's untenable that we could just sort ourselves into likeminded communities over issues like this, as ideal as that would be. People would always feel the need to utilize the state's itchy trigger finger to their benefit, because their ethics and lifestyle are the correct one.

[@stevelogan7551]

Why don't you like Zen Shapiro? Because you disagree with him? You sound like a ZZoomer lib.

[@Hyvik.]

The argument against the consciousness defense of abortion is that the being has the ability to become conscious if not prohibited in some way, and if that is the case then that life is still valuable. We don't believe a coma induced individual that we know has a chance to come out of the coma in any amount of time and regain consciousness would be ok to kill. This same principle applies to the average baby in development because they will have conscious experience and they both have moral value. Otherwise babies we believe (using medical diagnosis) to be brain dead with no chance of gaining consciousness do not and it would be fine to abort (if it'd even be considered aborting at that point). The same rule applies to indefinitely brain dead adults and pulling the plug. We don't consider either murder because we have enough of a medical guarantee that they will not ever have conscious experience in the future.

[@perpetual_suffering1458]

But theres a difference between a conscious experience that temporarely subsides vs a conscious experience that has never even existed and right now lacks the machinery to even create a conscious experience. Our world doesnt place value on the potential of something, if i broke the materials that were about to build a house, that doesnt mean i just destroyed a house. The comparison with people in a coma doesnt fit, because i dont believe people are putting value on the coma patients conscious returning, theyre valueing the conscious before the coma, that is expected to return.

[@Hyvik.]

@@perpetual_suffering1458 Interesting point but I don’t know if it necessarily tracks. Your statement that the being “lacks the machinery to create a conscious experience” I don’t necessarily agree with that, because the being does have the “machinery” as you say. If not prohibited it will continue to develop using only it’s own natural processes. You don’t have to add anything to it you merely have to not kill it. The “machinery” that it needs is there and working. I would only consider it to not have that capability if it were not developing properly and was never expected to. But addressing your analogy, Destroying the pieces of a house would be analogous to the sperm cell or egg (the wood and nails let’s say), Because those pieces will never have a conscious experience with out someone acting upon them (putting the wood and nails together to build the house). A more analogous scenario would be something like , you have a smart house (everything is electronic) the house is there and built but none of the devices inside work until the software is done installing which is expected to take a few weeks complete. If someone were to come by and bulldoze that smart house while it was still installing you would consider that destroying your smart house. Because everything you needed was there even if they didn’t work properly yet. Edit: Forgot to address the last point. I think they (and probably you) actually do value the ability to have conscious experience in the future. Because if the future conscious experience didn’t matter at all then if someone went into a coma that didn’t know anyone at all before the coma so no one would be able to value their previous conscious experience it would still be considered murder in our society to kill them if they were predicted to come out of the coma.

[@yvonnelee4385]

“Ridiculous hypothetical” months after a headline of a young woman giving birth, stuffing her newborn baby in a garbage bag and throwing it in a dumpster alive. If that woman had the chance to use the umbilical cord/bodily autonomy justification I’m pretty sure she would have. We give humanity far too much credit.

[@tropicalpenguin8446]

I am sorry but a 1 year old doesn't have bodily autonomy.

[@displacegamer1379]

16:20 you can't make the claim that she has every right without laying out the reasoning behind it. The whole debate is set around that issue of if she has every right. This means this is not agreed on both side so he should not make that statement as to elude that it is concluded fact.

[@theomnidegenerate5236]

Yes I’m pro-choice to in this guys arguments are the worst I’ve ever heard to the point of parody. Having an entire debate on this issue isn’t even necessary I can summarize the entire thing from start to finish in a single comment. question do you believe that someone has a right to their own body and that no one else has any right to use that body without their expressed consent! do you also agree that unless some form of long-term agreement is explicitly agreed on and or contract signed that-that consent can be revoked at any moment? If they answer no to this then we already have fundamentally diametrically Opposed and unresolvable differences and conflicts within our individual worldviews/belief systems/morals and so on and we will literally never agree on this EVER! If they say yes to this then they have no choice if they are being logically consistent but to be pro-choice because regardless of whether the child is alive or not or what stage of development it is or anything else whatsoever that Bodily autonomy is ultimately what it comes down to so if you believe that bodily autonomy is a right and should be protected and consent can be revoked unless long-term explicit agreement made or contract signed. then that means that even if sex was consent it can still be revoked and the child can be evicted from the mothers body whenever she chooses that’s it end of discussion it’s one or the other it’s black or white this is quite literally one of the rare instances where there is quite literally no in between.

[@mitcho04]

You can take the bodily autonomy argument, once the baby breathes air there is a chemical process which closes off the umbilical cord. Once labour begins and normal birthing ensues, the umbilical chord is deemed for separation, even though it takes a while to fall off. Also the umbilical cord is attached to the placenta which will be birthed during normal birth, it is on a n unstoppable path to autonomy after birth, even before the cord is cut.

[@broken_arch]

To be clear, I'll take the tens of cases (though I don't believe these people actually exist) where a mother will kill a child minutes before birth, over a situation where any woman has to carry a baby they don't want in their body.

[@oneautumnleaf5270]

This debate is already lost when the pro-choice guy says a fetus is a life. Dumbest going to concede.

[@TheMarkSasuke64]

Not sure how. It is 'a life' by all definitions, but that doesn't change anything. So are ants and the bacteria in your gut.

[@MrThankeesai]

right? "i agree life begins at conception, thats a science!" cool where is your towel and where are you throwing it in?

[@oneautumnleaf5270]

@@TheMarkSasuke64 Firstly, I'm pro life. Second, I would never use a dumb argument like yours as my argument why a fetus is alive.

[@Kev7035]

@@TheMarkSasuke64 the ants and bacteria in your gut won't develop to be a fully independant human being, show me an example of gut bacteria evolving and then leaving your gut to grow up and go to college

[@TheMarkSasuke64]

@@Kev7035 Doesn't matter, 'a life' isn't enough to protect anything unless you're willing to concede the bacteria. You'd have to narrow it down to 'human life' in which case we can talk about the quality of the life, and that's when the entire argument would develop into potentiality--which isn't enough to override the agency (or bodily autonomy) of the woman. No consciousness ever, no awareness ever, no victim.

[@TheImmoralNosferatuZodd]

12:55 the look on this guy's face as he tries to think of a way to weasel out, is priceless.

[@hoboryan3455]

The one thing about the abortion talk that seems like a silver bullet but no one mentions; HOW do you figure out someone is having an abortion or if they are even pregnant? This is purely a privacy issue. I don't understand,

[@joshcantu5405]

it's ironic that the pro choice guy's intro was about how the pro life guy would attack and not engage with the topic, but the pro choice guy's whole intro was an attack on the pro life guy and then he struggled to engage...lol

[@nunnie768]

43:40 a one day old baby can't sustain itself but that 1 day old baby isn't violating someone else body autonomy.

[@asher4268]

Can anyone explain why the bodily autonomy argument is so terrible in the eyes of Destiny? I don't understand what crazy positions one needs to accept based on this argument. Has he debated someone on this issue that highlights these counter arguments?

[@nunnie768]

why is the body autonomy argument bad and how does it lead you to OKing abortion at 2 year old? I'm pro-choice (No restrictions) I don't see how you can deprive someone of their body autonomy for the sake of other.

[@BRG64]

Did they have body autonomy when getting pregnant? You don’t just magically get there.

[@nunnie768]

@@BRG64 they chemically/ biologically arose there. they didn't exist prior to say "you don't .... get there". "You" didn't exist.

[@nunnie768]

to me, this is like saying someone gains body autonomy at the expense of other person. (which would violate said person body autonomy)

[@chad3984]

Because the 2 yo is dependent on the mother. If the mothet don't help it dies. If you ok with the mother letting the baby die then its not a bad argument

[@nunnie768]

@@chad3984 a two year old being dependent isn't a body autonomy question though. the 2 year old is a question of what action are you allowed to do if you take on the responsibility of a two year old. (which you do by allowing it to be born - assuming no restrictions on abortions.)

[@heymotivator2231]

On the one hand, irresponsible platforming. On the other, Destiny just hosted a master class on how NOT to argue in favor of abortion. I hope the latter has a bigger impact than the former.

[@nelsonman1231]

@Sam Farza Especially since those kinds of conversations end up going underground and become even more fringe. Best to expose in the public and have those who are knowledgeable break it down.

[@ARealPersonNotABot]

"Irresponsible platforming" I have no argument

[@heymotivator2231]

@Sam Farza Honest question, would you also be ok with Destiny hosting a debate that ends up this one sided, if the topic was “are (racial minority) people inherently inferior?” Just bc the term “irresponsible platforming” gets overused, doesn’t mean it doesn’t legitimately happen sometimes. I imagine all of you shared in dog piling the Serfs when he and the Tail of Two Rabbits guy face planted a debate with Lauren Southern and Counter Points. Feel free to engage, I’m genuinely curious.

[@fluentsloffy9420]

this isnt necessarily irresponsible platforming no misinformation was spread here it and it was just an ethics discussion where im assuming the person whos view you disagree with won. its only irresponsible if someone thinks this debate is enough to entirely shape their view on what policies should be enacted which never came into discussion in the first place

[@brandonwhite562]

Im pro-choice and I wouldnt consider myself very knowledgable in every aspect of the subject or even a good debater, but I could argue for pro-life against that pro-choice guy and he would STILL lose cause he has NO idea what he is doing.

[@LuridContent]

People really need to stop the "women's right to choose" point. There are a lot of things that aren't left to choice. Taxes. Circumcision. Registering for the draft. Seatbelts.

[@novac1990]

For real, you nailed. What do you think the government would say if a dude started spouting the "my body my choice" in the face of a military draft.

[@LuridContent]

@@mrjtfang2 Absolutely correct, which begs the question as to why this particular issue is given special consideration above others.

[@godzilla9268]

@@LuridContent Because seat belts are for safety reasons. Not for a religious purpose.

[@LuridContent]

@@godzilla9268 Taxes and the draft aren't for religious purpose.

[@LuridContent]

@@godzilla9268 In fact, one can be against abortion and religion not be a factor at all. wtf.

[@noblepursuit591]

"Is it your position that someone is counted as a life only if someone else wants them to be a life?" "...sure we can go with that..." **Destiny stunned and bewildered, yet, lets it stand on its own stupidity** 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@SageSea1]

He could've at least asked destiny to reword more concise to the topic instead of biting a bullet that fat.

[@Focus716]

I havent heard the conscious argument but i have heard you say that the mother playin music for her baby etc can influence the child, how is that possible if theres no consciousness?

[@ARealPersonNotABot]

The "Pro-Choicers)" would call this debate irresponsible platforming. They say that about all platforms that don't parrot their beliefs.

[@ARealPersonNotABot]

@@mrjtfang2 All of their arguments mimick his pretty much exactly. Some are just more verbose. Others act as if its not a human life until the cord is cut. Others argue that the baby can be terminated after it's born. All of it ends in "A woman's choice" It's cult like. Every argument ends the same way. There is a small but sometimes vocal minority who says regardless of rape and incest the woman should have the child. The overwhelming majority of pro-lifers agree that it it physically harms the woman's health then termination would be the logical choice. It's not a happy one, but it's a choice.

[@drdoomer8553]

If I were to debate a person on abortion there would be 3 things I’ll point out. 1. The fetus has value, just not as much as a person (that’ll be important leading to the third point and I’ll expand on that) 2.The fetus is a “human being” in the sense it’s a being which comes from someone, but it isn’t a person. It’s not cognitively changing or reacting to anything that happens to it so from that standpoint it matters less and is complete indifference 3. The reason it’s good to draw the line at birth (third trimester abortions rarely happpen and most of the time they do it’s for extreme medical reasons) is because of physical consequence. The woman has something in herself which If held to the contrary of what I believe she’d have to deal with the struggle of giving birth as someone who doesn’t want to as well as the vast amount of possible health issues that come with giving birth outside of just when the baby is out. Once a baby is born, there’s little to no physical consequence because the person can rid themselves of responsibility as they will and it’s outside themselves. The baby also isn’t a person but it matters enough to have it live due to what it can accomplish mixed with that it isn’t a physical hindering of someone with actual personhood as far as their body

[@Winasaurus]

Playing devils advocate: 1. Why does the fetus have less value as anyone else? 2. If someone is in a coma, so not reacting or changing to anything, are they not a person either? Even if it's only a short term, such as medically induced one? Couldn't you argue sleeping is 'not cognitively changing or reacting'? 3. Barring health issues, everyone agrees on those really, is hindering someone physically the only requirement needed to justify the killing? Because if that's all the baby is guilty of, then anyone who physically hinders someone else is on the chopping block, theoretically. And if this relies on them not counting as people, I'd refer to my prior comment that going from what you said, that means even people who are put in medically induced comas can be killed without moral judgement because they're not people. If you want to bite that bullet, sure, but I think you're better off redefining what you consider to be a person beyond just reacting to stimulus. Personally, I'm quite pro-life, mostly due to the culture surrounding elective abortions, and I feel that pushing pro-life would also push better decision-making. Though I personally don't think there's any value to a fetus really, it's more about potential value.

[@drdoomer8553]

@@Winasaurus 1. Depends on what stage. A fetus at a stage before it’s cognitive can’t perceive anything. Usually before roughly 25-30 weeks. If someone can’t perceive, they can’t interact with the world around them. Not being able to interact with the world or know the world makes me view that thing as less valuable. Pretty much anything you or I value is only possible through the ability to perceive. 2. It’s a human being who is currently not conscious. They had and will have an ability to perceive and have a will to live/wishes before going into that state. If they won’t come out of that state, then no. I wouldn’t say they’re a person any longer. If they will come out of that state, then I’d respect their perception before they were put into that state since they’ve had a will to live 3. I don’t just mean consequence in heavy handed way. I mean literally any consequence even as mundane as not wanting to go through physical pain related to the pregnancy. In that case we’re harming one person who’s conscious no matter what when we could’ve ended the life of something which would be indifferent to anything happening.

[@flpandrei]

The pro choice guy is just bad at this. What happens in those 10 minutes that makes the difference? The damn birth itself! That's the difference. What's the difference between knowing for sure that the fetus and mom will be 100% fine and the doctor giving his opinion?? It's the fact that the situation has perfect knowledge in one case, and it has 99% in the second case

[@tb8654]

So you are for an abortion 2 weeks before the expected delivery date?

[@therainman7777]

I’m going to try to steel man this guy’s original autonomy argument because he seemed completely unable to close the loop on it. I _think_ what he was saying that as long as there is some potential _risk_ of medical complication in the future, the mother should have the bodily autonomy to exit herself from that risk. So when Destiny proposed the “time machine” that could guarantee 100% that there wouldn’t be any complications, he said in that case he would no longer support the right to abort. But in the real world, where such certainty is impossible to come by, he feels the mother should always have the option, because the _risk_ for future complications is always there- until the child has successfully emerged from the birth canal. This still doesn’t really square with any of his other positions, because he clearly thinks women should be able to abort due to economic (or other) reasons- which have nothing to do with potential medical complications. But, that is the closest I can come to making sense of his original argument.

[@ogfrankfurter8247]

-iq .babys arent ticking random bombs. We know what leads to harm during pregnancy.

[@therainman7777]

@@ogfrankfurter8247 I know that, but like I said I was trying to steel man his argument for him. I don’t agree with him in any way. But I’m trying to make the argument that I think he was trying to make, in a way that is at least logically coherent even if I think it’s incorrect. Also, the earlier in the pregnancy the greater the uncertainty about what’s going to happen later in the pregnancy. 5 minutes before birth, yes we pretty much know for sure. But in the third month, it’s very much up in the air. So if his argument is that a mother should be able to opt out of that lottery, that argument is at least logically coherent.

[@warpio]

He really should've just focused on the risk of harm argument. He could've easily taken the win on "we don't currently have a way to determine that a pregnancy is 100% safe to go through, and as long as that is the case, it ultimately falls on the person going through the pregnancy to determine whether terminating it is the medically necessary thing to do or not."

[@DustbinFunkbndr]

Impressive work. If this was the intent, I can get behind that argument to a degree. You’re doing a lot of heavy lifting to make something of this mess. A+

[@ogfrankfurter8247]

@@therainman7777 then the moral highground would be to not choose to put your self into that position at all, and have no sex. until you are okay with playing that lottery.

[@seanjenkins5505]

This r/antiwork all over again. "Destiny has explained this to you already and he's pro choice so I don't know what to say". Jesus light the funeral pire.

[@MrMctastics]

I honestly can't tell what you're saying

[@asimplewizard]

@@MrMctastics good. I do and it made me realize I'm online too much. Gonna go outside and fuck some grass

[@outtaplace1698]

Bro I've never heard a worse pro choice argument.

[@Guitarmaster7272]

I can't believe the pro-choice guy wouldn't just say "because the mother is biologically providing nutrients still". I kept saying it throughout the video and he didn't know how to say it. He's just going to hide behind the vague statement of "the medical situation" is the reason abortion is fine until birth. He also doesn't understand the point of a hypothetical. He kept saying "oh it'll never happen", but the hypothetical is to imagine that it will actually happen. It's like he knew his position was extreme but didn't want to own it or bite the bullet.

[@bennywolfe4357]

If the baby isn’t guilty of anything, then isn’t he innocent?

[@kaldrake2167]

We need baby lawyers to represent these baby defendants.

[@ForeverMasterless]

A baby isn't ANYTHING prior to pre frontal cortex development. You can't be innocent if you don't even have a conscious awareness of your own existence.

[@yoboiboy4182]

Pro choice is probs the most difficult position to defend for the left.

[@firstwavenegativity6379]

Why do you think so?

[@Celestina0]

How? It has popular support

[@nicolasleroux5302]

@@firstwavenegativity6379 Because a fetus is a human life. But instead of using utilitarian arguments for abortion, most pro-choice people just say “my body my choice” and leave it at that.

[@firstwavenegativity6379]

@@nicolasleroux5302 Some pro-choice people are bad at argument, obviously. But it's a popular position. As far as I know, the majority of people are pro-choice

[@nicolasleroux5302]

@@firstwavenegativity6379 True, but popularity doesn’t automatically make something moral or practical. To argue any political position, a person must either make a moral argument (x is good because of principle y) or a utilitarian argument (x is good because it benefits y). Pro-life people always make moral arguments, but pro-choice people usually don’t argue from a moral or a utilitarian perspective. Pro-choice people would be much more convincing if they made utilitarian arguments, but they refuse to do so because they’re afraid of being viewed as bad people. Saying “I support abortion because it significantly reduces crime rates and poverty rates” is an understandable argument, but that argument doesn’t make pro-choice people feel warm and fuzzy inside.

[@travelerzerozero7441]

As a Pro-Lifer this was a fun debate to watch.

[@johnnykluch]

Me, as a staunch pro-choicer: Pain...

[@zompocalpha1]

You and like three other people are loving it I'm sure. I myself was screaming at Alex.

[@_synthicyde]

Bruh... This is depressing. You gotta call it early when someone is getting pummeled this bad. Damn.

[@sixstringtherapy5038]

That had to be the worst debate performance ever. He was definitely not prepared to be pushed on his ideas.

[@dgmr22]

In this discussion the pro lifer seemed far more experienced at debating. I think the majority of people think abortion is a necessary evil, but passed a certain point in the Babies development is unacceptable (excluding medically necessary) in the UK 23 weeks and 6 days is the cut off point. Is 23 weeks too long? idk, personally I think the maximum should be 21 weeks 6 days. At 22 weeks there is a 0 to 10% chance of survival if born prematurely. At 24 weeks that jumps to between 40 to 70% survival. Perhaps the cut off point for abortion should be the moment the child has even a 1% chance of survival if born prematurely. Beyond medically necessary I really don't see how someone could argue for abortion up until birth.

[@arlenspecter8348]

Because he is. He’s a one trick debater. It’s the same thing as someone like Vegan Gains. You better know your shit before 1v1ing these people because all they do is debate one topic. Best believe they know their shit

[@oldscotty9507]

When is a fetus a human is the only topic I’ve ever seen Zen Shapiro debate on.

[@jeanlucbergman479]

The debate in the US is just fucking insane. Conservatives who want to ban it entirely and lefties who will defend laws that allow for abortions at 40 weeks.

[@baileyskates]

Just a side note: the problem with using viability as a metric to determine whether or not an abortion should be allowed, is that as medical technology progresses, the date of viability will come sooner and sooner. so basically the window for abortion will slowly recede overtime. so then it becomes a question of just because a fetus COULD survive does it mean the mother HAS to allow it? especially when it may involve some kind of expensive and invasive surgery? Not saying whether i agree or disagree with your personal take, just adding to the discussion.

[@unyieldingmonotony4453]

Hmm, My question is why does the intrustion of the life of another person (The baby) mean that the mother can kill it? Why is that a necessary evil? What is it about being unwillingly pregnant for 9 months that is so evil it's necessary to take a life?