How Can Abortion Be Moral |Setuf-(ES) | Talk Heathen 05.44

Talk Heathen 05.44 for October 31, 2021 with Kenneth Leonard and Johnny P. Angel.
Call the show on Sundays 1:00-2:00pm CDT: 1-512-686-0279
Don't like commercials? Become a patron & get ad-free episodes & more: / talkheathentome
The podcast may be found at:
www.spreaker.c...
Talk Heathen merch can be found at: bit.ly/aenmerch
-------
WHAT IS TALK HEATHEN?
Talk Heathen is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared toward long-form and on-going dialogue with theists & atheists about religion, theism, & secularism. Talk Heathen is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
Talk Heathen is filmed in front of a live studio audience every week at the Freethought Library of the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop & support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing & friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of government-religion separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists & to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
CONTACTS & SOCIAL MEDIA
Facebook.com/groups/talkheathenfg
Reddit.com/r/talkheathen
NOTES
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Ethan Meixsell "Takeoff"
/ talkheathen is the official channel of Talk Heathen. "Talk Heathen" is a trademark of the ACA.
Copyright © 2017 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.

[@allykaman9340]

My favorite analogy is someone getting injured in a motorcycle accident. If someone rides a motorcycle, they do so knowing of the risks and understanding the consequences. But if someone gets into a motorcycle crash and is left with a severe injury, no one would say they shouldn't be taken to a hospital or given medical attention. They have the injury, but NOW they get the chance to address that injury in the way they see fit with the professional help of their doctor.

[@joelchalmin]

For me, your analogy would be more accurate if we acknowledge that when you have the accident you are rushed to the hospital as fast as possible to take care of the injuries. The more you leave it, the more your injuries grow and later is more difficult and complex to repair..

[@allykaman9340]

@@joelchalmin Exactly! Like COULD decide "well, I knew what I was getting in to when I decided to ride this motorcycle. I guess I'll just let this wound fester until my whole leg rots off." OR they could say "Well I'd hoped to avoid injury, but now that I'm injured, I'd like to keep the lasting damage to a minimum. Better call an ambulance."

[@joelchalmin]

@@allykaman9340 Sure, only problem is, if we move away from the analogy, that we cannot quite compare an injury that is left for long getting worst, to an embryo developing into human life.. At some point it is no longer just about you and your injuries..

[@joelchalmin]

@@setuf7751 Keep it up, approach with respect and don't let them off the hook.. You are making a valid point which should either be directly rebutted or acknowledged..

[@scottc1857]

@@joelchalmin as someone who was born UNWANTED and fathered by someone my mentally ill mother hated so much that she transferred that hate onto me I can say that I am 100% pro choice for that reason alone. The hell I went through growing up has shown me very conclusively that you are actually in favor of the wellbeing of the fetus by being prochoice. Yes, ultimately I turned out ok but ultimately NO CHILD should have to be put through what I went through. Maybe if society was different and etc I'd feel differently but we aren't in a place where we can protect these children that we would be forcing to be born. Because we can't protect them etc I am in favor of the possibly imperfect solution of people self selecting whether to terminate a pregnancy.

[@williamtarry4405]

We should pass laws mandating that men get a birth-control device implanted when they reach sexual maturity. If a man wants to produce a child, he should petition their state government to have their implant turned off. I'm sure the forced-birth crowd will support this. It would drive down unintended pregnancies significantly! Of course, it does impede on the whole idea of body autonomy, but they're fine with forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

[@joelchalmin]

Good point but, aren’t you also leaving the life of this developing ‘being’ out of the equation, same as the hosts did during the call? This is what the caller was saying and I don’t think they did great addressing that point..

[@williamtarry4405]

@@joelchalmin that's where body autonomy rights comes into play. Legally, you cannot force a child to give up a kidney even if it's to save the life of a sibling or parent. It must be by their choice and not forced. In America, a person cannot be forced to donate their organs, even after they die. Body autonomy rights in a nutshell. If you cannot extend body autonomy rights to everyone, then it is not a right.

[@joelchalmin]

@@williamtarry4405 yeah, fair enough.. I think the call was about the morality though, not legality, would you then also maintain that an abortion carried out after the fetus has a heart beat and can feel pain is ‘moral’?

[@cy-one]

@@joelchalmin It is still the same question, somewhat. Do you think it would be moral to force a parent or sibling to (for example) donate an organ to save a child's life, assuming for the argument they're the only compatible donor? In this example, not forcing them might also lead to the death of a child - someone we can surely agree definitely has a heart beat and can feel pain.

[@williamtarry4405]

@@joelchalmin a person's right to body autonomy is not dependent upon a life that may be growing within that person. As for the morality, would it be moral or immoral to force someone to violate their body autonomy because of some other persons opinion? For me, personally, I've stopped basing my morality on the hypothetical life while it is still developing. For example, trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 are both fatal defects that usually end with death of the fetus before birth but death may occur a few weeks after birth. Would it be moral to let a fetus come to term when its life is expected to be measured in weeks if it is even born?

[@t.dmytryshyn2615]

I find it hilarious that it is always men debating this question. I just wish men could get pregnant then we wouldn't have them debating abortion.

[@meloveAi]

Like...Male seahorses? Can we get a genetic mutation therapy going where all these guys arguing against abortion are suddenly able to get pregnant? I wanna see what their stance is after someone knocks them up.

[@kellydalstok8900]

@@meloveAi abortion would not only be widely available but also free of charge.

[@Julian0101]

I agree, if men could get pregnant the debate would be way different.

[@hayuseen6683]

We would definitely have men debate abortion still. They might debate that any man who gets pregnant must abort their abomination as the proper responsible thing.

[@lorianabanana6066]

Agree 100%

[@neosapien247]

The FIRST thing you should’ve told this guy, is that being being pro choice doesn’t mean being pro abortion. People like this don’t get that fundamental point.

[@shpongled587]

pro-choice adjective: pro-choice definition: advocating legalized abortion

[@cy-one]

@@shpongled587 Abortion being a right does not mean abortion being a duty.

[@neosapien247]

@@shpongled587 Your comment doesn't mean what you think it does, dmbass.

[@ant9925]

@@shpongled587 pro-choice adjective advocating the legal right of a woman to choose whether or not she will have an abortion. A little honesty goes a long way.

[@ant9925]

@@setuf7751 weird how you as a man feel like you have a right to dictate to women how they can use their bodies. There's no "special rights" it's a right for everyone who can fall pregnant. Your oppressive nonsense belongs in the dark ages.

[@arnarninson4413]

How many foster kids does the caller care for????

[@joelchalmin]

The other question would be, how many foster kids would rather not be alive at all?

[@gazza595]

@@setuf7751 The question again, as you avoided it, how many unwanted children do you care for? Answer the question rather than thanking a diversion. Listening to your session on TH you seem to prefer avoidance rather than actually answering a direct question.

[@kyledadumb4354]

@@setuf7751 it's relevant because you seem like you want to add more foster kids to the equation with forced birth.

[@kellydalstok8900]

@@joelchalmin the ones who have to live in abusive foster care or are adopted by abusive people might prefer death at some points. And how about the children that are returned because their adoptive parents are a little disappointed with their purchase. A child is not a pair of shoes to be returned to the shop if they don’t fit.

[@AndreJNick]

I'll say the same thing I said when Matt asked this question. The distinction between consent to get pregnant and the consent to risk pregnancy is arbitrary at best. But it doesn't matter because your consent can always be retracted. Just because you said yes at one point doesn't mean it always has to be a yes

[@jaege]

So consent to sex is consent to pregnancy? Really? What about gay sex? Or sex between older people? Or non-traditional sex that doesn't involve a vagina? Is all that sex consent to pregnancy too?

[@Sanxioned1]

@@jaege I don't think they're saying that exactly, more like they don't really see the distinction as important because consent itself can be retracted. My view is that the distinction is incredibly important and hardly arbitrary because in *every other* walk of life of serious consequence, we clearly distinguish between consenting to a risky activity and consenting to the consequence of that activity. For example: skydiving. An inherently dangerous, life threatening activity. In fact, so risky, that you have to sign a waiver (in most developed countries) that acts as a "consent to major bodily harm resulting from this activity" so you cannot sue the company. And if you refuse to sign, they won't take you. The mere knowledge of a consequence simply does not mean you accept the consequence.

[@TheSnoeedog]

so....in the case of every single automobile accident, any victims consented? Or the difference between their consent vs. consent to the risk is arbitrary? I think you're delusional

[@AndreJNick]

@@Sanxioned1 the signing of the waiver is not consent to bodily injury because legally speaking you already consented to that by consenting to the dangerous act. As does the company by helping you perform that dangerous act. All the waiver does is transfer liability for that consent from them to you.

[@AndreJNick]

@@TheSnoeedog I think you gotta learn to frame your arguments/questions better because I have no idea what point you're tryna convey

[@Deris87]

So his criteria for when abortion becomes immoral is after the fetus can feel, but he doesn't know when that is... seems like kind of a problem. Especially since even the earliest estimates for a fetus being able to feel pain aren't until 20 weeks, which is well after the legal restriction on elective abortion pretty much everywhere. So Setuf is tilting at windmills. Shocking.

[@joelchalmin]

I personally feel it’s ok until the heart beat can be felt. Once the heart beat is there, we know there is human life.. Having said that, I think it should still be legal for woman to do later on in the pregnancy if they choose this, however, I wouldn’t say this would be the moral thing to do..

[@cy-one]

@@joelchalmin Which just means you think that it's okay to invalidate someone's bodily autonomy without consent.

[@BryanTheDirector]

@@joelchalmin Humans aren't the only creatures with hearts. Are you going to start running around calling cows humans because you could hear a heartbeat?

[@joelchalmin]

@@cy-one No, I wrote already I agree it should be legal for woman to make the decision.. I just think, particularly after the fetus can start to feel pain, the scenario changes and there is more to the conversation than to the body autonomy of the woman. Unless you don't think a fetus inside a womb should be treated with respect and dignity, particularly in its more developed stages..

[@joelchalmin]

@@BryanTheDirector Yeah, it's only humans that would be in the womb of a woman. But yeah, I think I misspoke and would correct my initial statement to agree with the caller and say that, particularly after the fetus can feel pain, it's were the morality of it gets to a point that is more tricky to justify...

[@dwendt44]

IF we are the same blood type, can government force you to give me one of your kidneys? You only need one anyway.

[@craigflower13]

As a pain nurse, when a foetus feels pain is difficult to establiish and even if the correct nerve conduction pathways exist, it is currently impossible to say whether they mentally percieve pain. I would also point out, that labour can last many hours, and during this period the foetus is being squeezed hard enough to rearrange the bones off the skull, dislocate limbs and fracture bones. If pain prevention is the ultimate arbiter of whether you believe abortion should not be carried out, then enforced caesarean sections should be mandated as well.

[@adithyarajchoorikat9904]

What about rape victims??? Deformity in child??? Why do they not understand the sufferings of these people.???

[@SgtD85]

Didnt you hear. TX is going to stop rapes.

[@wunnell]

They understand. They just don't care. It's conservatism 101: make sure that anyone deemed undeserving doesn't get anything given to them and if you have to screw over deserving people in the process then that's fine, as long as you're not the one getting screwed over.

[@neilfreeman5824]

You cannot force a person to have someone else invade their body.

[@wunnell]

But we already do. Access to abortion after a certain period of development is restricted now, generally being dependent on whether there is a risk to the mother's health. Access to abortion at earlier stages is generally unrestricted specifically because the foetus or whatever it is referred to at that stage is not considered to be "someone". This is why I think that arguments like yours are weak. Pro-lifers specifically argue that abortion is killing a person and your argument legitimises that. There is no person to kill in the first place. An abortion should be treated like any other medical procedure in the early stages of pregnancy because it affects the pregnant woman and her alone. There is only a second person to consider later in the pregnancy and we already do restrict a woman's access to abortions during that period. Unless you're going to argue in favour of abortion being unrestricted right up until the moment before labour, which many (most?) pro-choice advocates would resist, your argument fails.

[@corywhitebread6519]

​@@wunnellonly abortion is not killing anything. Abortion is the act of a woman ending a pregnancy. It is not the woman's responsibility to ensure the life of the fetus survives from an abortion. The fetus is not given special privileges to revoke the rights of bodily autonomy from anyone. Otherwise it implies that no one has bodily autonomy and that would mesn organs and blood can be taken against consent. Hence the "Special privilege" case that specifically discriminates against a group of people. Men aren't forced to forfeit any of their bodily organs to save lives.

[@dwp6471]

So, driving a car is consent to die in a car wreck, because you know it is possible.

[@donnaprather1066]

If men could get pregnant, abortion would not be an issue. If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available at Walmart.

[@tedmoy]

Love Johnny's shirt!

[@robinvan1983]

So do these men only have sex for pregnancy? Because I would like to know. They seem to suggest that women should only want to have sex to get pregnant

[@NubianNarrator]

exactly. I was thinking the same thing. By his logic, we should not have sex for fun, only to create babies. If that's the case then humanity will die off very quickly!

[@kellydalstok8900]

If men didn’t enjoy sex they would never have it. Procreation is the last thing on the mind of the large majority of horny men.

[@hunterv9983]

If those guys don't wanna use a condom, women have two holes for a reason.

[@TigreModerata]

Even with the game i can't be forced to be hooked up to whatever being pops up to keep it alive with my body. I don't see the problem with the analogy, seems fine and would end up in exactly the same decision. If i adopt an adult and he/she ends up needing an organ, a risk i knew existed when i adopted them, i can't be forced to give it. Nor can i be forced to put myself at medical risk (e.g. all the risks of pregnancy) and compromise my own health to save them if it came to that. It would be an extremely selfless and admirable thing, maybe, but no state should force me to, not am I morally reprehensible if I decide not to.

[@corywhitebread6519]

Exactly. The pro lifers always go to calling it murder or killing, but in actuality it is the woman removing themselves from the pregnancy. Just the same as any other human opting out of being a donor.

[@markastoforoff7838]

My opinion is that I don't have the right to tell others what they can and can not do when it comes to their health.

[@nates9029]

A fetus cannot feel anything until around 22 weeks. The receptors in the brain are not developed until then. You can find research on this. Instead of calling in and then admitting that you don't know the basics of the topic you are trying to discuss, why don't you do some research FIRST and then call in. "I think I did well"?! I am always fascinated when people involved in the debate insist that they won or did well. It is generally up to the audience to determine who had the best arguments and who did or didn't do well. I guess we all just get to decide for ourselves who won the debates or arguments we engage in, right?! Also, here is how you can tell you didn't actually do well, when you failed to provide an argument to justify your position. I must have missed the moral argument unless it was "This is what I believe". Not a very compelling argument.

[@zar3434]

Why should this special privilege end at childbirth? If a child is born with a bad kidney then whoever is most compatible should be legally required to donate one, even if it means they'll die. As long as the donor is older, they're less important.

[@cmack17]

I agree with the caller so far as he crafted a decent analogy I also agree with the hosts on the primary issue of abortion. Setting that aside... There is a reason that analogies, in and of themselves, are not used to "prove" things.

[@coreymurdoch5915]

Amazing that you guys didn’t just tear him to shreds. I hope if he had daughters they never talk to him about any of this stuff.

[@tommystyx]

if a woman wants an abortion and is forced to have the child then the father should be forced to pay for and raise that child, whether he wants to or not.

[@brucewilliams4152]

No because risk of pregnancy isn't consent to be pregnant.

[@LaCeiba1924]

I would say having consensual sex includes accepting the responsibility of possible consequences, which is not the same as consenting to the consequences. For example, consenting to sex does not mean consenting to pregnancy. Rather, consenting to sex means acknowledging that there are risks and being prepared to handle them should they occur. This can be done in a number of ways: using birth control, discussing expectations with your partner(s), and seeking appropriate medical help to either abort or continue the pregnancy. That said, we can’t force people to be responsible, and it’s not our place to chastise people who were unprepared or who made a mistake. Therefore, everyone should have equal access to free birth control, abortions, and medicine, regardless of what lead to them needing it.

[@jeffparent2159]

I don't get why no one uses the situation where the father is compelled to donate an organ. Then again the guys making the caller's argument dont get that pregnancy leads go life long body changes and life long health risks.

[@Flammiedrum]

Caller made no effort to listen to the hosts, hard to have an honest conversation when people refuse to discuss the issue honestly, instead smuggling in descriptions of fetuses as beings.

[@joelchalmin]

Why do you think caller was incorrect about saying that a fetus that has a heart beat and can feel pain is a developing human being?

[@meloveAi]

@@joelchalmin I'd like to know how you can tell when a fetus can feel pain. A heart beat, sure, we can measure those.

[@meloveAi]

@@setuf7751 How am I discriminating? I genuinely am asking. Because when I feel pain, I would say "ow" or "ouch". Or more often, just recoil away from the point of origin.

[@kyledadumb4354]

@@setuf7751 let's grant, for the sake of argument, that fetuses are people. Why do you want to give special rights to the unborn that we don't give to the born? Do I, or the government, have the right to force you to use your body to keep someone else alive without or against your consent? No of course not. Now why do you want to give fetuses that special right?

[@meloveAi]

@@setuf7751 No

[@JBee887]

I love how anti abortionists think abortion is immoral yet they fail to realize forcing people to do things with their own bodies they don't want to do is quite immoral! I always say that if people don't offer to adopt or foster or try to find a home for a pregnant woman who wants/needs an abortion then they have absolutely no right to be anti abortion.

[@thelittleowl8399]

to me, the whole debate on this starts and ends with pregnancy and birth coming with a mortality rate. Under ANY other circumstance, we wouldn't force someone to go through something with that risk. As for consent to sex being the same as consent to pregnancy: is birth control a joke? Is the industry worth billions because people juggle with them?

[@krisaaron5771]

Setuf's confusion may be due to a language issue -- the presenters aren't "pro abortion", as he claimed at :32. They are pro-CHOICE, meaning the pregnant woman chooses whether to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth or have an abortion. In terms of "morality", the well-being of the fetus is not more important than the well-being of the woman whose body is being used to keep the fetus alive for nine months. The life of the fetus is totally dependent on the woman's body. Now, I have a question for all anti-abortion supporters: Is the life of a fetus more precious and special than the life of a child or adult? If a child or adult is dying of organ failure and needs a transplant to survive, shouldn't that individual have the "moral right" to DEMAND a non-vital organ or body part from a potential donor in the same way they believe a fetus does? If the potential donor is unwilling to submit to transplant surgery, shouldn't that person be FORCED AGAINST THEIR WILL to give up the needed body part? If not, why not? A pregnant woman can be FORCED to allow a fetus to use her body, and pregnancy often has a negative and permanent effect on the body of the woman carrying it! The US has a maternal death rate equal to many third-world countries, indicating pregnancy puts a severe and often permanent burden on the health of the pregnant woman. If all human life is of equal value, then why shouldn't ALL adults with healthy organs be forced to surrender their non-vital organs and body parts to keep dying individuals alive? If not, is that because it will force MEN to be unwilling "donors"? Is Setuf opposed to abortion because he thinks HIS body will never be used against his will to keep another person alive?

[@ginasalinas2731]

Even in this scenario, which is awesome, I tend to go a step further I don't think it's the same as a dying person needing an organ because you know a fetus of an less than 20 weeks as less of a person and more like an organ right? It's a genuine question. I guess this scenario is for all those people who are out there saying we are murdering humans by abortion right? Oh okay I think I get it now

[@krisaaron5771]

@@ginasalinas2731 Agreed! The problem is that many "right to life" supporters insist a 10-week fetus should have all the same rights as a newborn. I want these individuals to live with the rules they demand women follow: They MUST sacrifice their non-vital organs and body parts to keep another human alive!

[@ginasalinas2731]

@@krisaaron5771 some will apply those same rights to zygotes, my family does. And yes they should have to sacrifice an organ and have hormonal injections as well. Agreed!

[@philipfitzsimons5924]

The star trek uniform looks good

[@hunterv9983]

"What does God need with a starship?" comes to mind.

[@AndrewL4me]

I am a male athiest. On the issue of abortion I believe there should be a vote from the female population only. My perspective is that harming any life is wrong, be it abortion, the death penalty or legal guns. All should be banned. But I don't think I should get a vote on abortion

[@AndrewL4me]

I'd love to hear others opinion of my view

[@TheChancellor212]

He put more thought into his pseudonym than his argument.

[@vigviggy8689]

Gotta be honest here, the hosts handle this poorly. They did a kind of mediocre job at refuting the caller's points. They took long routes that sometimes left them on a weak position compared to the already very weak position of the caller. Seriously, all they needed to do was point out the hypocritical position of the caller. Johnny's just flat-out wrong in that the fetus shouldn't be considered a person. It is a person. But the difference is that the the pro-choice side views the fetus as equal in rights to the person carrying it, which is why it's needs do not supersede the needs or desires of the person carrying it. The anti-choice position views the fetus as having special rights over the person carrying it. Then all they had to do is ask the caller to justify why the fetus deserves special rights, and his entire argument would have fallen apart.

[@LaCeiba1924]

What really tears down the pro-birth position for me is the fact that politicians deliberately turned abortion into a massive political debate in order to fuck over underprivileged people (black people being their main target). As social rights evolved, it was no longer OK for a political candidate to straight up say they hate black people. But abortion was different-surely nobody would be in favor of killing innocent babies? They manipulated people’s emotions so they would vote to keep racist monsters in power. These monsters then passed shitloads of laws that fucked over racial minorities, poor people, LGBT+, and women. Even today, there are a shitload of people that vote Republican just because they are anti-abortion. They don’t give a shit if that same candidate is committing atrocities, abusing poor people, and dismantling the middle class because they’ve come to believe that abortion is THE most important moral issue of today. Completely fabricated fear. That’s also why most republicans don’t give a shit about what happens to the baby once it’s born. They don’t want to pass any reform that would help parents, particularly if it’s single, minority, or poor parents.

[@slik00silk84]

I think the two hosts covered the issue well ! The stupid caller needs to o back 1000 years.

[@danumd87]

On one hand they crushed it logically via very strong and on point analogies. On the other hand, they very much needed to be less impressed with themselves and let the guy get a word in in response. He would have buried himself step by step if they would have just stfu for a second and handed him the shovel. It’s probably tough to be good at this in real time, knowing you’re going to be heard by many. I’m an attorney and I can have the greatest arguments mapped out and stumble the second the judge says “hello counsel”. So I get it. They just really botched the dialogue overall.

[@solly119119]

Agree, including with how difficult it is doing something like this live. But to various degrees all the hosts on atheist shows sometimes dominate the conversation too much. I get they need to control the discourse, but allowing some (but not all) the callers more talking time is something I wish they'd consider.

[@danumd87]

@@solly119119 that’s certainly a fair characterization. I’m not very familiar with these guys in particular and to see them to an especially poor job in that regard was highly frustrating given very little was actually required of them to win this one.

[@solly119119]

@@setuf7751 Setuf, it wasn't so much taking your feelings into consideration, as more of a critique of the hosts. Also, you might be under the misconception I think abortion should be illegal. I do not. Finally, if you insist on characterizing people who are "pro choice" as "pro abortion", then surely you are okay with me calling you "anti choice" instead of "pro life", right? Right ...?

[@solly119119]

@@setuf7751 Well Setuf, do you understand telling someone they're "pro unjustified killing" is deeply offensive? Or are you just pissed off at the moment and were trying to offend me? It's on par with a theist telling someone they're going to burn in hell for all eternity. Not only is it insulting, but it's also arrogant as fu*k given you can 't prove any of it. So if you want to have conversations with people who disagree with you, may I suggest you drop the "you're okay killing innocent babies!" angle.

[@solly119119]

​@@setuf7751Yeah, you're still not getting this. Do you really believe I think abortion is the killing of an innocent being (meaning human)? I know you believe that, but I, CLEARLY, do not. Unless you think I'm a heartless, cruel person who doesn't give a damn about others? Do you see how you just did the exact same thing as before, just using different phrasing? And why do you call a fetus a "being" instead of "human"? Do you or do you not believe a fetus is the same as you, me or a one-day-old infant?

[@Patrick77487]

SeTough continues a glib cowardly approach to bodily autonomy through false analogies.

[@jayvansickle7607]

Johnny P, "I don't want the government to tell me that I must use my body for certain end goals that others decide are important." Ok... this stood out to me. He's talking, primarily, about abortion. However, how can this argument Not be used for the anti-vaxer argument as well? I'm not an anti-vaxer. I have had the vaccine, but it seems like a synonymous argument.

[@lorianabanana6066]

The difference is that being pregnant isn't a deadly virus that can be transfered to living actual humans. Being pregnant only affects the woman & zygote. When most abortions happen it's a clum of cells the size of a grape, so there is only one human body involved. Personally I don't believe in forcing people to get vaxxed. I do think that it's your body & I don't want the government tying anyone to chairs & forcing vaccines on people. But, don't being vaxxed does have consquences when your interacting w society. Maybe you can't travel, or go in certain theme parks, or store. Maybe you can't hold certain jobs. That's not 'forcing' anyone, but by being unvaxxed you are a danger not just to yourself but everyone around you. Society has a right to protect itself. I know you're not anti-vax, just answering as to how I see it. ✌

[@jayvansickle7607]

@@lorianabanana6066 thanks for the response/perspective....I appreciate it.

[@wunnell]

There are a number of differences. Firstly, an abortion only affects the pregnant woman. It doesn't affect any other person and that includes the foetus, because it is not a person during the early stages of pregnancy, which is when unrestricted access to abortion is generally permitted. Vaccination or not against a highly infectious and potentially fatal disease can affect a lot of people. Secondly, at this stage, no one is being forced to be vaccinated. No government in the US is holding people down and sticking a needle in their arm and neither are they incarcerating people for not getting vaccinated. Everyone is allowed to freely choose whether to be vaccinated or not. If they make the free choice to not be vaccinated though, there are consequences for doing so, which everyone is aware of. Pro-lifers are trying to remove the choice for pregnant women altogether.

[@LuisGonzalez-rm5vx]

@@wunnell good points

[@movieklump]

90 per cent of abortion debates are sausage fests.

[@MarioWagner]

I always find it funny, how these guys would leave a newborn baby in the hands of persons, that are not educated enough to use protection.

[@briand.reynolds474]

I'm going to comment really well: By the time teh setuf can feel things, the life support system can as well.

[@topcat2069]

Is it "moral" for it to be illegal to be a woman ??

[@Argeaux2]

I reckon, by the way they are talking, that Setuf has never had sex.

[@dalecs47]

Ask any American man who feels it is OK for government to take away choice from a woman if he would be OK with government taking away his right to buy, own or have a gun?

[@mathildeyoung1823]

Men don't have the choice to take the life of their unborn child. Women shouldn't either (unless it's the only way to save their life)

[@joulian]

I agree with the caller with his reasoning but disagree with his conclusions. It's kind of shitty to end a not yet sentient human life, but there's also the many responsible actions to take, one of them being abortion. It kind of is a responsible way to deal with it, and in some cases I don't think there is a better (less shitty) option, moraly speaking. Now, moving outside of moral territory and into legal territory, that's the easiest one. The state should have no say, and ensure that whatever dubious service one is provided, the only thing the government should do is ensure that the service is as safe as can be. Pretty much like cheating on a girlfriend is shitty but not illegal.

[@JeffBedrick]

I am pro-choice. However being so does not mean that one must be arrogant, smug, or insensitive to the fact that at some point in the development of the foetus, it can feel pain. Knowing this, a woman may weigh all the factors still choose to abort, which is why no one ever claimed that getting an abortion is a pleasant experience.

[@stevethecatcouch6532]

You should listen to your callers more carefully. At 0:33 he very casually lumped you in with an imaginary group that is pro-abortion. You just let that stand.

[@stevethecatcouch6532]

@@setuf7751 If you are not fluent in English you might want to avoid posting comments in it. You just look silly.

[@NubianNarrator]

@@setuf7751 Get over it and mind your business. I don't understand why women's bodies are your concern. Dont you have any male issues to discuss?

[@alamunez]

@@NubianNarrator Men mentally stuck in the dark ages have a tendency to think everybody should hear their ‘advice’. It’s sad and gross.

[@_Somsnosa_]

@@setuf7751 Do you care about the reality of raising that child? Who's going to pay to raise this child? You want this child to be raised by someone that didn't want them and can't afford to raise them? Or just dump them in an underfunded orphanage. Out of sight out of mind. We are apes. We have urges. That's reality. It's childish to punish people for having sex. We don't need more kids, especially ones that aren't wanted.

[@Julian0101]

@@setuf7751 And you promote slavery and the injustified propagation of poverty and abuse by being anti-abortion. So why should we care about the opinion of an inmoral being like you? You see how silly your response was?

[@ASAP_Kenny]

I’m sure all of those kids in foster care would rather be alive than aborted

[@hunterv9983]

The ugly side of foster care is that rape is a bleak possibility.

[@LoveOldMusic808]

I think most people would rather be alive than not alive, but that's just my observation. The real question is if one of those kids in foster care has organ failure, can the government force you to give up part of your organ to save the kids life without your consent?

[@YY4Me133]

@Sphincter Barnabus There are plenty of people who wish they hadn't been born. I would imagine that some of them are in foster care.

[@scipioafricanus5871]

YOU GET ON THAT PLANE JOHNNY! ALL THE WAY TO NEW YORK CITY. TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONCE!

[@scipioafricanus5871]

Is it a coincidence that "Setuf" is an anagram of FETUS?

[@Julian0101]

Nope, the caller has admitted on other post that the name is indeed that.

[@fbxx9845]

Numbers 5: 27-28 NIV - God giving Moses instructions how to FORCE a woman to miscarry/abort. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

[@hunterv9983]

This is why I find the Pro-Life position to be laughable.

[@YY4Me133]

Not only that, but the christian bible says that life begins with the first breath, not at conception, so they don't even have an unconstitutional religious argument.

[@TheDahaka1]

There's a problem with the videogame analogy. The videogame isn't a deep physiological need that is also the best way to express affection, relief stress and create a happier life for yourself and your partner. Fetuses aren't people. A life that exists is more important than a life that could be. There's already too many people in the world and we should stop pretending that magic daddy in the sky would be sad if we don't force new people in the world, potentially destroying the lives of the parents and their families. Religions already tell their believers to not get abortions, threatening them with hell. IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK! Most abortions, especially the dangerous ones, are done in highly religious areas, mainly because they don't know enough about contraception. There's no reason why you should impose your religious views, that don't convince even your followers, to those that DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR FUCKING MONSTER OF A "GOD". Keep religion in churches, people. Stay away from laws.

[@speakerz74]

you guys look like brothers kinda lol. ur not are you?

[@hunterv9983]

MY GOSH THEY DO

[@theo-dawg8519]

Does a developing human have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or are they sub human? Let's call them property or 3/5th's of a person without rights. Wait, that sounds familiar.🤔

[@LoveOldMusic808]

Does a fully developed 5 year old child have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? So if the child is having organ failure, the government should take other peoples organs without their consent for the child, right?

[@theo-dawg8519]

@@LoveOldMusic808 no, the analogy is invalid. Allowing a child to die thru natural causes such as organ failure is not analogous to the active killing of a child through abortion.

[@benhurbenstiller]

​@@theo-dawg8519abortion is not the killing of a child

[@theo-dawg8519]

@benhurbenstiller I did not say child, I said a human. Abortion is the active and wilful killing of an innocent human life.

[@theo-dawg8519]

​@@benhurbenstillercorrect, abortion is the wilful destruction of innocent human life.

[@ricardogabbiani7816]

Without bringing up morals done well