Noam Chomsky - Values, Abortion, and Preserving Life

[@alexc773]

When Chomsky speaks so reasonable as he did here, even birds chirp in accord.

[@blibjorb]

He’s wrong about human gestation. It’s unnerving to hear how how wrong he is.

[@eraserhead2063]

@@blibjorbAnd yet you don’t give a single reason why. Stellar argument.

[@darktagmaster1861]

He breaks it down like no one else. So straight forward. Unarguable.

[@abdirahmanismail5128]

this commentary is so nuanced even the video became grey!

[@gwynbleidd5171]

lmao

[@scottcharney1091]

This is an excellent documentary, and I recommend it to anyone.

[@clarehaven6068]

What's the name of the documentary?

[@bryanrosa5281]

Even some of my most staunch conservative "reasonable" friends have nothing negative to say about his commentary.

[@lenglain]

That doesn't make sense conservative HATE Chomsky, as do many centrist liberals.

[@M.-.D]

Compte Prive centrist Liberal here checking in. Huge fan of Chomsky for 20+ years since I first discovered him.

[@bryanrosa5281]

@@lenglainI'm speaking specifically on this particular subject.

[@authorbhattacharjee4957]

I'm so nuanced when it comes to abortion I don't even know what's my opinion in it.

[@ethanwall7951]

As a far left socialist, Christian, this video moved me immensely. I have always loved, and almost agreed with you all of Chomsky‘s views, and this just reaffirmed those same views.

[@natanbridge]

Thoughtful, nuanced consideration - particularly the second half. I fear that U.S. culture at large does not have the capacity to have a public discourse with the degree of nuance that would be required. It seems to me that, as a culture, we are becoming ever less thoughtful and nuanced. The abortion issue has become a cudgel wielded for political advantage - not a difficult-to-resolve moral problem.

[@rypoelk997]

amen

[@Eoin_D]

What a mind..... in awe

[@davidlevy4291]

Typically sober analysis by Chomsky!

[@lindltailor]

Miami Dice please elaborate, what’s the strawman and how does he defeat it?

[@pallhe]

The flip side of Chomsky's point about the inconsistency of many conservative pro-lifers having scant regard for human life in general is that it would be more consistent for liberals to care more about the unborn.

[@ayeshak6822]

Good point.

[@rypoelk997]

As a pro-life progressive, I concur

[@FirstLast-ms4yl]

He's 100% right

[@AGuamsk8er]

I’m a very moderate conservative, semi-libertarian, *conservative* and I think abortion should be *legal.* From a moral perspective, I think abortion is reprehensible but it is a total gray area. I think it’s reasonable that a government should not be able to legislate in favor of or against abortion.

[@natanaellizama6559]

Why? Why is it a total gray area? If it were black would you still be in favour of the government not legislating in favour or against it?

[@aaronwriterguy]

I, as a socialist, give you a "like" for your honesty and intelligence on this issue.

[@cockoffgewgle4993]

"From a moral perspective, I think abortion is reprehensible but it is a total gray area." What?

[@M.-.D]

Thanks for contribution to this discussion. I am critical of all the social contributions to a woman seeking abortion, and think active counselling, increased financial support and protection for mother and child-to-be. However, I do not believe a woman should be forbidden from acting on her own body, regardless of the consequences for unborn child. I see the child as an extension of her. And while she should not be accountable for the death of a fetid, she could be responsible for the permanent disability as a result of substance use if assistance and education was offered. As Chomsky said, incredibly nuanced.

[@juanmonge7418]

That great philosopher George Carlin has the best take on this.

[@nochurchmovement1220]

What u dont understand Sir is that those people who are most opposed to induced abortion are those who dont rely on Government to donate to foreign aid....They give on their own. Which is why the US people not Government gives the most to charities helping communities around the world more than any other nation.

[@md.rakibhossain9532]

i need to talk with those 18 people who disliked this video.

[@rickhoffmann1877]

You wonder who are the 18 people who voted this down… well I made it change from 22 to 23 votes, so here is your chance to talk. First, regarding our miserly foreign aid as proof of hypocrisy, I would point out that Chomski is an avowed Communist. Apparently some of the people who have praised him in these comments don't know what this means. As a Marxist he surely endorses Marx's statement "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs ." If you believe this then you too are a Marxist. You believe that all your work you did that resulted in your paycheck is not yours but belongs instead to the community; to be distributed according to the notions of justice of your leaders. I cannot imagine a more morally vacuous set of values. It is nothing but slavery. Contrast this with the libertarian/ conservative view, which is also the foundation of our country, that what you produce belongs to you and is a natural right and the government's purpose is to safeguard your natural rights and therefore any claim the government has to your property must be in the act of safeguarding those rights (i.e cost of military) or providing necessary services to the whole of the community including you. This means that humanitarian efforts must come from the citizens directly and voluntarily, as the government owns no property itself but to steal it from its citizens regarding this purpose. According to Arthur Brooks book "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," conservatives are far more generous than their liberal counterparts. Chomski, like a good marxist propagandist, forgot to mention that American citizens, as a percentage of income, give as much as the next two nations combined; thanks to conservatives (Wikipedia - List of Countries by Charitable Donations). This goes for charitable foreign aid too, which he left out. The man probably more responsible for the existence of America today, John Adams, said this: "Our Constitution was written only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. " which underscores that in a nation founded on individual liberty, the responsibility of charity falls to the individual and not the state which has neither the moral or constitutional authority to supplant individual responsibility or charity. For people who are reluctant or too immature to take on personal responsibility then the state becomes the "moral" surrogate, allowing them to still feel virtuous and morally superior to others, without requiring any personal sacrifice. Chomsky, in his remarks, reinforced this false virtue. Chomski commits numerous logical fallacies in his argument. The first words out of his mouth are to conflate human worth to animals and, since we kill mosquitoes, an animal kingdom member, we therefore only attach value to life conditionally. To any rational person, to equivocate humans to mosquitoes is absurd, but he is only setting us up for his conclusion later when he does it again when he equivocates living cells washed from the hands, to cell masses in a fetus (but the newborn is still only a mass of living cells as we are too!). We kill mosquitoes so therefore we can kill babies. If we can conditionally attach value to life (for a mosquito) then why not conditionally for a fetus. Lastly, Chomski is supposed to be a "brilliant " former MIT professor. As an educator he is obligated to present a balanced view to his listeners so those listeners can make up their own minds based on a fair representation of the subject. Since his position would rule out ignorance, he is therefore either mentally incapable of comprehending what I have said and therefore unable to comment on it, or he is a mendacious propagandist … or possibly both.

[@Lawranceathome]

@@rickhoffmann1877 jealousy at its best

[@po210]

@@rickhoffmann1877it’s Chomsky*, also he’s anarchist not communist, but anyway

[@jasonarokiaraj9817]

This is when he was much younger.

[@blibjorb]

Actually, human biologists can correctly determine exact dates of gestation up to about 5 weeks.

[@buddinganarchist]

Chomsky is rarely wrong.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Actually he’s wrong about most things.

[@robertpirsig5011]

​@@pleaseenteraname1103I doubt that very much, considering how smart he is. Lol

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@robertpirsig5011 I don’t doubt that he’s intelligent. There’s people who have crazy ideas who are incredibly intelligent, for instance they were many Nazi scientists and not see physicians.

[@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060]

​@@robertpirsig5011it's extremely dangerous to assume somebody is correct just because they're smart. Hitler was highly intelligent.

[@thesensiblesocialist]

I believe that there's nothing righteous about forcing a child to be born into a world where it is not wanted.

[@LordSenechal]

If it is truly your view that human worth is proportional to being wanted, I am so sorry.

[@thesensiblesocialist]

@Medicine Man If you think a kid can grow into a healthy, well adjusted adult if they're raised by people who have no idea how to raise or care for them, I don't know what to tell you. Also, if you think most people who spend their early life in the foster care system don't have any problems later on from that experience, I don't know what to tell you.

[@LordSenechal]

@@thesensiblesocialist I hold none of the viewpoints you are projecting onto me, and I will refrain from engaging them because they aren't even real arguments for your position nor do they engage the point I made.

[@thesensiblesocialist]

@Medicine Man Well, just like my points apparently don't apply to you (tho I don't see how that's possible), your first comment doesn't apply to me or is an argument for your obvious position either.

[@LordSenechal]

Peace be with you.

[@omarmahfouz5599]

GOAT

[@RootinrPootine]

Excellent grab! Damn I haven't seen this either... Lake of Fire, huh? Is this all of the Chomsky in that doc?

[@smileyface702]

Genuine question: how the hell are the cells on your hand in any way comparable to a a fertilized egg? Those are YOUR cells, your DNA. I tend to think that life begins at conception because all the DNA is there and it's unique to anyone else's. I think we are arbitrarily drawing a line about personhood if we say that it's only a person after 22 weeks or whatever. Humans can exist in various states, with various functionalities and capabilities, but I think what makes them a human or a person is the existence of their (unique) DNA. I also agree with Chomsky that we should be consistent in being pro-life and that human beings are clearly imperfect and contradictory, but that doesn't mean the truth of right and wrong is totally relative. And from his critiques of post-modernism, I don't think that Chomsky believes that either.

[@nicholasruff8354]

"how the hell are the cells on your hand in any way comparable to a a fertilized egg? Those are YOUR cells, your DNA." They are comparable because they are both living cells which are not sentient, cannot feel pain or suffer, and have no sensory or relational connection to human society. The fact that the different cells possess different, non-identical DNA seems like an irrelevant point and a poor standard for determining personhood. For instance, if we splice fetal DNA or DNA from a fertilized egg with pig's DNA, does the presence of human DNA it make the pig-human hybrid a person? Personally, I think the idea of "personhood" should be done away with in favor of more tangible concepts relating to the brain, such as sentience and the ability to suffer and experience well-being, both of which can be measured directly or indirectly in living organisms.

[@tburn7435]

So when in your mind does a developing fetus become sentient? When it has brain waves? When it can feel pain? The instance it escapes it's mother's womb? How about a month or two later? How about a person that is in a coma?

[@joeherbert7556]

The whole DNA thing doesn't really make sense when you compare it to anything else. Identical twins have identical DNA however we count them as two separate people. Additionally there is a condition whereby a person is born with two different sets of DNA simultaneously (chimerism). But two people with identical DNA are two separate people. And one person with two sets of DNA is one person. So clearly DNA has not ever and cannot not ever be used to establish personhood. But even that doesn't really matter. Even if a fetus is 100% a person the mother still has the ability to perform an abortion whenever she wants. It's the same reason why you can refuse to donate an organ anytime you want. Even if someone else will die, you can still refuse to donate an organ. In short, just because someone needs your body in order to live, has never and will never grant them access to your body without your permission. Period. You can't take someone's blood, or lung, or kidney, at the point of a gun, even to save a life.

[@tburn7435]

@@joeherbert7556Thank God the majority of abortions are had by liberals.

[@FLmedic-mo6fe]

@@tburn7435 between 24 and 26 weeks gestation. It's scientific fact, not an opinion

[@kuriadams9138]

At the beginning, he's basically saying that religion and US Republicans are, in general, hypocrites.

[@avebroncx]

And they are.

[@mikierains4292]

A clear majority of people accept abortion can be justified in situations of compelling medical necessity, that is, in cases genuine and irreconcilable life dilemma. But it’s not widely known genuine crisis situations run at about only 2-3 percent of all abortions performed, according to most of the medical research databases across advanced first world nations. These cases of compelling medical necessity, these situations of irreconcilable dilemma, are clearly quite different from taking of a young prenatal life as a “choice”, as an election, a preference. Yet “choice” abortions, indicated by expressions like “not now, perhaps later on, already finished my family, other plans, when I am more financial, social matters etc.” amount to over 90% of all abortions cited in the few medical data sets established. You assert in the video, Mr Chomsky, that you recognise the value of both parties in an abortion context. But whether consciously or not, you appear to show little or no interest in your video about weighing the justification of the conflicting claims or situations pertaining to the parties. From such omission, I can confidently infer that your mention of the inherent value of the young life is polite tokenism and that you are overwhelmingly radical “pro-choice” or “abortion on demand” in your stance. By contrast, my pro-life position is based upon the value that “ALL” lives matter, regardless of race, gender, chronological age etc etc. I believe in “ZERO” tolerance for violence in societal matters. I believe in universal inclusion and no discrimination. I believe that the abortion of a young life can only be justified by a genuine and compelling medical necessity, never by a consumer choice. At the same time, Mr Chomsky, I do share a number of your other opinions, especially pertaining to economic and social justice, as well as a number of your liberal opinions on other topics. But I also respect deeply J S Mill’s philosophical insight and warnings, which seem to pop up on nearly ever third page of his classic text, “On Liberty”. Mill emphasises how excessIvely libertarian behaviour, that type of aggressive licence which intrudes into the liberty of another, is actually the very opposite of his beloved Liberty. It is a form of autocratic oppression. Finally, I concur with your point that targeted aid to poorest of the poor in third world nations, like other assistance to the very vulnerable, is part and parcel of a mature and comprehensive pro-life outlook.

[@masterpuppet8469]

I do agree with u man :)

[@ashleyperryman5832]

AAPLOG, a group of 5,000+ OB/GYNs state that abortion is never necessary for the life of the parent. Inducing early is sometimes necessary for the safety of the parent, but an induction ABORTION involves terminating the life of the fetus before extracting them, and takes hours-- much longer than an emergency cesarean section, which takes minutes. There are times that the child may be too young to survive early birth, but every reasonable measure should be taken to try to save both parent and child. The "medically necessary" abortion is a myth.

[@alalmalal]

I say pro-choice before it has a nervous system, so anytime before 8 weeks of fetus development.

[@kms8097]

Have you ever been pregnant? If so did you know you were within 8 weeks of conception? Limiting abortion to 8 weeks is not enough time to know if one is even pregnant, really unless someone is trying to get pregnant. 8 weeks goes by very quickly, and some women may even still get a period within that time.

[@ncieminski82]

12 weeks.

[@garetroth5683]

Nathan Cieminski 20 weeks

[@chopperhead2012]

+InTheMoment actually, pregnancy tests are accurate as early as 6 days after ovulation.

[@garetroth5683]

Tony Perri Multiple things. Firstly, in regard to +InTheMoment and his comment, He quite clearly wasn't referring to the effectiveness of pregnancy tests. He was talking about when a women would note that she is pregnant. Honestly, it's probably more like four weeks or less, considering a lack of period. However, your comment is misguided. Secondly, I don't know what a baby surviving outside the mother at twenty weeks has to do with anything. I guarantee you they could take one out at 1 week and have it still survive. Like aborting at 19 weeks is cool but because this one baby lived at 20 weeks suddenly that is murder? I fail to see your logic. Thirdly and finally, I was wrong. 25 weeks. Sustained EEG waves can not be seen in fetuses until 25 weeks. Before then, there are no regular EEG waves, only sporadic bursts. The definition of death is when regular EEG waves cease. Only makes sense that when a fetus is considered 'alive' (for our colloquial usage of the term) should be when they begin, at 25 weeks. I eagerly await your comment brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/medical-controversy-when-does-life-begin/

[@BobSmith-pm3wx]

Human life begins at conception. Slaying the innocent human offspring for the convenience of the mother is a crime against humanity, and it ought to be treated as such. If a slave-holder murders a slave, there's a "conflict of values" there as well. But it is not reasonable at all to fall back into "both sides." A mosquito is not a human being. Moral relativism is the first refuge of the scoundrel. Sometimes issues are indeed black and white. Despite conflicting "values," some values take obvious precedence.

[@amyadmirer]

where are those clips from?

[@mathewmacmillan8331]

mark ronson en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_of_Fire_(film)

[@veryliberalprogressiveathe6117]

I'm Pro-Choice

[@nicholasruff8354]

@KingCai72 "Conservatives want live babies so they can grow up to be dead soldiers." - George Carlin

[@tburn7435]

@@nicholasruff8354 I'm Pro-Life for conservatives. I'm Pro-Abortion for progressives.

[@username5502]

@@tburn7435, are you a Nazi or a Classical Fascist?

[@yakuzzi35]

based

[@Dooshanche]

You're not going to get the answer from the biologists... yet*

[@tasfa10]

Isn't it a coward position to say we can't worry about abortion because other bad things happen in other places? That's just completely deflecting the issue! If he took the argument seriously he'd know that it's mainly about wether the fetus is a human life or it isn't (and sorry, there is no such debate about the cells in your hands) and that if we conclude that it is (or even that there's a chance that it is) it should be protected by law regardless of the tragedies that go on wherever in the world. Would he make the same argument about homicide? Shouldn't we worry about homicide even tho there are genocides? Because the argument is exactly that if the fetus is to be considered a human life, killing it IS homicide! It seems like he completely dodged the issue and decided to instead talk about something he had more personal interest in

[@coryfoster4907]

He didn't dodge it, you simply didn't quite understand or think critically what he said. Pro-Life people simply don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to their argument. It's all relevant - as those who are against abortion simply don't give a shit about you or the world. We shouldn't be discussing abortion with people who pass policies that continue to harm other and only benefit the wealthy / private sectors for the sake of profit. As they have no true values.

[@cockoffgewgle4993]

Chomsky completely talking around the issue and failing to give an actual opinion. Saying that the same people who most vehemently attack abortion are for all this other ghastly stuff is an ad hominem.

[@nicholasruff8354]

It's not ad hominem to point out hypocrisy and moral inconsistencies in others' positions unless you're only doing it to distract from the argument (tu quoque) or to promote the either/or fallacy, which Chomsky clearly isn't doing here. Chomsky also mentioned various other issues that would actually help prevent abortion such as education, access to contraception, etc. Calling his entire argument an ad hominem is just a lazy way to dismiss him without actually going through the trouble of addressing his points.

[@coryfoster9373]

Nicholas Ruff well stated 😃

[@coryfoster4907]

It's not an ad hominem. You just missed the point.

[@davidsheriff9274]

Where is the dividing line between a whataboutism and a legitimate calling out of hypocrisy?

[@cockoffgewgle4993]

@@nicholasruff8354 Yes it is as hominem. Most people who are anti-abortion aren’t in favour of the services you and Chomsky mention because they’re pro free market and anti government, and believe that’s the best system that produces the best outcomes. Chomsky doesn’t give an opinion on abortion. Because he’s a coward and a feminist.

[@RandomGuy-xb4ez]

I typically agree with Chomsky, but there are many fallacies in his speech here.

[@davidsheriff9274]

Like what?

[@Acyutananda_yogamonk]

2:40 "If you look at the same people who are most militant about saving the fetus, are they calling for increasing foreign aid?" Some of them are, but even if most of them are not, that in no way shows that the best approach to saving the unborn and helping people in general would not be strict unborn child-protection laws AND increased foreign aid. "I don't think we should be interested in discussing it with people whose values are such that they don't care about the . . ." First of all, the fact that some people have some bad ideas doesn't mean that they don't have some good ideas; and second, you don't NEED to discuss with any particular people in order to consider the other side of the argument; Chomsky seems to be using certain people as an excuse not even to think the issue through.

[@M.-.D]

You listened to him and concluded, ‘he didn’t think it through...’

[@Acyutananda_yogamonk]

@@M.-.D I invite you to read "How Noam Chomsky Misinterprets the Politics of Abortion" www.NoTerminationWithoutRepresentation.org/how-noam-chomsky-misinterprets-the-politics-of-abortion/

[@doublesushi5990]

@@M.-.D lmfao.

[@Gabbargaamada]

I am against abortion. But I am also against imperialism, racism, crony capitalism, etc. Women have no right to murder humans that live inside them.

[@CipherSerpico]

SS S Are you a vegetarian too? Explain to me how killing a pig-which is literally infinitely more sentient, self aware, intelligent, and compassionate than something that does not have sentience - makes sense. And do not even try to say that “pigs are not humans” because that argument literally means nothing. And if you are saying that life begins at fertilization ... During menstruation - Sexually active women naturally flush out fertilized eggs. Are you going to say that women that have menstruated 3 times are serial killers?

[@sequenceleaflet6568]

You missed the point here it seems. It's important to consider the circumstances under which these decisions are made. Do you think most women who have chosen to have abortions enjoyed the experience? Come down to earth and put yourself in someone else's shoes for once.

[@natanaellizama6559]

@Chris Serpico Is it then your go-to counter argument to any type of condemnation to murder asking "Are you a vegetarian too?". If someone says that a serial killer is wrong, or that serial killing is wrong, or that genocide is wrong do you ask them "Are you a vegetarian?" and if they aren't dismiss their condemnation of serial killing?

[@CipherSerpico]

Natanael Lizama It proves that they are hypocrites. It proves that their argument makes no sense. If they are “pro life”, and if their argument is that “it doesn’t matter whether or not a fetus has sentience” ... then they should be much more concerned with killing animals.

[@natanaellizama6559]

Chris Serpicø Well, given that most people oppose genocide and most people are not vegetarians (why stop there? Plants have life too), you think that most people are hypocrites? Well enough. But I doubt that would be your argument against people who oppose genocide. So, I think you're also being hypocritical. You only use this argument, I believe, on this particular subject. Not in matters of taking life in general, only in this case.

[@SshhBatman]

#RepealThe8th

[@benjaminberman6200]

Professor Chomsky does something very important but I believe incorrect- here From his defense of the right to abort we can glean that he believes that the test for a “law” should be whether the legislation as applied is successful in solving a problem or promoting a certain outcome which could be considered positive on balanced - if we outlaw abortions, and the number of abortions doesn’t decline so sharply (debatable, obviously) and women are now additionally “harmed” by being forced to carry a pregnancy to term- then that’s proof that the law is immoral- since consequentially it won’t solve the problem. The problem is that not all legislation is based on a collectivist notion of “fixing a society”. Some activities are wrong because they deprive an individual of their rights even though the well-being of society might be negatively affected overall. Abortion is wrong above all objection because the unborn child has a right to life, and the government has no choice but to protect that human life. This is not simply a question of efficacy, such as in the case of economic or environmental policy, this is about fundamental right and wrong. Even if it means plunging hundreds of millions of people into poverty- murder is still murder.

[@davidsheriff9274]

If abortion is made illegal,who do you think it's going to affect? It's not going to affect women and girls with money, they're always going to be able to find someone to give them an abortion, it's going to affect poor women and girls, and if you think that if a poor seventeen year old girl that is forced to give birth is just going to fall in love with the baby and they'll become a family and live happily ever after,you're not living in the real world. If poor females can't legally get an abortion, they will go to a back alley or they will try to do it themselves, and many will die,,is that what you want?