ROE V. WADE - WHY ARE MEN NOT TALKING!? - TRP - #17

[@jalencrisp]

(13:00) This situation also sets up a dangerous precedent for the people who aren’t of a certain class. It creates a society where only certain people deserve to have children and only certain children deserve to be alive.

[@talkingrealitypodcast9715]

I think the point Roni was making came from the position that only certain people from certain positions in life can adopt children, there are many children lost within the care system and waiting to be adopted. The argument that you should have the child as even if you can’t raise it yourself because he/she deserves to be adopted and has the right to life is made fairly but the reality is that the situation is not that simple. Every human being should have the right to life, but this is such a complex issue and the prolife position can come across too unilateral, but you are looking at this to simplistically.

[@jalencrisp]

@@talkingrealitypodcast9715 It’s not looking at it simplistically, it’s just standing firm in the principle that it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being, regardless of financial, social, or other situations.

[@jalencrisp]

(5:45) Statement: “There are no laws that govern the man’s body”. - There’s a law that is gives the government control of men’s bodies, and not women. It’s called Selective Service. The government has the rights to a man’s body if need be in the time of war.

[@talkingrealitypodcast9715]

Perhaps the statement should have been “there are no laws that govern the man’s body outside a time of extreme crisis/emergency” but it’s quite a stretch to use that law to compare these two scenarios. The situation with covid over the last few years has shown how our human rights can be altered in a time of national emergency.

[@jalencrisp]

@@talkingrealitypodcast9715 Yes, but then you just create your own rules and make purposely make the statement fit your side. Additionally, the law doesn’t govern the woman’s body, it governs/protects her unborn child’s body. A woman isn’t her unborn child. An unborn child has a distinct body and DNA.

[@jalencrisp]

12:40) Giving someone a chance at life and not killing them because they will suffer or won’t have the best childhood is definitely pro life. To believe it’s okay to kill someone because of their financial, social, or familial state sets up a dangerous precedent.

[@talkingrealitypodcast9715]

Not even taking these into account before bringing a life into the world is so cruel. Having a child is a huge responsibility. Whether or not an abortion is the right decision will always be a point of debate. I again think you are looking at this too simplistically.

[@jalencrisp]

(17:15) We care because we understand what’s really happening. It’s the same reason you’d care if parents were abusing their children. That doesn’t personally effect you. It doesn’t take your money, your energy, it doesn’t physically harm you. But, you understand that abusing children is wrong and no one should have the choice to do that. Imagine you are in public and witness a child being abused and the abuser said “why do you care? It’s not your child. It doesn’t effect you. If you don’t like child abuse, then don’t abuse children.” Also, the pro-life position isn’t a religious standpoint. The entire argument can be defended without quoting a single scripture or by someone who isn’t religious. This is a scientific and a philosophical argument.

[@talkingrealitypodcast9715]

Statement “we care because we understand what’s really happening” - are you suggesting that the rest of us who do not share your position are unaware of what is happening? Your hypothetical scenarios are difficult to compare to the perspective that the decision for the right to a safe abortion should be that of the mother and father, but will always be more significantly the mothers for obvious reasons. We could create hypothetical scenarios to argue with you, but ultimately your position and our position are based on opinions and it is unlikely we are going to change our opinion in a debate based around hypothetical scenarios.

[@jalencrisp]

@@talkingrealitypodcast9715 Precisely. Many people on the pro-choice side are either ignorant or like to deny what’s actually taking place. You deny that it’s killing a child, that it’s a human being, and so on. You’re either ignorant on the science or attempting to dehumanize the fetus to justify its death.

[@jalencrisp]

@@talkingrealitypodcast9715 It’s not really about the hypotheticals. There are injustices that don’t personally effect us, but we still advocate against. If we understand that killing your unborn child is an injustice, like child abuse, we don’t have to be personally effected by it for it to be justified.

[@jalencrisp]

(11:20) The circumstances in which a human came into being doesn’t change its right to life. The right to life is a fundamental human right. You don’t take away someone’s human rights because of a terrible act of violence their father committed. It doesn’t change what they are.

[@talkingrealitypodcast9715]

You are altering the mothers human rights by suggesting that they should have no right to an abortion, irrespective for the reason of conception.

[@jalencrisp]

@@talkingrealitypodcast9715 Killing their unborn child has never been a right, so you aren’t altering anything.

[@jalencrisp]

@@talkingrealitypodcast9715 Additionally, if a child born from a mother that has been raped, does the mother still have the right to take their life?

[@jalencrisp]

(8:20) This situation is not protecting women’s civil liberties. - There is nothing civil about intentionally killing your own child.

[@talkingrealitypodcast9715]

Killing a child and the abortion of a foetus are two different things. It is unlikely that a woman ever hopes to be in the position where they need an abortion but sometimes women may need access to a safe abortion. We totally respect your position, but we find it very difficult to suggest women should not have the access to a safe abortion in certain circumstances.

[@jalencrisp]

@@talkingrealitypodcast9715 You haven’t explained how they are two different things. A fetus is an unborn child and the abortion procedure is an act to intentionally end their life and remove them from the womb. An abortion procedure is not successful otherwise. You also haven’t made a case for situations in which a woman needs an abortion.

[@jalencrisp]

Hey guys, thanks for making this video. I’m just going to leave a few comments respond to a lot of what’s said in this video. Hope you guys read it and take the time to understand the response, i’d appreciate it!

[@talkingrealitypodcast9715]

Jalen, as much as we disagree, we are very thankful for your engagement as some of your opinions have altered some of our perspectives and given insight into the other side of this debate, which is so important.

[@jalencrisp]

(10:49) Most cases of abortion do not result from rape, incest, and other tragic cases, most because of convenance, socioeconomic situations, and so on.

[@talkingrealitypodcast9715]

I’m confused as to why this is relevant. So because most of abortions do not result from rape, incest and other tragic cases, should we not even discuss them and remain ignorant to discussing them ?

[@jalencrisp]

@@talkingrealitypodcast9715 You specifically mentioned the narrative of pro-life as it related to getting an abortion out of convenience and then try to use that as an argument against rape victims. When pro-life people talk carelessly and doing what you want and then killing your unborn child, we aren’t talking about rape victims.

[@jalencrisp]

(18:15) The obvious position is innocent life. It is wrong to kill innocent

[@talkingrealitypodcast9715]

Gun laws do not take into account innocent life, as thousands of innocent lives have been taken due to the current gun laws and nothing changes.

[@jalencrisp]

@@talkingrealitypodcast9715 Yes, gun laws do take into account innocent life. Guns in America are mainly used as a form of self defense with around 2 million defensive gun uses per year, according to the CDC. When it comes to restricting a law-abiding citizen’s access to a gun, it will sacrifice the right and protections of hundreds of thousands of people. At the end of the day, guns protect innocent life. This is why police have them, because they are effective for protection. Not agreeing that making it harder to get guns doesn’t mean that we support the taking of innocent life.

[@jalencrisp]

(12:20) You bring up a situation where you’d have to continue dealing with the child that you had as a result of rape or incest. Is it fair to kill someone because it will make you feel better? Of course it’s not. Because your feelings, although it’s very difficult in a situation like that, doesn’t trump someone’s right to life. How does that setup a principles about how we should treat people that remind us of tragic events?

[@talkingrealitypodcast9715]

Do you honestly believe that when a woman has an abortion it makes them feel better ? I as a man will never know the emotions a woman feels at this point in her life, but I can only imagine it is extremely difficult and traumatic. These difficult emotions may continue for long after the abortion. I just will never feel comfortable saying women should or should not have an abortion, it should be up to the individual woman in her individual circumstances.

[@jalencrisp]

@@talkingrealitypodcast9715 Yes. They don’t want to have a “rape baby” and take care of their racist’s child. It would be less emotionally challenging, in their perspective to kill the unborn child rather than take care of it.

[@jalencrisp]

(18:35) What do you mean by existing? At the point of conception, there’s a human being at an early stage of development of it’s life. This isn’t a religious nor philosophical determination, it’s a scientific one. You seem to also place an importance of being able to exist independently. Newborns cannot exist independently. They have to depend on someone else to care for them, arguably more so than before they were born. Are those ground for being able to ki them because they can’t exist independently? Of course not. Well then your statement might be amended to can’t exist outside of their mothers body. Well, there’s 2 problems with that. 1. Do you not see how this sets up a dangerous situation for inequality. Medicinal technology plays a huge in determining when a fetus can survive outside of the womb. And if that’s the case, we don’t have equal human rights. Those who are more wealthy and have access to technology would then have rights that are poor do not. 2. What’s the magical thing that happens as the fetus exists the womb that all of a sudden gives it a right to not be killed? Also, what if a baby exists the womb and goes back in? Do they then gain right and then lose them again? This is the absurdity of your position. It doesn’t hold up when scrutinized.

[@talkingrealitypodcast9715]

Perhaps what you have referred to here has been intertwined with English law where it states ‘The fetus cannot […] have any rights of its own at least until it is born and has separate existence from the mother. I would argue that a human being at an early stage of development is at the very least, a human organism but not a human being. I acknowledge there may be some confusion created by discussing the situation in the UK where we may have not the same insight as you to American laws, so we do take on board your position. Your point about existing independently is not taking into account the awful life that baby could be brought into, and if the parents are unable to raise the child, this responsibility falls upon the state. The option for a safe abortion is something that should be an option where the situation is sadly right for the mother/father.

[@jalencrisp]

@@talkingrealitypodcast9715 If you would argue that a human being isn’t a human being but just a human organism (when at the earliest stage of development), then i’ll like to see you substantiate that.

[@jalencrisp]

@@talkingrealitypodcast9715 Because a child is/will suffer, that doesn’t mean they are deserving of death. This wouldn’t be argued for if we were referring to a 1 year old.

[@jalencrisp]

(11:35) There are no laws in America that prohibit surgery to remove the child from the womb in the case of a life or death threat to the mother. Additionally, elective abortion isn’t used as a life saving procedure. Your ignorance in the subject is what is leading you guys to make such statements.

[@talkingrealitypodcast9715]

Perhaps not at this stage, but to be ignorant to the fact this might be realistic problem one day is perhaps why you argue your point so strongly. You do not seem to take on board any of the constructive positions of the other side.

[@jalencrisp]

I’m deciding to stop at about halfway through the video because I realized how many responses/comments can be made and it’ll likely not be worth it. If you will, please actually learn about the pro-life side and give the respect the issue deserves by actually knowing about the topic you’re talking about as it relations to abortion.

[@talkingrealitypodcast9715]

I’d be lying if I said your responses have not educated us somewhat, but I still find it very difficult to agree with you. Thank you so much for your engagement though.