Abortion And Violinist Argument | Gohan-TX | Talk Heathen 05.36

[@TheSnoeedog]

This "reverse violinist argument" is such a ridiculous parade of absurdity that Gohan ought to be ashamed. He would make more sense stomping around angrily in circles, hair on fire, punching himself in the face while screaming, *"YELLOW! YELLLLLOOOWWW! YELLLLLOOOOOOO!"*

[@bubbercakes528]

I hate crap like this. What about if… or what if… or imagine this… . None of those changes the fact that no one should be allowed to control someone elses body.

[@gohanprolife8389]

I watched Mr. angel on the line a couple of days before and he was talking about this argument. Him and Matt were in favor of it.

[@walnutoil100]

Yet you want to kill the childs body

[@blatherskite3009]

Laws tell us what we can and can't do with our own bodies all the time, though. Drug laws, for example, command that Thou Shalt Not consume various naturally-occurring plants, fungi, cacti, etc. Is that not controlling someone else's body?

[@toforgetisagem8797]

​@@blatherskite3009 Controlling a people's body re drugs means, someone holds someone down and forcibly gives them drugs. Illegal does not stop things happening, as you well know, if you know about the drug culture.

[@toforgetisagem8797]

@@walnutoil100 Who is you? and Who wants to kill children?

[@eminence_front6043]

If it disrupts my life too much.....the violinist dies.

[@powbobs]

He’s reading a script. He called another show and used the exact same wording.

[@gohanprolife8389]

It’s not a script bro, it’s an argument I’m very familiar with and can recite fairly well

[@powbobs]

@@gohanprolife8389 Even your interjections are the exact same words. And that’s besides the fact that it’s an idiotic argument. Seriously, comparing kidnapping to pregnancy just demonstrates your inability to grasp reality. And I am most definitely not your bro. I would never associate with a chud like you.

[@aitorgonzalez4657]

@@gohanprolife8389 it’s literally a script, bro

[@swordswinger395]

@@gohanprolife8389 a script does not need to be physically printed out in front of you that you're reading. in this context, an argument that another person developed that you're reciting faithfully fits the definition of a script

[@gohanprolife8389]

@@aitorgonzalez4657 where is the literal script bro

[@holliexbx5613]

18:51 aww poor Gohan, he has to get up at night and bottle feet a child that someone has gestated and birthed 😔They may have had irreparable changes to their body, gone through pain and sickness, high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, Preeclampsia, depression and anxiety etc etc….but Gohan has to gets up at 3am and he’s tired. Makes my heart bleed 😔

[@anonymouswhiterabbit]

Exactly. I don’t understand how some people don’t understand this. Ignorant in a truly upsetting way.

[@Sanxioned1]

If Gohan wanted, he could actually hire someone to do this too. Last I checked, a woman who never consented to pregnancy doesn't have that same luxury.

[@bradhorowitz2765]

And of course it’s a man who said that. I kept thinking “dude, you WANT to force a woman to keep a bay for 6-8 months; BUT you ARE ANNOYED that you are forced to care for a baby should you decide to be a sort off thr child’s life.” Also, Gohan has to either be too stupid to say “if support a doctor ending a pregnancy if the fetus stays alive.” Like abortion IS ending a pregnancy or giving birth. A fetus Can’t Survive outside the body. My god, Gohan has to be reading some dumb sci fi stuff. It’s not even a person. Also, Gohan sounds a lot like a dumb libertarian not understanding actual rights. The government limits our freedoms because that would be stupid. Our government limits our freedoms to ensure others have freedoms.

[@ChristianaMaru3]

You're right it absolutely is good and honorable. Doing the good and right thing is honorable, even if you also did good and honorable things. I could easily same the same to you; boo hoo you had to go through what many other woman have and it doesn't make you special. But that would make me an asshole. You chose to sacrifice your time and body for your child and that's a beautiful and amazing thing. even if you ARE kind of narcissistic about it.

[@jvondd]

He's also wrong in the sense that he's not legally obligated to get up in the middle of the night and tend to a crying baby. Yes, it would be negligent and likely harmful to ignore a baby in need, but unless some sort of identifiable harm results in that negligence, the state can't mandate that he gets up. It should go without saying, but equating the responsibility of parenthood that he and his partner presumably chose to forcing someone to remain pregnant against their will regardless of what their situation might be is gross, dumb and insulting. I'm a father of two, and while getting up in the middle of the night to tend to a child in need can be exhausting, I would never equate the burden I chose to accept with a burden someone didn't choose to accept because that's insane.

[@David13ushey]

Good god this is not that difficult! "Say you were driving, you hit the violinist, and now he has to be on life support for 9 months." "Well I didn't plan on hitting someone. My brakes failed and I hit them." "Well if you don't want to be forced to be hooked up to the violinist, you shouldn't drive." "Well what if someone forces me to get into the car and they drive and hit the violinist? Should I be forced to be life support for them?" "Well no, that's a bit unfair." "Glad you're cool with a rape exception. But as to the whole 'don't drive if you don't plan on getting hooked up', that's a pretty big imposition on my life. Driving is fun. I LIKE to drive. I drive hard and fast. VIGOROUSLY. Now I take precautions. I drive with only one person in the car at a time, only with their consent, and we make sure everyone is buckled up and safe... but again, what if the brakes fail. If I am taking precautions but the precautions fail, why am I penalized for nine months? I didn't make the seat belt. I didn't install the breaks. But I hit the violinist anyway because the precautions fail. So why should I penalized for nine months?" "Because... reasons!" "What if daddy got me in the car and drove me around and didn't use any seat belts and we hit the violinist? Do I have to support him then? What if it's my brother or uncle joyriding?" "Well, I don't want to argue that!" "What if the violinist is brain dead? Do I have to stay hooked up to them for nine months if they're just going to die anyway?" "I buh... you shouldn't be driving!" "But I like to drive. I have a very nice car that corners like a beast going vroom vrooooom and it feels all nice and tingly. Why should I respect your stupid insistence that I take care for this violinist that I accidentally hit? The violinist isn't demanding I care for them. YOU are. I didn't want to hit the violinist. Didn't plan to. Didn't mean to. But did. And in fact the first month, the violinist is actually smaller than a pinkie nail. So what's the harm in unhooking me from a tiny, miniature violinist? Next time I promise to try and drive a little safer, not that how I drive is any of your business."

[@beastshawnee]

Just get the vasectomy dude. My understanding is it’s not that hard.

[@David13ushey]

@@beastshawnee Hey, I wasn't the one butchering a shitty analogy for banning abortion.

[@reveivl]

Good response, I like it. Tracie Harris had one of the best years ago on TAE but I like yours too.

[@LuisGonzalez-rm5vx]

Well said

[@gregsanich5183]

It shouldn't even be a question of if abortion should be permitted, it should be a question of if pregnancy should be permitted. Any activity that is as dangerous and potentially fatal as pregnancy, needs to be strictly regulated. Abortions should be mandatory

[@suzannescribbles]

You can talk forever about the philosophical aspects of all this…but it’s miles from the reality of it and pregnant people’s lived experiences. It’s so frustrating listening to Gohan bloviate as if an embryo is the realistic equivalent of a pregnant person who can think and feel and SUFFER.

[@benjaminmadrigalperez9010]

He tried so hard ti distance itself from abortions that he ended up taking all empathy from the fetus surrogate. By the end of his spiel the violinist ended up a sadistic monster.

[@Virtualblueart]

If his fans want to save the violinists so much they can hook themselves up to him. They have no right to force anyone to do it. Even if they were the only one capable of it. If anyone would force me into this it would be bye bye violinist and frell his kidnapping cult. Anyone who would be ok with his friends using strangers (comatose or other) to stay alive sounds more like some horror cult leader who just happens to fiddle a bit on the side.

[@suzannescribbles]

Yes…it’s not just ‘using’ the uterus. It’s the whole body. The pregnant person’s blood, organs, everything. Pregnancy is a stress on the entire body. It’s nothing to be taken lightly. Nobody is obligated to take on the burden and the risk of pregnancy without their consent. Forcing someone to remain pregnant against their will is a violation of their human rights. A pregnant person has a right to protect themselves against such a violation.

[@mercedeswalt6621]

At the end of the conversation when Gohan didn’t think talking to women about having a fetus inside them was relevant, I chuckled a bit. And he said it so politely too.

[@LukeSumIpsePatremTe]

I don't think it's relevant either. What exactly do we need women for in this conversation? If they have good points, anyone can repeat them. If they don't, them being women is just irrelevant.

[@markhackett2302]

@@LukeSumIpsePatremTe If you had a good point, you'd make it, but you hadn't therefore you do not.

[@adamstrange7884]

Gohan lost his brain in the last part of the call, Beavis as Cornholio makes more sense!

[@davejann]

If every theist lined up outside an abortion clinic and offered to adopt unwanted babies, regardless of colour or health, abortion would probably be extremely rare.

[@NottherealLucifer]

They'd have to take them as zygotes, embryos, or fetuses. Birthing a child does a number on your body, that's enough of a reason for many people to not want to have a baby.

[@benf6822]

If a zygote has the same rights as everyone else, then it does not have the right to inhibit another person's body without consent. If you believe in equal rights then you believe women should have the right to not have their bodies occupied against their will. Caller does not believe in equal rights.

[@gohanprolife8389]

I would agree, except it got their because of its parents, not itself. Is the punishment for this crime that it’s parents commited death for the fetus?

[@benf6822]

@@gohanprolife8389 it isn't about punishment. It has no concept of anything, even its own existence. But even if it did, it doesn't have the right to inhabit the body of another without permission. If a toddler with some heinous disease could only be alive by being inside a person's body for a year would you be okay forcing that upon someone?

[@TheLegendOfRandy]

@@gohanprolife8389 So if I need blood or tissue now, my mother should be forced to donate against her will? I wouldn't be here in this position if she had just abstained from sex in the first place, therefore my right to life supersedes her rights over her own body, correct? Or are you advocating for "extra" rights and not equality? That I had an extra right that I lost at birth?

[@gohanprolife8389]

@@benf6822 no. The thing that kills the toddler is the disease, not not letting the toddler inhabit someone else’s body. In an abortion it’s still the direct act of the abortion that kills the kid

[@benf6822]

Still doesn't matter, that's not the point. The point is your right to not have your body occupied by another. If someone grafted me to you in our sleep but removing me would kill me would you keep me there as long as it took?

[@blatherskite3009]

It's not just carrying a child for 9 months, though, is it? It's also undertaking to care and provide for the child until it reaches maturity, i.e. for the next 18 years or so. Not everyone is in a position to do that, either in their life-circumstances, their physical or mental wellbeing, financially, etc. Is it not negligent to bring a child into this world when you are incapable of making that undertaking to them? It's easy to get bogged-down in thinking that any given child *might* be a potential future Nobel Prize winner or whatever, but by that same line of unreasoning it's equally true that they could be the next Adolf Hitler. It's a pointless argument, because we cannot know. Reality says the odds are that they'll be neither of those extremes, and will end up as a mediocre consumer like the vast majority of us. imho, it's more important that a parent actively wants the child and fully accepts what they're getting into if they carry it full-term than that we stubbornly insist that they must give birth to the child, no matter what, based on some flakey religious belief that human life is intrinsically sacred. Those beliefs stem from a time when tribes were small and they needed every member they could get. These days, the world is not so short of humans.

[@nagranoth_]

They'd just say you give it up for adoption to a family that will love them. At the same time completely ignoring how painful it would be to the mother and how a pregnancy wreaks all kinds of havoc on you that you can't just dismiss, _and_ slandering you as an unloving monster for giving up the child _they_ want to force you to have. On top of your point, even IF you could know that a child would become a Nobel Prize winner, and were sure not a Hitler, that still wouldn't be an argument because it's completely irrelevant to the basic human right of bodily autonomy. Just because you _can_ put someone on the world doesn't make it anybody else's business whether you choose to.

[@gregsanich5183]

It shouldn't even be a question of if abortion should be permitted, it should be a question of if pregnancy should be permitted. Any activity that is as dangerous and potentially fatal as pregnancy, needs to be strictly regulated. Abortions should be mandatory. Unless both parents are 1st willing to sign off on committing to raise the child together to ensure its potential aswell as it's quality of life. Plus it has the added benefit of providing gender equality for reproductive rights. The mother should also need to meet a rigid set of physical and psychological standards, and be able to demonstrate that she is fit enuf & capable of enduring and surviving the harm and hardship that pregnancy is going to inflict.

[@maxine2798]

There’s a lot of anti abortionists who are solo violin players judging by the amount their elbows and wrists go up and down

[@toforgetisagem8797]

OOh! you made me blush!

[@maynardlikethecandy5347]

It isn’t just for 9 months is it? Childbirth permanently changes a woman’s body, and not for the better. Most moms have bladder control issues later in life. Then there’s the haemorrhoids, which takes bum sex out of the equation for a very long time. Pregnancy also gives the gift of permanent stretch marks on their breasts, belly, back and so on. After pregnancy, a woman’s breasts change in size, shape, and how they… hang? A woman’s hips permanently widen after childbirth. Not something all women want. Forcing a woman to keep the pregnancy is immoral. Prove me wrong 🖕!

[@830toAwesome]

Gohan's framing was dishonest and I suspect remains dishonest. Women are not dependent on the life of the unborn to keep living and in many cases, their health is actively put at risk carrying a child to term. The pregnancy alone is a serious medical ordeal and it's only in modern times that death by giving birth has gone done.

[@gregsanich5183]

It shouldn't even be a question of if abortion should be permitted, it should be a question of if pregnancy should be permitted. Any activity that is as dangerous and potentially fatal as pregnancy, needs to be strictly regulated. Abortions should be mandatory

[@rawr70101]

'I'm going to try to steel man the argument.' seconds later 'so I think it goes something like... Uh...' Failed at the first hurtle. If you barely understand it, how can you steel man it?

[@jojoe3193]

I'm more of a xylophoneist, thanks.

[@gopibble]

Why are most of the individuals posing arguments against a woman’s right to choose men?

[@Quinn37]

This isn't really true. While it is true women run about 52-45 in favor of pro-choice and men run 50-43 pro life it can't be said that it "mostly" men making these arguments. Unless you just mean men are in the majority on the issue. The demographics skew to much wider margins in terms of education (less educated is far more likely to be pro life), economics (poorer people tend to be pro life), and age (older people tend to be pro life). A more important point though, is that it is irrelevant WHO makes an argument. The argument either carries or not.

[@jg3865]

@@Quinn37 You can argue all you want, the decision is the woman's

[@Virtualblueart]

I wonder if it has to do that forced pregnancy can be used as a way to control a woman's life (and sometimes death, looking at you catholic church.).

[@gohanprolife8389]

Why does sex matter? It only matters if you are sexist? If I gave the argument to my wife (who is just as pro life as me but hates debates) to say, would that suddenly give the argument more strength because a woman is saying it?

[@jg3865]

@@gohanprolife8389 There are no arguments. The decision belongs to the woman experiencing it.

[@solly119119]

Yeah, this type of argument is B.S., because in order for it to work you have to make the enormous assumption a fetus is the same thing as an individual human being already born into the world. But bodily autonomy wouldn't be my first choice in debating anti-abortionists (I refuse to call them pro-life). What I'd ask is, "tell me what scientific method or test that provides evidence a fetus is the same as a one-week-old infant?" There is no answer for that, because when a fetus becomes human life like that one-week-old infant is a philosophical question. There isn't even anything for science to investigate to try and provide an answer. What word could be substituted for philosophical? Right, opinion. And I kinda think the person who's opinion matters most is the pregnant woman herself.

[@gregsanich5183]

If itsvyhe infants life that is at stake, wouldn't the infants opinion be the most relevant?

[@solly119119]

@@gregsanich5183 Prove a fetus is the same as an infant and you'd have a point. But you can't, because the medical and scientific community doesn't recognize person-hood. You're side is going to lose. The more you force your bullsh*t religious crap on everyone, the more people will rise up to resist you. Enjoy your "victory" while you can.

[@capthavic]

The simple fact is it's all about bodily autonomy. You don't have to like it but your feelings don't take priority over someone else's consent what to do with their body.

[@Sanxioned1]

I disagree that it's important to draw the line of personhood (I mean, outside of this particular issue, yes it's important). I would rather grant them 100% personhood so the anti-choicer drops that shit. The fetus is an invading, intruding force that commandeers the organs of another person. This is unacceptable if this commandeering is non consensual. In no other scenario would we be okay with someone doing this to another person. So yeah, the woman is well within her right to kill the fetus to end this intrusion -- just as she would be within her right to use deadly force to end a violent home invasion, even if she knowingly left the door unlocked.

[@NottherealLucifer]

Yes, but they're also not people, so the personhood argument is still relevant. Bodily autonomy and consent are the most important arguments to make, but the personhood argument is used to shut down all the stupid emotional appeals these people make. There's a difference between killing a thing that is technically alive and killing a fully formed person, when those two things become equal then we can stop making the personhood argument.

[@wizardoffrobozz]

until it is able to survive on its own, it is technically operating as a parasite, no? ...and when did the discussion of pregnancy move from the private sphere to the public sphere.?? why does anyone else have a legislated right to enforceable opinion over another body.? i never understood that.

[@jvondd]

If the metaphor requires this much shifting of the goalposts, it's not a good metaphor.

[@LILITHDMN]

Maybe these type of conversations should only be had when at least one of the hosts has a uterus.

[@gregsanich5183]

Exactly. Just like the halocaust is nobodies business if they arent jewish, and nobody had the right to condem it buy the jews. Or the same with starving Africans. Unless you yourself are a starving African it's none of your business and have no right to involve yourself in it.

[@jewsco]

I would not keep a violinist alive that I didn’t choose to be connected to him period .

[@bullethead67ful]

Great conversation I love it when people can talk without fighting

[@adamstrange7884]

How does a fetus get aborted by staying alive, isn't that called birth?!?

[@KrustyKlown]

Abortion is Termination of Pregnancy... the objective is NOT to kill a Fetus, as most Pro-Lifers dishonestly frame it.

[@lawrencefleischer1414]

This is not a valid analogy. 1) The fetus is not a person, the violinist is a person. 2) The individual could have very good reasons to walk away, i.e., if he stays, his kids, who are people, will die, for example. This is just another idiotic feeling that apologists use because they know they have no valid arguments.

[@Quinn37]

When does a fetus become a person?

[@lawrencefleischer1414]

@@Quinn37 When it is viable. A lump of cells 2 days after fertilization is not a person under any rational definition.

[@Quinn37]

@@lawrencefleischer1414 So you are against abortion once a fetus is viable? What is the definition of "person" you are working with?

[@lawrencefleischer1414]

@@Quinn37 Viability and personhood are two distinct issues. Our best take on viability is that it occurs at the start of the third trimester and that is when the government's interest equals or supersedes the mother's and abortions can be regulated. Before that time the mother's interests are paramount. Regarding personhood, someone becomes a person after they are born, not a second before. Coincidentally, that's exactly when the Bible says personhood begins--at the first breath, which can only occur outside the womb. Consequently, a strict--and honest--interpretation of the bible would permit abortions up until the moment of birth. Further, there is not one word in the bible concerning abortion and therefore, all of the so-called christian rules about abortion are simply made up crap. But in view of the fact that we are not a Christian nation and that there are millions of people who do not accept the bible as any kind of truth, all of that is irrelevant from a legal and moral point of view.

[@Quinn37]

@@lawrencefleischer1414 I am not a Christian, and I have no idea, why what the bible says should matter. Here is the definition of person from google 1. a human being regarded as an individual. It seems a fetus would qualify under this definition. And to clarify, you are pro-life starting at the third trimester, prochoice before that, correct?

[@TheWuschi]

A nice "Thank you, Sir!" to Christie for suggesting at the very end of the video that the caller MAYBE should try to talk with women about this issue. As much as I like those two hosts and as much I appreciate the comparably civil tone of the caller, I was freaked out by the self-evidence those three men had their calm and civil talk with their noses deep in women's wombs. Ans since there were so many crazy "what ifs" in this clip, with secret societies protecting violinists and stuff, I humbly suggest yet another one: What if three clever and civilized women had a conversation about legal measurements to force men into vasectomies, circumcisions, penis elongations and other life-changing dick related surgical interventions (and what if such interventions had been dictated to men by women-led religions, states and laws for long, long times)?

[@se7enhaender]

I don't see a problem with women talking about men... It's about time that women took men's issues to heart instead of focusing in on their own sex when they're not busy fighting "the patriarchy". More discussion about serious topics is better and not worse, regardless of what's between the legs of the participants.

[@Cellidor]

"What if three clever and civilized women had a conversation about legal measurements to force men into vasectomies, circumcisions, penis elongations and other life-changing dick related surgical interventions (and what if such interventions had been dictated to men by women-led religions, states and laws for long, long times)?" If the women in question were arguing for my rights in that example? Arguing against the outdated legal interventions trying to tell me what I can and can't do with my body? Hell yeah I'd want them having that conversation, I'd want all the support I could get. If I think there's some backwards, messed-up things going on in the society I live in, I don't care what gender the people standing beside me on the discussion are.

[@TheWuschi]

@@Cellidor Would you? Yessir, you would. What luck, that it is just a what if... ;-)

[@marinagarza1803]

So over men w/out birthing capability feel they should even have a say in the matter. Obviously the well being of the mother is off the table in idiotic discussions like these!

[@christopherreynolds7594]

Gohan's reverse violinist experiment is pretty illogical because the violinist and their doctors would be involved in crimes far greater than the original experiment. They'd be not limited to kidnapping, false imprisonment, battery and assault (non-consensual medical practice), medical malpractice, manslaughter (should you die), and more. That wouldn't be so simple as unplugging and walking away. That's a life changing situation entirely at your expense. If this was done by a hospital, you could sue the clothes off their backs. And everyone involved would be imprisoned.

[@OccultThinkTank]

The issue of when does life begin I would say the *Date of Birth* is something that can't be overlooked or ignored. You can not kill someone before their legal life began!

[@chillinsquirtle]

Christians used to believe life began at first breath because that's what the Bible says but after the right realized the could politicize it they changed their tune

[@OccultThinkTank]

@@chillinsquirtle It doesn't matter what religious idiots think. In our society on every legal document is Date of Birth. That is the date our society has set for when life begins. If people want that changed then get it done on legal documents. They don't do that because what date would be given and what evidence would exist to verify that date is accurate?

[@rayxav]

Is there EVER a point in a pregnancy when the mother is dependent upon the fetus? And if there is a ridiculously rare occurrence, that still doesn’t make the “Reverse Violinist” idea analogous to the vast majority of pregnancies. Stupid argument.

[@loki6626]

The US has a higher rate of abortion than the global average. Many people want to bring that rate down. Ok, how about: Good sex education. Freely available contraception and good quality advice. Affordable healthcare and childcare. Tackle wealth inequality. Gender equality. Many countries have a lower abortion rate than the US by these means rather than using draconian misogynistic laws. Unfortunately certain groups of people are opposed to the measures that would reduce unwanted pregnancies.

[@amyv8416]

Mandatory vasectomy on a boy's 13th birthday.

[@RossTheNinja]

Not celebrating abortions nor treating them as birth control

[@isab2376]

Too many men discussing about a woman’s right to do what she wants about her own body…. What if men were forced by law to have vasectomies (reversible) until willing to have and care for a child? Maybe the discussion would be different. Bodily autonomy should be the end of the discussion.

[@branimirantic3625]

I can also choose to not use my body in supporting the child I have with a woman. So no alimony.

[@Quinn37]

Who makes an argument has no relevance. The only thing that matters is whether the argument is strong or not. This would serve you well, because if you were discussing this issue with this caller, and he ma]de his point, and you refuted by saying the above comment, you have lost the argument,

[@Quinn37]

@@branimirantic3625 You are making a false analogy. Men and women both are required to support a child once it is born. That is not being discussed in this call

[@jg3865]

Since women are DIRECTLY impacted by pregnancy, its up to her. Period.

[@Quinn37]

@@jg3865 This may or may not be, but it remains irrelevant as to WHO makes the argument. For instance, I don't know if you are man, woman or something else, but I do know that this comment is not a good argument. The pro life argument is 1. It is wrong to take a human life without proper justification 2. Abortion takes a human life without proper justification C. Abortion is wrong. It is not a rebuttal to this argument to say Abortion only effects woman, therefore they decide. Sharpen your arguments. Further. The prolifer believes there are 2 people involved. WHile the pregnant person is always female, the second "person" is not. I suggest taking a look at premise 2, and start talking about justification. This is the best place to attack, not an ad hominem about the gender of the maker of the argument.

[@OccultThinkTank]

So removing a Tumor shouldn't be permitted since that tumor is *"Alive"*

[@blueredingreen]

I haven't the slightest idea how the Uno Reverse Card violinist argument relates to the real world or how any answer one gives is supposed to imply anything about anything. The very reason the answer might be different or more complicated (which is because the person making the choice is not the one whose autonomy has already been violated) is the very thing that makes it disanalogous to the real world. But then the argument came from an apologist, and not making any sense is their bread and butter.

[@devb9912]

The violinist doesn't have the right to use your body to stay alive, you don't have the right to use theirs to stay alive. If they caused a situation where you will die without their body it doesn't change anything.

[@modifiedlandfish]

the cells in my cheek are human organisms lmao

[@hithere7080]

No they arent? I don’t understand what you mean(im disabled, sorry if im just being stupid)

[@modifiedlandfish]

@@hithere7080 yeah, the cells that make up the human body are human cells and we know consciousness doesn't develop until after 20 weeks and most abortions are preformed within the first 12 weeks so essentially fetuses at that time are just as human as the cells in your cheek

[@hithere7080]

@@modifiedlandfish only single celled life can be called an organism, a human cell isnt an organism, a multicellular organism has to have organ systems made of organs made of tissues made of cells, they are human cells but not organisms, thats like calling a skyscraper a city

[@modifiedlandfish]

@@hithere7080 yeah I meant to say cells not organisms my fault, my points the same though

[@keithulhu]

Doesn't this chucklehead know that not all fertilized eggs successfully implant?

[@cindyrobinson5028]

I feel like the violinist argument, as presented, misses the point entirely. The person who wakes up attached to the violinist should have the right to make the choice. What’s left out of the scenario is that the government has taken the choice away from the unwilling victim. They CAN’T make the decision, and are forced to stay connected. THAT is the real scenario many want to set up in real life. And it continues to amaze me how many of those who claim to be religious will focus on fetal tissue, yet reject the living child once it’s born. The same people who hate the idea of their tax money going for children’s health issues, food, and education pretend to care about a zygote? And they wonder why the rest of us don’t buy their concerns.

[@gregsanich5183]

Neither of those examples are religious issues. There's nothing about the anti abortion or social welfare positions that are exclusive to religious beliefs. A person doesn't need to be religious to think human life should have intrinsic worth and be protected and there's certainly no religious doctrine or belief that would oppose social welfare programs.

[@holliexbx5613]

20:51 The foetus is granted rights at 23 weeks in uk. That would just be birth 🤦‍♀️

[@andyrihn1]

19:00 no Gohan the government doesn’t force you to use your body to support a child. You have entered an entirely voluntary and relatively easily severable relationship from which you can adopt out at any moment

[@liv328]

The difference is, is that the Violinist is a person, a living breathing person. So in that situation many of us would save the Violinist. However, a fetus is not a person. Do you remember being a fetus? No. Therefore if you were aborted would you have known... No. All I am saying is that it is illogical to compare "The Violinist" with abortion.

[@herawynn1397]

Calling on the BS of his comment that he is required to use his body to aide to his child. Especially since his kid is adopted! He has the choice to relinquish his responsibility to child or hire someone to care for them and have no contact. Can't do that as a pregnant woman

[@j.gairns]

Gohan missed the point of his own argument. It IS about the use of the donor's organ and bodily autonomy. Gohan claims women are not allowed to decide what happens to their body, but men are allowed to decide ehat happens to their bodies. Hell, a woman who gives birth is not legally obligated to provide an organ to her own child. It's only the fetus that has more rights than a pregnant woman.

[@15doz]

This is the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard

[@JoshuaWillis89]

I did find “The Reverse Violinist” a compelling thought experiment. I don’t find it totally analogous to a fertilized egg and a person gestating it but interesting nonetheless. “Human organism” is intentionally vague. I don’t believe having human DNA equates to full personhood. I consider personhood the ability to act independently. I personally extend that to part of the pregnancy, but I don’t see much cause for concern, since the only abortions that seem to happen at that point are the ones that can’t be avoided due to medical issues, and truly are treated like the loss of a child. It’s not good to make life even harder for those people by stigmatizing and banning late-term abortions.

[@RetroRockGamer]

This caller is misstating the violinist argument. The point of the violinist argument isn't the morals of whether or not you would disconnect, The point is should the government be allowed to force you to stay connected.

[@alext7074]

Too many plot twists for my liking. Would not recommend... 2/10.

[@GhostNamedNemo]

This was the stupidest "what if" yet

[@Alltime2050]

More proof there is no such thing as a conservative intellectual.

[@KrustyKlown]

Cognitive Dissonance is incompatible with intellectualism.

[@arthurstreet2811]

Weak ass argument. The violinist has zero right to your body, regardless the outcome of his/her life. End of argument. Gohan is out of his mind if he thinks anyone has the right to use of your body without your consent.

[@ellarweegadsden8483]

How does he define "death?

[@locutusdborg126]

Good show.

[@noskpain2792]

Bad argument. Kidnapping a person and the person that is supporting is a stranger. A developing child is not a stranger

[@jamielynnturner5201]

Love your show but you let that guy off easy. His points were invalid sorry they are.

[@saffronhammer7714]

Insulting to compare him holding his child for a time to keep it warm to nice months of danger of pregnancy.

[@jewsco]

did he literally say at the end that sex has nothing to do with the issue of abortion? pretty easy for a man to say who never has to carry a baby or think about getting an abortion and right there shows his whole argument is BS

[@hithere7080]

His analogy is stupid, after you give birth, your baby doesnt then become pregnant with you/care for you for the next 9 months

[@bubuz60]

Call back when women are hosting? What if the violinist is Adolf H? And it’s 18-19 years not 9 months.

[@oldmanaz.6811]

I think abortion should be retroactively done to a lot of people.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

if i've been kidnapped the violinist is dead. it's not my doing, i would want him to live, whoever connected me up should have connected the violinist to someone who gave their consent. er, the question is does anyone have the right to force you to be a doner, sadly yes these dyas, but i for one disagree with that. it's fine if you live in a benevolent society, but when you live is a society where someone can sell your body parts it's asking for trouble. why not just talk about abortion ffs.

[@holliexbx5613]

Call in when there’s no women, to talk about abortion 😕

[@TheLegendOfRandy]

Tracie Harris, Jen Peeples and Shannon Q, etc, all have _great_ responses to the abortion topic if you look up previous shows.

[@lingcod91]

NO NOT ONE DAY AGO . . . Try last week. This is dishonest.

[@danielb.1567]

“You must picture me alone in that room at Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England” -C. S. Lewis on his defection from atheism. Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life.

[@jenniferlaughter3569]

The mother not child bearing parent has the right to choose.

[@NottherealLucifer]

Incorrect, "childbearing parent" or "pregnant person" are the correct terms. A mother is exclusively a woman who has had a child, and this isn't 1997, words and understandings have evolved. You being stuck in the idiotic past isn't an excuse.

[@NottherealLucifer]

Also, no, the government doesn't require you to use your body in any way when it comes to the caring of your child. The government only requires that you take care of the child, if you had millions in the bank, you wouldn't have to do anything with your body to take care of them. Those distasteful things you have to do aren't the fault of the government's requirement for you to care for your child, you could make money any other way.

[@NottherealLucifer]

If you think all human organisms have the same rights, you're in favor of some really heinous shit. Let me spell it out for you, caller. Let's imagine a very lovely couple who have been together for twelve years, and they got married five years ago. They were high school sweethearts, they love each other to bits, and they're two of the nicest people you've ever met. Now, they've been out of college for years and have finally decided they're financially stable enough, and mature enough, to start trying to have a kid. It's a struggle, they both have some medical issues that are making conceiving more difficult than it usually is, and it's putting a lot of emotional stress on them. After multiple years of trying, of heartbreak and self doubt, they're finally going to have a baby, the wife is pregnant. They're ecstatic, they couldn't be happier with life now, and this has made all the years of stress completely worthwhile. Unfortunately, a few months into the pregnancy, there's an accident. The wife had gotten into her car to run to the store to satisfy a pregnancy craving she was having, and the store was only a few blocks away so she didn't see the harm in driving herself rather than waiting a few hours until her partner came home. Well, her brakes fail right as she approaches a red light, and she has to swerve into a nearby ditch to avoid a direct collision. She hits the other side of the ditch so hard she almost loses consciousness from the impact with the steering wheel, and every muscle in her body is on fire. She's in agonizing pain and she's more scared than she ever thought possible, terrified that the baby her and her partner have been trying so hard to bring into this world is in danger of having its life tragically cut short. She struggles to even breathe as she reaches into the console to grab her phone. Hands quivering and eyes filled with tears, she calls an ambulance first, and then calls her partner and tries her best to explain what happened through her pain filled sobbing. One agonizing ambulance ride later, she learns the fetus isn't going to make it, and that they have to prep her for surgery to remove the remains of their would-be child, the one they struggled to make, the one that they traded their sanity to create, the one that took years of trying, or else she's going to die too. Now then, caller, and everyone like them, let's continue this scenario in your world. If that fetus has rights, the exact same rights as you and I, that means that this miscarriage isn't just some tragic accident, it's also a criminal case. This mother could very well be sent to prison for decades on a charge of manslaughter, after all, it was her choice to get in that car, and either her or her partner had failed to get the vehicle's brakes serviced recently. You can say "this would never happen" but in your proposed world it absolutely would. In Alabama, just a few years ago, a woman was charged with manslaughter for getting into a fight and getting shot, which caused her to miscarry. She didn't choose to get shot, just like in my analogy that woman didn't choose to get in a car accident, that's what manslaughter as a criminal charge is for. So instead of a loving couple just having to struggle through one of the most difficult circumstances a person can go through, they now have to do so with one or both of them going to prison for decades. That's the world you're arguing for, whether you can intellectually understand it or not.