The Abortion Debate: Alex Epstein Interviews Onkar Ghate and Gregory Salmieri

[@DanNorton1]

Good conversation! I particularly liked the explanation (in terms of selfishness and self-sacrifice) of why the "right" and "left" have the moral highground on the abortion issue and economic issues, respectively. (18:03 through the next few minutes.) I found that to be newly clarifying.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

Same!

[@coleman2586]

Alex is one of the greatest thinkers of his age group

[@maryahhaidery7986]

Or Alex is one of the greatest group thinkers of his age ;)

[@nixon4762]

Alex is a great interviewer!

[@Dark_Peace]

Thank you for this. While I've always been pro-choice, I clearly felt that the pro-life had that sort of moral high ground. But your arguments really put back the pro-choice stance in the "facts & rationnality team", imo. Those aren't the types of arguments you can hear on the left, I'm loving objectivism more every day.

[@TRIPP5_Shurikens]

Sooner or later you'll find yourself not using the term "pro-life" to describe these very anti-life stances anymore. Objectivism is like a skeleton key for these things.

[@lefantomer]

​@@TRIPP5_Shurikens Indeed! But some "Objectivists" claim that at a vague, unspecified point in the pregnancy the fetus suddenly blossoms into a "human being able to survive on its own and therefore possessing rights, in which case to abort it is murder". This is nonsense, of course. The fetus is entirely dependent on the mother until birth. But what accounts for this crypto-religious theorizing that uses alleged "independence" of the fetus to invalidate the rights of the mother? Is it the physical appearance of the "baby",, a ploy often used by the anti-abortion activists to induce guilt? Or just failure to distinguish between a born child which now possesses rights and one to which rights do not apply because it is still hooked up to the mother?

[@jeviosoorishas181]

Gregory Salmieri makes an amazing point pointing out that the egg and sperm are already "alive" throughout the process, so it's not really about life. Even when secular pro-life people make arguments in support of the position, they are not arguing about life, but about the soul. So it's not really "Life begins at conception", it's "There's an existing soul at conception." The whole Pro-life position is really just Pro-Soul...which is what makes it such a religious concept, philosophically.

[@sunnyvegas2778]

NO, its life at conception, thats a science based arguement, sperm isnt a human life, do you not know this?????

[@MrJm323]

@@sunnyvegas2778 Clearly sperm is alive. It is human, it is a human living entity with an actual goal (which it is literally "swimming" towards). So, you can't make the standard (or declare as a rights-bearing human being -- a "person"; and, in law, we do say "legal personhood") ...just something that is "human" (every living cell in our body is "human") nor point out that it is a "human living thing" -- which is true of every living sperm. There has to be something more than a descriptor of "human" and that it is a "thing". ....WHEN does a human entity (a clump of human cells) become a human person -- such that we can represent it in court and say that it has RIGHTS by which we could COMPEL the mother to honor? Well, we're certainly not going to do that in regard to her individual ovum? We're not going to say to her "You got to get that fertilized!! Or make a good faith attempt at fertilizing it! Which man are you going to sleep with to make that happen!" Her ovum is "human", it is a distinct "thing" (it "be" a "being"), it has a lifespan (normally a month unless it can get fertilized -- then it can become part of another entity)... Respect all "human life", yes?!?

[@LBoomsky]

​@@MrJm323 not the same organism tho a sperm needs the other half of its body to have a change at a future weras a zygote it's just a matter of no serious medical issues and not getting in the way of it.

[@coleman2586]

Where’s the debate?

[@WeGoTSkiLL]

DIY fan This video is about the debate, which is out there. This video is not the debate itself.

[@Steve5277-e4o]

Exactly. The two guys basically completely agree with each other. Disappointing watch.

[@htomc42]

How long before the same crowd goes against all contraception?

[@PrideofPitchers]

4:11 'It's essentially a religious argument.' Not necessarily. At conception, a genetically unique human is formed that satisfies all the biological criteria for 'a living organism.' It is a human being. Killing an innocent human being is wrong because it deprives society of a talented individual and deprives the living person of future experiences. Based off these two ideas, abortion is wrong in most cases. There is no religion involved in that argument. 5:16 'If you think a fetus has rights, you don't understand the legal concept of rights.' the 14th amendment to the constitution (section1): 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' If we collapse the legal distinction between someone being human and being a person (and we should because it's a stupid idea) then by my criteria laid out above, the unborn have the right to these things. A woman has the same rights (as does every other human) but she does not have the right to cancel out the life of another innocent human being. Choice only extends so far. 6:00 'Abortion is often good, it's moral, it's a heroic act. I admire women who get an abortion.' Do I even need to comment on how messed up this statement is? Abortion is nothing to be proud of. It's nothing to admire. What a weirdo. 6:00-6:15 'Almost every woman who has had an abortion has had one b/c of a medical problem or a personal issue.' It's a fact that over 95% of abortions are performed because the woman couldn't afford the child or didn't want it, NOT because of a life-death situation. To suggest otherwise is very misinformed and/or dishonest. Survey data from the last few decades is very clear on this issue. The biggest reason women abort is socioeconomic. www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html only six minutes in. I think i'll stop here.

[@joshuagould548]

Your 4:11: It is essentially religious. In the video, that I presume you watched, they talked about how sperm and the egg are living also. But why don't we grant them the same immunity? Why isn't the legality of masturbation being argued? It's because the people arguing against abortion care more about what other people (in this case, women) do with their bodies and the fetus; not the consistency of being scientific. Reason=Science. Faith=Religion. Those concepts are distinctive from one another. Your 5:16: Again, I presume you watched the video. They talked about how Rights are not just some arbitrary, societal construct; that Rights have an actual basis in reality: the basis that rational animals have conceptual minds and survive by reason. Rights are the freedom to action. Since there's no such thing as group rights; only individual rights (what are women's rights? Asian rights? Black rights? Animal rights? etc. Will these look different from one another? Will someone have a right that the other group doesn't have?) fetuses can't have rights. They're not individuals. They're literally attached to the mother and dependent on the mother's actions. No societal law can deny that. No one said choice extends infinitely. Obviously, rights can't contradict one another. That's what gives choice limits. Your 6:00: He talked about how it's very brave to make such a choice, and about how the woman must've seriously considered the alternatives, and weighed the consequences that each alternative would have on the rest of her life. This kind of thinking and this kind of ability to act is admirable. Your 6:00-6:15: You have it in your quote of him "or a personal issue". Then you mentioned a fact about how 95% of abortions are NOT because of a life-death situation, and that the biggest reason is socioeconomic. That sounds like a lot of personal issues in the world. All the more reason to not tell people what to do with their lives, because who would know better than the individual living that life. "Almost every woman" is sort of a catch-all. What other reasons would there be to have an abortion other than a medical issue or personal issue? Respectfully, Josh Gould

[@kev3d]

@@joshuagould548 Because a sperm cell or egg, on their own, have no brains, no capacity to think, reason, feel, or create. A fetus, particularly one with a brain that can feel pain, is an experiential being that learns, albeit in a way limited by its surroundings. There is nothing reasonable or scientific to categorize something as a clump of disposable cells when surrounded by a uterus, and in the next moment, regard that same thing as a human baby the moment it emerges from the vulva. What is the criteria? That the baby is now breathing on its own? Conjoined twins are often dependent upon each other, does that mean they do not have rights? People are occasionally dependent upon machines and personnel to keep them alive, do they cease to have rights merely because they are dependent upon the actions of others? One does not lose their rights simply because their situation doesn't presently allow them to express those rights.

[@joshuagould548]

@@kev3d Reason and Individuality are the criteria for rights. Rights are the freedom to act. You can't claim that the baby has rights, and then violate the mother's rights. When did the mother's rights end? The mother has ACTUAL rights, and the unborn have POTENTIAL rights, but they're only potential; they are not realized yet. The baby is still completely dependent on the mother's actions to stay alive. If the mother chooses to act upon her own body in such a way that wouldn't be conducive to the health of the unborn, then it's her body to choose that. If once the baby was born, someone destroyed it, that would be a violation of the baby's rights. The baby has both self-generating and self-sustaining capabilities which gives it its individuality. It also has an undeveloped rational faculty, but a rational faculty (i.e. reason) nonetheless. Conjoined twins have rights too. They share a body in some way, shape, or form, so there are restrictions about how they can exercise their rights. They'd have to work out the kinks, come to a compromise or an agreement, but they still have rights. It's just an unfortunate scenario, is all. And you can't have the right to another person's actions; that's called enslavement. If you're on a machine that depends on someone else's actions to monitor and sustain your life, I'd say you're in a very precarious position. They could forget about you, be incompetent to begin with, or the machines could be faulty. You'd likely be entitled to some financial compensation, and maybe someone would go to jail because of it, but you can't care if you're dead. You have a LEGAL right to their actions so long as they keep their jobs, but you can't make them slaves based on that, they can still quit their jobs. Please don't confuse my argument for abortion with the morality of having abortions. I think it's the mother's body, and no one should be able to make her do anything she doesn't want to do with it. Simultaneously, I think the later an abortion is had, the more immoral it is. Perhaps hundreds of questions could be asked to weigh the alternatives, and she should answer them all with her future in mind. If she procrastinates and puts off making a decision until much later in the pregnancy, I'd say that she's immoral. But not because any rights were violated, but because such an important decision was left unanswered for so long, and having to deal with the complications of terminating a later pregnancy. Rights are the freedom to act, and we're free to act immorally, and even against our own self-interest sometimes, but we're not allowed to violate other's freedom to act. Rights can't violate rights, that's a contradiction.

[@bahavaz]

You should support banning masturbation as well than

[@PrideofPitchers]

@@joshuagould548 In response to your first reply and point, It is scientifically wrong to state that human eggs or sperm are the same thing as human beings. A human zygote is already a genetically distinct, totipotent, self generating entity that - by its nature - is a human being. A human individual is composed of tissues and cells, but those components are not human themselves. We don't give immunity to sperm/eggs for that reason. The argument isn't that a zygote has the potential to become a human, but that it already is a distinct human being. Sperm are not. Eggs are not. Skin cells and other somatic cells are not. In the case of human cloning, somatic cells are analogous to gametes (eggs and sperm), not zygotes or embryos. These are scientific facts based on observation, regardless of our positions. Second, a human embryo is indeed an individual rational entity by its nature/substance of being human. This is based on objective reality. It inherently (by it's internal programming and properties) has the capacity to have rational thought/have consciousness/communicate.These capacities are involuntary and observable. Humans exhibit speech and have rational thought. An embryo, just like a newborn baby, only needs the time to fully develop these properties. But innately, it already has them. You even admit this in your second reply post. An embryo needs the mother to preserve its life, but that doesn't change its substance/nature or capacities. It's still a human being, and therefore has inherent worth and rights (I shouldn't have to explain why homicide is wrong or why human life is valuable in this post). We don't kill kids/grandparents just because they're dependent. I do think it's moral to deny abortion to a woman who voluntarily has sex, gets pregnant, and decides to terminate. That's almost all cases. The outliers (rape, incest, medical necessity) can be justified from self defense in my opinion. So your analogy in the second post about the person being enslaved doesn't work in most cases if they willfully had sex. that's all for now

[@mrsmith1097]

Surely there must be a cutoff point however… because what practical difference is there between a baby 2 weeks before births And 2 weeks after?

[@TeaParty1776]

there is no pre-birth baby

[@joshuagould548]

@@TeaParty1776 Not to mention, an umbilical cord and placenta. The things that a mother supplies with nutrients and sustenance, which down the line, feed the unborn. These supplies are completely reliant on the mother's actions, and none of the unborn's. The mother is a rational, individual person, performing actions that sustain her own life. The unborn takes no actions to sustain its own life; it's completely dependent on the mother's life. When that umbilical cord is severed, the unborn will become it's own, separate entity, i.e. a baby. Until then, it's literally, biologically, PART of the mother's body.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@joshuagould548 A potential human is not an actual human. Ayn Rand Lexicon/abortion

[@micchaelsanders6286]

The individuation. Once you are physically separate you have a right to life.

[@WhoIsJohnGaltt]

@@micchaelsanders6286conjoined twins don’t have rights?

[@Instigatin]

The other argument that I think needed to be mentioned is that even if conservatives want to pretend the unborn is a full grown adult, they still don't have a right to be carried to term. Anyway you cut the abortion issue it is not a rights violation. Ultimately it is just an example of conservatives making the same argument as socialists: I'm a human being therefore give me free stuff.

[@sebmaio4]

@Doug Miles What is the point of this reply? Have you ever seen, known, or helped a child who was unwanted (but the mother was "forced" to carry to term and let it be born)? Do you know what a foster child is? Do you have any idea how many adoptions fail? These real life -alive children - cases make viewing an abortion, well, child's play. Squeamish much?

[@mystars4573]

@Doug Miles Yes I have seen and witnessed those things, being a female who has reproduced. Have you, Doug, ever helped a child who grows into an unwanted child/teen? Helped with abandonment issues? Helped with abuse, sexual and physical? Helped with anything regarding a living, breathing human who needs any kind of human attachment that is not punishment or humiliation? These are the things that happen when an embryo is dictated to be evolved into a being which is considered, after all considerations, an unwanted child. Squeamish much, Doug? You are squeamish about the dissolution of the inanimate flesh but have no concern for the living and animate flesh and mind and soul which grows into a functioning human being. Do you offer a long term commitment to the very human agony of being unwanted? Or are you looking for just the attempt to generate an immediate revulsion to an ephemeral act like the actual abortion which ends, and is fleetingly superficially emotional. You are not a serious person and are looking for a dramatic but non-essential denouement to your concocted argument.

[@Instigatin]

@@sebmaio4 The point is to appeal to emotion because he has no argument.

[@Instigatin]

@Doug Miles All you're doing is making dishonest appeals to emotions. If you had an argument against abortion that was honest, you would've made one by now.

[@Instigatin]

@Doug Miles I have THE argument, which is that abortion doesn't violate rights which is why it should be perfectly legal. You've had this explained multiple times, have no counter, but are just doubling down on appeals to emotion.

[@ebikestouring]

The entire abortion rights discussion pertains entirely to the rights of the mother, not the fetus. When a mother & father decide to have a child they enter into a social contract to raise that child, which government should and does enforce as parents are responsible for raising their children, unless they give the up for adoption. However, no individual should be forced into a contract unwillingly for any reason. To do so is an infringement on the rights of the mother. The mother is not responsible for sustaining a fetus she does not agree to sustain as she has not entered into an agreement to do so. Once she does she has then accepted a social agreement society can her to, not before.

[@bezlichnyy7675]

You are on the right track, however, consider the perspective of the father as well. Often in some cases the decision to become parents is actually a joint decision. It is so common to witness "single mothers" raising children. Some of the reasons for this is that the mother failed to respect the father's opinion on the matter. Some single mothers are raising children alone by choice. Some fathers do not want to raise children, unfortunately due to some irrational choices made by the mothers', they are forced to have the children anyways. In some cases the father will abandon the disrespectful mother's decision and leave her to raise them alone.

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

Not necessarily, I would not appeal to something as shaky as a "social contract" knowing whence that came. The counter argument is that by having unprotected sex (if that is the case) then performing an act the logical outcome of which process would be a child. They welcome that potential then actual child into their lives via implied consent and are, therefore responsible for it. The only proper argument is that before some point, and Rand said that she did not wish to get into the discussion of "the 8 month fetus [For Hall Forum]", the embryo, fetus has no rights since it is not human, only a POTENTIAL human (see my post and the second link) Another argument that I've heard is the "appeal to self-interest" saying that the mother is not morally obliged to support a "parasitic" entity. Again, the above applies. since implied consent is given then the pregnancy is agreed to and the entity is not parasitic. Since the process requires by nature the maintenance and support of the pregnancy then that support must be provided Stick to the right argument and doun't get to fancy or you outsmart only yourself

[@ebikestouring]

Cl Lyman I can see your point, and the argument the fetus is not human does have merit. I like the second argument you make better as it is more in alignment with my argument. Clearly once a baby is born its parents have committed to a social contract to support the child. The cannot impose that on any one else in society unless they argue to do so, as in adoption. So the concept of a social contract is valid. The question then becomes one of when does that social contract exist? To me it exists only when the mother (n.b. Not the father) makes the decision to give birth to the baby; not at the point of unprotected sex. The reason again is that the mother has no obligation to support the life of a fetus, whether human or not, until she agrees to it. Take the following similar concept. There are people who starve to death in the world and you could save their life by feeding them. Why are you not liable for their death when you decide not to? Yes, it is because they are humans who are solely responsible for their life. But it is also because you have not agreed to support their life, albeit collectivists would say you should. Even if the mother had initially decided to have a baby, but for circumstances decided to end it, that is her decision. I do believe society has the right to impose some reasonable time limit, relatively close to but before birth, for the mother to make that decision. I side with Ayn not to decide exactly when that is myself. But I would presume philosophers and scientist could make such a determination. Thanks for the chat.

[@ebikestouring]

Bezlichnyy Per my other response, which I assume you can read, ultimately the father has no say in the decision as it is the mother who carries the responsibility and burden of carrying the fetus. Clearly the father is equally responsible if the child is born. It is an interesting debate what their obligation would be if their wishes are in conflict with the mothers during pregnancy. I would be inclined to say off the top of my head that the father could not force the mother to carry the fetus to term, but could decide not to support the child if the mother decided she wanted to. This is counter to current law of course. But I say it because the father has not agreed to the social contract and should not be forced to by the mother. This is yet another sticky issue around the whole debate.

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

@@ebikestouring I do not know. A marriage is a two-person enterprise. If they are at odds such that one overrides the other. And the unprotected sex is mutally consensual. Then it is best if BOTH are on the same page. This should be a settled matter BEFORE such sex is undertatken. What if the mother decides to carry to term and then the father has to support the child for 18 years? Again, it is a joint venture to which both contribute. Given today's contraceptive technology, there is no need for an unwanted pregnancy. If you read my first post and the second link, even Bill O'Reilly does not believe the embryo is a human life

[@Avidcomp]

So here's the particular that has been missed in this whole conversation. (And I'm disappointed it didn't come up). Very late term abortion. Where do you stand at practically 9 months? In other words on the day (or day before) delivery? Either you think that it's okay, in which case the difference between the life form is a snip of the umbilical chord, because that's really at that point the only difference in the entity. Now if you think that the day of, or day before is too late for an abortion, then what about two days before, or four days before? What's the moment of moral choice here? Scientific development will play a greater part in the future, especially when a woman can give up an embryo for some other couple to take responsibility for it, and the impregnated women can go on with her life independently.

[@nierlindin1006]

As an Objectivist I would like to offer my take on the issue. As far as I am concerned there is fundamental difference in the fetus that occurs at a developmental stage. That difference is when you are dealing with a successfully individuated conceptual entity. That is when you are dealing with a morality and rights possessing being. From my knowledge of the subject this is a developmental stage that is reach when moving from the 2nd to 3rd trimester. The essential being the developmental point reached in the brain to carry out the function of reason. As such in the third trimester, while the mother does possess the same rights to her body, they are now to be considered in a new context, to the rational beings right to life as well as her own. As such what I think this demands under normative circumstances is the requirement to give birth rather then abort. I do not necessarily think the mother is required to carry the child to a full 9 month, however.

[@Instigatin]

It didn't come up because over 90% of abortions are in the first trimester. Conservatives trying to use late term abortion to justify banning ALL abortion are being particularly disingenous. In any case, the argument is going to be the same. Abortion doesn't violate rights and so should be perfectly legal.

[@Deltelly]

That is an interesting way to think about it. I've always thought that the ability of medical science to keep alive a premature baby effectively sets an upper limit on abortion and, as you say, advancement will keep pushing that down. Starting from the other end I don't believe that a fertilised egg is the type of thing that rights apply to. I can see how some would, assuming it is endowed with a soul, but I neither accept that nor know what soul even means or if it even exists. I suppose I currently hold quite a materialist belief. So, for an entity to be given the right to life I'd say it needs to be capable of some level of conscious awareness and, therefore, at least needs a brain of some form. That certainly sets a lower limit for me on where the legality of abortion is even an issue but the upper limit is somewhat fuzzy and dependent on scientific understanding of embryo and foetal development and also of consciousness. This issue trumps my first point in the event that medical advancements could allow a pre-conscious embryo/foetus to be kept alive and develop fully. Even once a foetus can be considered a conscious entity deserving of rights, though, that right may be at odds with the mother's right to life in certain medical situations so abortion may still be the right ethical choice to make. What do you think?

[@2046-b2o]

They didn't talk about it because it's a red herring. Rights, non-mystical ones anyway, literally can't apply before birth

[@Deltelly]

@@2046-b2o What definition of a right means it can't apply to an unborn and is there only one definition? I think of a right as pretty much equivalent to a law that protects it (or punishes its breaking), which can certainly be applied to an unborn. I'm sure other definitions can be so applied to. Can you expand what you mean?

[@ANascente]

I am tired of listening to religious "arguments" against abortion. It is refreshing to hear arguments for individual rights.

[@johnkosowski3321]

The issue of when a person becomes a person has nothing to do with religion. It is an issue of objective science. Throwing religion into the mix is a cop out.

[@frederickfarias9515]

The Potential differentiation (Aristotle) You thankfully express how to think about this. The facing the world in the dogmatic way, is reason why “Rosemary’s Baby” is a such a good movie.

[@ravagetime]

"It's necessarily a religious argument. " This is what's known as a false dichotomy.

[@alexanderscott2456]

What's the dichotomy?

[@booni5114]

@@alexanderscott2456 that pro life is religious and pro abortion is wrong. Because I agree with objectivism down to the roots, but yet don't agree with abortion. My argument is not religious at all.

[@akirafelix3865]

@@booni5114 you think is not religious. Sorry to break it to you, but it is. You would have to disagree with the nature of rights in order to hold your possition. Objectivism is an integrated philosophy, not a pick and choose type of thing. If you find a contradiction, point it out.

[@Mathew_Carter]

It's more of a straw man than a false dichotomy. If my argument is based on science/biology because I think unique DNA makes a fetus a distinct individual from the mother, and the rebuttal is that my argument is religious because I believe there is a soul, they are debating a claim that I haven't made.

[@jeviosoorishas181]

​@@Mathew_CarterWhat they're saying here, is that it's religious in the same sense that Creationist Science is religious, where the conclusion/ethical argument is rooted in religion, but the process at arriving at it is the use of science. There are religious arguments for being pro-abortion, as is often seen in Judaism, but what they are suggesting here is that's not necessary to make a pro-abortion argument.

[@htomc42]

Much is made, particularly on the political right, of how so many problems are the result of absent fathers. There may be something to that. But aren't they shooting themselves in the foot with policies that could exponentially increase children without an intact, functional family?

[@TeaParty1776]

To conservatives , sacrificing a pregnant womans selfish choice to abort is more important than good families.

[@jhljhl6964]

Abortion should never be a substitute for birth control.

[@bahavaz]

you should support baning masturbation as well than

[@bezlichnyy7675]

“Don't think of them now. Never think of pain or danger or enemies a moment longer than is necessary to fight them. You're here. It's our time and our life, not theirs. Don't struggle not to be happy. You are." - John Gault”― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged These objectivists from ARI spend time using their intellectual gifts debating known irrational arguments about abortion from the opposition. The debate has been won with abortion lawful across the U.S. If abortion ever becomes against the law, then it is proper to debate and challenge the issue again. In my opinion, ARI spends way too much time focusing and debating their oppositions. As objectivists, I think a better use of intellect would be better to spend time trying build “Galt’s Gulch” and invest money in order to make this an entelechy. "If you build it, he will come" is the famous line from the classic 1989 U.S. film, "Field of Dreams".

[@sebmaio4]

Amen, especially to the part about debating irrational arguments, especially when a lot of the Objectivist logic indicates that trying to deal with arbitrary statements is pointless and should not even be engaged in at any level.

[@bezlichnyy7675]

@@sebmaio4 I'm glad we met! You are correct. Another point on that, too, is that from my study of logic and fallacies. It's a rule that once a fallacy has been validly identified either in my argument or my opponent, the discussion or argument does not have to continue until either the fallacy is corrected, omitted, or discarded.

[@mystars4573]

@@bezlichnyy7675 So, why are these guys doing this? I am afraid of the answer. Good to meet you.

[@bezlichnyy7675]

@@mystars4573 I don't know their motivations for addressing or even debating the abortion issue. Yes, pleasure to meet you.

[@joshuagould548]

Within the first 2 minutes of this video, Alex mentions that there are States in the USA that have laws banning abortion after a certain amount of time. These laws have been established relatively recently, and so the belief should be that the opposition to abortion is making a comeback and is actually making headway. This interview will keep these arguments fresh in our minds and will help those that are more influential than us to form better arguments for abortion in the future. Also, the consistently religious and nihilistic don't care about logical arguments. They'll kick, scratch, and scream to evade reality.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

21:10 Great point by Greg

[@ivanperezs]

Great format

[@leonardjanke9099]

No, lousy format: three people who all agree discussing the debate as opposed to people with different views actually debating.

[@sebmaio4]

To Avidcomp: As an Objectivist and woman (who has children) the ONLY person making this decision, given where we stand legally, is the mother who may or may not have to decide on the possible abortion. The well-developed fetus may feel pain, but so does the mother, physical as well as mental. Others, like you and me and the guys having the discussion, can bat around intangibles and theories all we like, but in the end there is only one person can and should carry the responsibility.

[@sebmaio4]

@Doug Miles Judging from your name you are a man and can't have babies so are always, always free from having to make any of these real world decisions. You got no dog in the fight, except if you've managed to HELP some woman to get pregnant. Then you are 50% to "blame" if we call it that. How many unwanted, carried-to-term children have you ever helped, adopted, fostered....crickets.

[@bezlichnyy7675]

You are on the right track, however, consider the perspective of the father as well. Often in some cases the decision to become parents is actually a joint decision. It is so common to witness "single mothers" raising children. Some of the reasons for this is that the mother failed to respect the father's opinion on the matter. Some single mothers are raising children alone by choice. Some fathers do not want to raise children, unfortunately due to some irrational choices made by the mothers', they are forced to have the children anyways. In some cases the father will abandon the disrespectful mother's decision and leave her to raise them alone.

[@sebmaio4]

@Doug Miles Gee, Doug, how many have you fathered? Funny but when a supposed "parent" says I have raised an adopted child, the Adoption Social Worker in me wonders whether that adoption ever really "took." The psychologically (and mentally healthily-correct) statement would not ever include the word "adopted." And then there is your personal and arbitrary statement that abortion is wrong. Doug, if you feel abortions are wrong, why, as a doctor, do you do them? Maybe you need to stop doing abortions. You have no respect for your patients, as witnessed by your comments here. If you took a moral stand and said "I won't, as a medical doctor, perform any more abortions" what would happen? I am done with these discussions.

[@sebmaio4]

@Doug Miles Did you not represent yourself somewhere in these discussions as a doctor who performs abortions? Oh Doug, so quick to call others vile. And you keep calling your adopted child your adopted child instead of just calling that person "your child." I have no point; you have made my point for me.

[@bahavaz]

@Doug Miles You should support banning masturbation too then.

[@lawrencemiller3829]

25:30 ...That opposition to abortion is malice towards life Comment: Ayn Rand lost reasoning on this statement.

[@sebmaio4]

You've lost reasoning by giving no reasons for your statement. Ayn Rand was a woman (so am I) who realized that any movement that forbids a woman to be in complete control of her own body, in effect, completely devalues and discounts and shows malice aforethought toward HER life, and therefore to ALL life.

[@damienneimad6044]

@@sebmaio4 the woman was in control when she decided to get cummed in... abortion is an excuse for woman who "get around: to continue to "get around" while killing the very human life consequence of the choice to have sex.

[@bahavaz]

you should support banning masturbation as well than

[@mro2352]

Three guys talking about how abortion is good. I’ve heard about philosophy from Aynd Rand and her philosophy breaks down at the family unit. These guys are not considering at all the question about adoption instead. They are also heavily using straw man arguments as well.

[@AssaultSpeed]

The ultimate unit is the individual.

[@mro2352]

I understand why she says that and agree with her but not on this point. The problem is that she never, as far as I can tell, had what I would consider a major thought on the biological consequences. If you are having sex you should ,as they said, be thinking of what the consequences are. The quote from atlas shrugged states “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine” does not hold up under the parent child relationship. It just doesn’t and that about sums up her world view.

[@joshuagould548]

I know it's kind of a cop out, but the kind of explanation necessary to disprove your statement would be very lengthy. So I would respectfully suggest reading more of her work. She never denounces or berates families. If it brings you non-contradictory joy, then do it; have a family. That would be in total congruence with her philosophy. Cheers.

[@mro2352]

Joshua Gould then would you point me to the articles? I’ll come back with more questions in all likelihood

[@joshuagould548]

​@@mro2352 Of course. For the New Intellectual, The Virtue of Selfishness (specifically the article "The Objectivist Ethics"), and The Voice of Reason. These are books that are full of articles and essays of hers, and she's written so much more. You can read almost anything of hers and draw a principle that your happiness is the purpose of your life. And she described happiness as non-contradictory joy. Here's a tidbit: “Happiness is not to be achieved at the command of emotional whims. Happiness is not the satisfaction of whatever irrational wishes you might blindly attempt to indulge. Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy-a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction, not the joy of escaping from your mind, but of using your mind’s fullest power, not the joy of faking reality, but of achieving values that are real, not the joy of a drunkard, but of a producer. Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions. -Galt's Speech, For the New Intellectual, 132 This is her philosophy expressed through her fictional work, and you can find so much more with just about anything that's been published.

[@jordanthomas4379]

I'm agnostic and I do not support abortion past 6 weeks. I'm sick of this moronic argument that suggests any opposition to abortion is a religious viewpoint. My views are rooted in objective fact, I have no faith.

[@Mr.Witness]

Sigh all you people no depth . You do have faith you believe something with no evidence. You believe implicitly that there is a soul or some sort of imbedded quality that gives the fetus consideration as a rights bearer.

[@TeaParty1776]

> My views are rooted in objective fact, which you evade identifying

[@BenjaminNickelTX]

Both of these men have terrible flaws in their reasoning and leave out way too many arguments from the pro-life side that demolish the pro-choice argument. Put up some more intelligent debaters.

[@BenjaminNickelTX]

@@theanalyticsyntheticdichot4404 Aristotle lived thousands of years ago. What genus is a baby in the womb? What's the difference in its DNA on either side of the womb? Give me one reason that a baby inside the womb isn't human that can't also apply to someone outside the womb. Just because a child may be an inconvenience in your eyes doesn't make them less human. Your argument holds no water and you should stop thinking of those of us that are pro life of having any issues of your free will to choose what you do with your body. Unless you have 20 fingers, 20 toes, 2 hearts, etc. then that's not your body. As for govt rules on what we do with our bodies, there are thousands of laws. I can't stab you and it be okay, so why can you stab a baby? Location doesn't matter and it's a completely flawed, selfish, and downright ignorant view to think that a few layers of skin and tissue makes the difference on what qualifies as human. You are NOT giving birth to a chicken or lizard. Get gud.

[@BenjaminNickelTX]

@@theanalyticsyntheticdichot4404 I figured that you would back down. Good luck convincing anyone that your argument is correct when you can't address the issues. I'll consider this a forfeit on your part.

[@BenjaminNickelTX]

@@theanalyticsyntheticdichot4404 You failed to answer a single question of mine. Since that was so difficult, answer this: Does an unborn baby have human DNA separate from that of the pregnant woman? Does it have a separate nervous system, heart beat, and body parts? If so, it's a human life.

[@BenjaminNickelTX]

@@theanalyticsyntheticdichot4404 Wow, you're an arrogant one. My point is that if it has human DNA living or dead, then it is human. I obviously can't kill a dead human being, so your flippant insults towards my intelligence are a waste of time and simply show immaturity. What separates the baby being inside of a uterus and one outside from being a human being? It is an actual human being, not a potential human being whether or not if there's 7 inches of separation. I believe all men and women have a right to life no matter what stage you are at in life. Women have the right to not spread their legs if they don't want to risk getting pregnant and become mothers. Men have the right to avoid intercourse as well if they don't want to become fathers. If you know that is the potential outcome, then be prepared to live with your decisions rather than murder an unborn child because you find it inconvenient.

[@BenjaminNickelTX]

@@theanalyticsyntheticdichot4404 I'm not trying to kill the woman, thus she has the right to life as does the unborn child which is the meaning of fetus. Please review the etymology of the word fetus before spouting your nonsense. Stop being so obtuse. Cancer isn't made up of the fetus/baby/child's DNA. Just say that you're okay with murdering unborn children and be done. Stop trying to justify murder. Let me walk you through the entire line of questioning to get you to understand and admit your position is murder. Question 1: Does an adult life have intrinsic value?

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

Let's understand this: At this time Objectivists have no influence in the debate, We are too small in number and advanced. Now, the time I wrote this is in the filename. cockpit.spacepatrol.us/07jun.html If this is true. Then the "Pro-life" wins, and rightfully so, by default. And I have been observing this default since the late 1980's. When the "Pro-choice" says "we don't want to get involved with philosophy' and for Objeictivsits, IT'S ALL ABOUT PHILOSOPHY and the "pro-life" presents an argument based on philosophy. and two things here. Who was it that said "Soren Kierkegaard was better than the Existientialists. He was a religious man" and from THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO "Religion is a primitive form of philosophy"? With whom MUST Objectivists align, or throw away their integrity; the Nihilists, which the "post-Esistentialist Intelligentsia" explicitly degenerated to by mid-1958, or the primitive forms of philosophy? In an article in REASON in c1982; "A Calm Look at Abortion" Roger Rosenblatt (IIRC) who is pro abortion on the science of the matter, observed that ther was a 1/3 overlap of "pro-life" and rank and file Objectivists. That this could happen is a stark demonstration of the "pro choice"s failure to defend the only proper justification of their position as a group. Unless we could frame the debate, which, at this time, we cannot, we would be bound to support the "pro-life" side. The principle is the same as that statedd by Ayn Rand with "If I had to choose between capitalism not supported by Reason or not at all then 'not at all'". If you are worried about the unification of church and state, think about the religion of Ecolotry and the EPA as well as how much government is involved in the celebrations of "Earth Day", the origin of which the Hisotry Chanlle attributed to the hippies, and the fact that most mainline churches are pro-welfare state, often to the point of open support As they say on those annoying infomercials; "But wati!! That's not all!!". Just when you thought it was all sorted out. Guess what dancona.spacepatrol.us/prolife.html So, guess who was validated in the end. One thing to be said about Terrestrians: They make life interesting

[@bahavaz]

I like to read all your comments. You have them almost under every video here))

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

@@bahavaz The real kicker in that one is, if you run the link labelled "prolife", is that Bill O'Reilly was not excommunicated or trashed out by the Cahtolic Cuurch for saying that the embryo is not a human life

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

@@bahavaz Since you have an active mind, I would like to see more from you and how you think

[@bahavaz]

@@SpacePatrollerLaser ok. Me and you had some disagrement under one of the videos. Don, t remember what that was. But looking for your thoughts under next videos)) I wasn't videos by upload date.

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

@@bahavaz I don't remember either, so I guess it doesn't matter. Looed at your channel and it looks OK and I'm getting mine ready to have people over to play

[@rainphantom]

This is why abortion is more important than economics and yes I’m pro choice

[@lawrencemiller3829]

What is like to be a woman to forced to carry an embryo to term? Comment: Consider the other part of the equation. In the cases of voluntary sexual intercourse, was any consideration given that it could result in pregnancy? Regardless of so-called protection which can and does fail sometimes. (Edit: Was the person engaging in irresponsible sexual intercourse responding to so-called sex education in government public schools? mass media entertainment? Lusts?)

[@bahavaz]

You should support banning masturbation than

[@TeaParty1776]

@@bahavaz Masterbation Police will have cameras in every bedroom/

[@ewigerschuler3982]

Abortion is a big no no for me.

[@nermin13ajrami]

Yet, no woman invited.

[@darrencorgan]

So dishonest, partisan ,... and disgusting not good at all for Objectivism

[@bahavaz]

you should support banning masturbation as well than

[@sebmaio4]

To the guys - Alex Epstein, Onkar Ghate, Greg Salmieri, you are doing a great job, BUT, where are the women who should be engaged in this discussion? Guys have opinions, women actually have the babies; yes, you are "soft-spoken compromisers." Ayn Rand has always been incredibly correct and empathic about a woman's situation, and has covered it perfectly with few words. Having worked for 20 years with abused, neglected children, adopted children, and children in foster care, I can attest to the fact that there is nothing sadder on the face of the earth than an "unwanted" child. Your arguments would be a lot stronger if you covered the situation of the unwanted child; all of the left's arguments fall apart when you ask them if they are willing and able to give homes to all the unwanted children, those kids who weren't "aborted" but instead were brought to term, birthed, and then woefully DIS-parented, beaten, abused, ridiculed, hated, maimed, and left to rot. Those who oppose abortion are NEVER in line to adopt or foster these children. Never.

[@2046-b2o]

"Great job but you lack ovaries" is a fantastic way to respond to free content

[@sebmaio4]

@@2046-b2o I can't honestly tell what you are trying to convey with this seeming retort. What in hell does free content have to do with anything? Frankly, I thought it was a great way to respond, so I responded. Where ARE the women who should be engaged in this conversation? I seem to be the only one, but I may have missed another gal in the bunch of seemingly ALL men!

[@samscherer9291]

Why do you care? If they’re right, they’re right. Sad to see someone who seems rational on the issue of abortion get hung up on identity politics.

[@mrsmith1097]

Uhh, Christians adopt and foster kids more than anyone, and they almost all oppose abortion. So how can you say abortion opponents are never there for abandoned kids?