Youtube ? - Morality of Abortion | Atheist Experience 22.19

[@angelicalicari8355]

YES Thank You Don!! No one ever mentions what happens to the fully-functioning human after they've been born, accept to say that "adoption is always an option". Well, no, it's fucking not; ABANDONING you child is always an option for the parent. BEING ADOPTION AND TAKEN CARE OF (which aren't necessarily the same thing) is not always an option for the child. There are 250,000-400,000 children in the US foster care system on any given day, and 17,000 of them will age out every year, having never been adopted. That figure doesn't count the children who have to suffer stay in neglectful/abusive homes when an over-burdened system can only take children who are in imminent danger. TL:DR? I'm partly pro-choice because I value the child's QUALITY OF LIFE after it's born.

[@mathildeyoung1823]

Should it be OK for a parent to kill a newly unwanted newborn or toddler to protect them from possible neglect/abuse in the system?

[@admiralfrancis8424]

@@mathildeyoung1823 No, because by then it's too late. Once the newborn lives independently from the mother's body, it's too late.

[@mathildeyoung1823]

@@admiralfrancis8424 It needs to be too late to kill an innocent human being once they care created - at fertilization.

[@spencerrocchi3388]

​@@mathildeyoung1823 Should refusing to give blood be OK while people are dying from a lack of blood transfusion options?

[@mathildeyoung1823]

@@spencerrocchi3388 If you give blood to someone should it be OK to kill the recipient of your blood to get your precious uter... I mean blood back? That is closer to abortion than not donating at all...

I like what Baker said about "...you should very much be for contraception.." yes, wouldn't that solve the problem in the FIRST PLACE?

[@keithziegler8881]

Not all of it but a lot of it

[@jesspavlichenko5745]

Whoa open comments! Well said Tracie

[@mathildeyoung1823]

Not really....

[@DMalltheway]

Mathilde Young sucks for you, troll

[@cortjezter]

I thought this was really well put; articulating how one can consider abortion "killing" while still supporting choice as a freedom/personal liberty. Thank you Tracie!!

[@mathildeyoung1823]

So you think people should have the "choice" to kill a human being that has done nothing wrong? really?

[@cortjezter]

Mathilde Young I didn't say that. You did.

[@mathildeyoung1823]

I asked a question...want to answer it?

[@cortjezter]

If your question was sandwiched by quoting things I didn't say, and the video I was responding to didn't say, no. I suspect you didn't watch this video, and if you did, weren't paying enough attention to what was said to warrant any more of my time. Troll someone else.

[@mathildeyoung1823]

Answer the question....

[@Saidoromo2024]

Tracie intellect is amazing. I wish she is on daily debating people on the show all the time .she seemed to be more articulate then Matt and the rest of the crew beside Jeff

you are right. this is only the second time i have heard her. She says things I rarely hear from many people. she backs up her arguments with excellent reasoning.

[@mathildeyoung1823]

@ No, it's poor reasoning... e.g. her organ donation analogy. Not donating an organ is in no way the same thing as killing an unborn child.

[@icekills1]

@@mathildeyoung1823 elaborate why is the analogy is wrong?

[@mathildeyoung1823]

@@icekills1 First- there is no organ being donated in a pregnancy. A woman still has all her organs- none go missing, she is providing food and shelter to her unborn child as all parents are expected to do to their born children. Second - even if you made the organ donation analogy not donating a kidney would be the same as NOT GETTING PREGNANT and donating a kidney would be the same as donating your uterus - i.e. by the time you realize you are pregnant you have already donated your uterus. If you donated your kidney to someone you could not kill them to get it back. If you donate your uterus to someone you cannot kill them to get it back.

[@theo-dawg8519]

@@icekills1 forcibly taking someone's organ is a violation of of their bodily autonomy. Abortion is a violation of a fetuses bodily autonomy. That is the correct analogy.

[@Monkeydfitzy]

Right to life ≠ Right to being saved

sorry about the long posts. but its necessary. Don Baker is right. he brings up the issue of who is going to be responsible for raising the child. "....who cares if your poor...if.....you better damn well have this child...". Exactly. When families are very poor or live in very dangerous places or countries in the world...or if the child is mentally damaged...how can that parent or even a community love that child or family enough to help. Abortion is less cruel and is even MORE COMPASSIONATE on a civilization, because it takes a lot of work, money and time for other people to help that child and parent of that child. AND REMEMBER: there are MILLIONS of those kind of mentally disabled children right now, living in America. they slow things down and impede the successful growth of a civilization or small community. What if there were 50% of all humans on planet physical with mental ...WITH...mental disabilities. You might THINK DIFFERENTLY about abortion then, wouldn't you , Christians and Conservatives? This whole idea about a good God and benevolent Jesus or God existing with children who are mentally handicapped WITH physical disabilities, is ridiculous!!

[@mathildeyoung1823]

By your "logic" if a wanted newborn suddenly becomes unwanted it's MORE COMPASSIONATE for the parent to kill them....

[@lenblack1462]

Right, if they were really pro-life then why do they support the death penalty?

[@roaminghomosapiens7399]

Because bad people exist. People that don't deserve to be alive, specially being maintained by our taxes after they've murdered in cold blood another human being.

[@roaminghomosapiens7399]

I'm pro-life, pro death penalty and also an atheist. Too much of a contradiction?

[@The_Legend_Himself]

Len Black Don’t compare an innocent unborn child to a murderer etc.

[@sle2470]

@@The_Legend_Himself If non-autonomous, non-viable fetus is using a woman's bodily functions without her consent to gestate then it's not innocent. it's an invader and she has the right to get rid of it.

[@nothingnothingsson1030]

​@@roaminghomosapiens7399 Just choosing not to maintain them is better than murdering them still. Also, people can change. Keep them locked in until we can reasonably say that theyre not dangerous anymore is the right thing to do. Idk what it even means to say that someone ''deserves to not be alive''.

[@sttonep242]

Difficult subject but gotta admit, I really don't loose my sleep over a death of a fetus.

[@fritzhaselnuss7852]

most people dont lose sleep over genocide across the globe or children starving. "Oh thats terrible!!!" then turn over and sleep like a baby. Facts of life.

[@mathildeyoung1823]

@@fritzhaselnuss7852 that doesn't make genocide OK though... and it definitely doesn't mean it should be legal.. sometimes killers don't regret killing innocent human beings - it's irrelevant. Killing innocent human beings, born and unborn, needs to be illegal.

[@DeathStarU.S.A]

@Mathilde Young All the more reason to not force a child into a hostile world. Abortion prevents them from being a victim of a potential mass murderer. Also, if my heart was failing and death was a definite possibility for me, should i be able to force YOU to give me your heart to keep me from dying? Why should a child be able to violate the bodily autonomy of someone? Why should a child get special rights to do that? What's your justification?

[@mathildeyoung1823]

@@DeathStarU.S.A If you think abortion needs to be legal to prevent potential suffering later in life then you have to support a parent "humanely" killing an unwanted newborn baby (where they don't feel pain) to prevent them from possibly suffering later in life. Do you support that? At least get your organ donation analogy a little closer to pregnancy/abortion. Not donating an organ is closer to not getting pregnant in the first place than it is to abortion... Abortion is more comparable to actually donating an organ and then wanting to kill the recipient to get your precious uter... I mean organ back. That would never be allowed. Besides a woman has all her organs while pregnant. Pregnancy is a form of dependent care - providing food/shelter to our offspring in their earliest stage of life. Who wouldn't want to care for their offspring and protect them? An unborn child isn't violating anyone. They are in a woman's uterus through no fault of their own - the woman and her partner created that dependency. They have done nothing wrong to deserve death. They are defenseless and vulnerable human beings and need to be protected. Abortion violates their body in the worst way - by killing them.

[@jezah8142]

Very well put Don and Tracie

[@joelmacinnes2391]

Not really

[@Hafaechaes]

Can't wait for Vasalgel. Reliable contraceptive for men hype!

[@VoIcanoman]

Good video. I've said it before and I'll say it again: consent to sexual intercourse does not equal consent to pregnancy. So many people get this wrong, and I have no idea why. Consent to intercourse ESPECIALLY doesn't equal consent to pregnancy if protections are taken and there was no expectation of pregnancy. But birth control has a failure rate, and sometimes people who have protected sex end up pregnant. Their behavior made clear their lack of intention to have a child. Still, even consenting to unprotected sex is not consenting to pregnancy since most of the time, sex does not lead to pregnancy (at the correct time in the woman's menstrual cycle, there's only a 25% chance of the egg being fertilized; at any other time, the chance is just 5%). And even then, up to 50% of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort, and are expelled from the body during the next menses. I would additionally argue that consent to sexual intercourse ALSO doesn't equal consent to financially support any child that results from that sex. Women (obviously) are able to make the choice for themselves - to terminate or not to terminate. Men have no say in that decision, and that is right - it's not their body being used to incubate a fetus. But there are some places where a man and woman have intercourse, the woman decides to have and keep the child, and the man is on the hook for child support. So although he did not necessarily want a child, that child is legally entitled to some of the money he makes, doing whatever job he has. While this is not as onerous a situation as a woman being forced to donate her body to a growing fetus for 9 months, or a person being legally required to provide organ or blood donations to their child (the logical extension of the anti-abortion position), it is still a wrong being perpetrated on a human being. The woman, if she chose to have (and keep) a baby, by default consented to support that baby. But in doing so, unless there is a change in the law (in many states and countries), she also signed her sexual partner up for the exact same thing - supporting the child. I think the way to make this whole thing moral would be to give both parties an out, give them both the ability to independently decide what they want. Obviously if the man wants the baby and the woman does not, since it's her body being used to support it, her choice outweighs his desire to have a child. But in the case where a woman is morally opposed to abortion, but unwilling to support a child, and her sexual partner DOES want a child, if he can prove that he can support that child on his own, he should be given the opportunity to raise the child. Adoption should only be an option where both people do not want to raise the child. Thus, in cases of unintended pregnancy, there should be standard contracts available to sign for both parties. One to surrender all rights to parenthood while relinquishing all RESPONSIBILITY for the child (available to both biological parents). One to do the opposite, and accept parenthood rights AND responsibilities (also available to both parents; however, if a child is the product of sexual assault, I think the woman should be able to decide whether she wants to burden her rapist with parental responsibilities but no rights - thus in raping someone, you are consenting to support any child that results, subject to the discretion of your victim). Women who decide to have abortions already have to sign papers stating that they understand what they're doing and are not being pressured into termination, etc. But if a woman doesn't want an abortion, the above contracts could be used by both parties to determine the course of the next 18 years of their lives. Finally, I realize that this kind of situation might lead to women feeling like they MUST have an abortion - if her sexual partner wants nothing to do with the progeny that resulted from their intercourse, the burden would be solely on her to provide for that child if she wants to keep it. But the truth is that a woman who feels like she is not able to go it alone but who is morally against abortion still has the option of an *open adoption (where she still has contact with the child);* abortion isn't her only pragmatic choice.

[@greyinggoose5495]

I'm interested in this perspective. I'm struggling to wrap my head around it. You state at the start of your comment that consent to sex doesn't equal consent to pregnancy, why doesn't it? From my perspective if I take an action I am the one responsible for the consequences. Even at the figures you quote it is reasonable for me to assume that a child could be one of those consequences. I like Tracie's organ analogy and need to give this more thought. As a counter analogy though, am I not responsible for my children? Do I not need to ensure they are fed and cared for? Is that not my moral responsibility?

[@VoIcanoman]

@@greyinggoose5495 Is consenting to drive a car also consenting to dying in a car crash? 100 years ago, perhaps it was, before society innovated and evolved and new ideas came into play. Now, there's so much technology and laws keeping you safe that nobody seriously imagines that their daily commute is risky (even though it is probably the most risk anyone takes in the normal living of life). And if there were a way to make it even safer, most people would see that as a good thing. It's not a perfect analogy, but we live in a world where sex for pleasure alone is the standard, and people trying to get pregnant the exception. And I even support this perspective (consent to sex not equal to consent to pregnancy) in cases where couples completely ignore their responsibility to ensure their sex is protected because even then, there could be the (unfounded) assumption that the other one has "taken care of it" (contraception)...or WOULD "take care of it" (abortion) in the case of a pregnancy. Yes, people *should* be careful, but not everyone IS careful (much less ALL the time). Making these kinds of assumptions about the relative risks of pregnancy from a single sexual act and choosing to go ahead anyway (hormones and booze and whatnot often cloud judgement) is no different than a person choosing not to wear a seat belt because they believe the airbags will protect them. Does that person DESERVE to die in a crash if the airbags are NOT sufficient? I would argue that because nobody expects the negative outcome, any actions they take that make that outcome more likely should be read as "unintentionally terrible" rather than "they did the crime, they do the time." And I can justify this perspective, because the only conscious creatures that are affected by the irresponsible actions are the people who had unprotected sex. There is no pain, no burden on a conceived child. Certainly there is the potential for that in the future, but in the womb, at least for the majority of gestation, there is no suffering. And besides, forcing parental responsibilities on such a couple can only end in two ways - either they rise to the challenge and succeed, or you end up with another human being deprived of the kind of childhood that will cause them to make their own good decisions, who ends up in similar circumstances to their parents. That leads me into the free will issue. As a free will skeptic, I very much doubt that we have control over the choices we make. Any of them. All of our lives are governed by our biology, our environment in the womb and as a growing child, the people with whom we associate, the country in which we are born. We don't choose to be who we are. Charles Manson didn't choose to be the kind of person capable of mass murder - the outcome of every little influence on his life made him into the person he is. We have a legal system to hold people accountable, but the goal should always be to help them become better people while protecting society from who they are (in my opinion). Punishment - sheer retribution that is not likely to improve future behavior - is senseless (and the death penalty the MOST senseless). If we had full information about the way brains work and could control how they developed in utero, and some mad scientist who had studied the brains of serial killers decided to create a child with the brain of a sociopath, and then proceeded to raise that child under horrible, deprived conditions, there is a good chance that he or she would turn to violence as an adolescent, perhaps even murder. In this case, that "evil" person would be the consequence of one person's actions, conscious and deliberate; nature is partially random, and nurture is both random and deliberate. Is there a difference, because part of the process happened *naturally?* I think not. Or take a person who experiences violent outbursts that lead to murder because of a tumor pressing on their adrenal gland, but is NOT a violent person once that tumor is removed...is it moral to hold him accountable for his actions that he could not control, especially when those actions are unlikely to be repeated due to the brain surgery he underwent to remove the cause of his violence? A tumor is a single proximate cause. But all humans have millions of them, creating their personalities, molding their behavior. When other people are likely to be harmed, there is a societal interest in intervention. But in a consensual sexual encounter, the worst harm that can take place is bad sex...or STIs. Bad...but only affecting the people engaging in the sex (if you, as I do, define harm as "causing suffering to a conscious creature"). Now you may not agree with that, but if so, to see where it is you have the problem, let's steelman my arguments. Take a couple who use 2 forms of contraception, properly, and still get pregnant. They had a 1 in 10,000 (approx. depending on what contraception they used) chance of live sperm getting through to the uterus, and maybe a 1 in 200,000 chance of pregnancy. But it does happen (I personally know someone to whom it happened...twice...although I cannot verify that the contraception was properly used in either case ;) ). With those kind of odds (not winning the lottery odds, but not far off), can you say they consented to pregnancy when they had intercourse? Even if you dismiss the free will argument, even if you dismiss the "suffering of conscious creatures" as the principal thing morality is concerned with, they had no intention of getting pregnant and took considered steps to make the possibility vanishingly small. What is their responsibility? I argue that they did not consent to pregnancy because their actions were VERY unlikely to result in pregnancy. And at what point do the odds swing to "you should have known it would happen"? Single instances of unprotected sex lead to pregnancy maybe...5-10% of the time, and those are spontaneously aborted something like 50% of the time. So there's a 1 in ~20 chance of pregnancy even there. Most people would expect no negative consequences from such a sexual encounter (obviously, otherwise they wouldn't engage in it). Maybe if they keep on having unprotected sex every day for a year you could say that they should have expected to get pregnant...but how many people are THAT oblivious or uncaring about the actions they take? And making an exception for them seems silly - there are lots of idiots in society and even if it's their fault they're idiots (I don't concede that, but imagine it's true), are we willing to force them to be parents? It's the responsible ones, the ones who had a truly justified belief that their behavior would not lead to pregnancy, who would make the best parents, most of the time. As for your responsibility to your children, once a child grows in the womb and is capable of a wide range of sensations and emotions, of course it's in society's interest to hold parents responsible for them. And there's a whole lot of neurochemistry going on to MAKE parents bond with their children, so that they'd be willing to do crazy things for them, even die for them (I know that's a less...fulfilling way to look at it, but that's how it happens). But those mechanisms fail sometimes. Some parents are utterly miserable all the time, for years on end with no gratification, no emotional connection - through no fault of their own, they're just incapable of being good caregivers. In that case, it's in the childrens' AND society's interest to find more suitable guardians, because the type of environment you have growing up is critical to the type of person you become. And the parents' miserable state leads to the children suffering, which is also horrible. There are options. But the BEST option is for these people to intend to get pregnant, or be okay with it once they find out they had an "accident" and not be guilted into carrying to term. The BEST option is to give them options if and when they find they are unwilling or incapable of being a good parent. Parenting is an important job, and it's best to reduce the number of bad parents to as small a number as possible, for society's sake, as well as the sake of the children. Sorry about the essay. But...you asked. Oh, I also like the "organ donor" argument. Once a child can survive outside the womb, birth should be induced. But before that point, asking a woman or girl to be a life support system for another organism is immoral.

[@greyinggoose5495]

@@VoIcanoman it's going to take a while to read and unpack all of that. For the moment I'm just going to answer your first question. Yes driving a car is consent to death in a car crash, the fact that driving has become safer and that consequence is much rarer only changes the probability of that outcome. Whilst the reduced probability means we would consider the consequence less I'm struggling to see how this changes the original proposition?

[@VoIcanoman]

@@greyinggoose5495 CAN someone consent to dying (outside of someone who's terminally ill or suicidal...and I'd even say a suicidal person isn't consenting anyway, since something has to be messed up in your brain for you to WANT to die when ostensibly, a happy, long life is still possible)? Insofar as free choice is possible (and obviously I don't think it is), dying is something I don't think any sane, healthy person would consent to, at least not explicitly. Obviously, to live is to die, and we don't consent to be born, even though birth leads to inevitable death (which I think is non-consensual as well in the vast majority of cases). But as you read further, you'll find that I don't think anyone really consents to anything. We behave. We react. We don't choose. Because free choice is NOT possible. That's the framework I'm primarily using to look at this, and everything else. Most of us THINK we choose. But we're molecular machines. The initial conditions, plus the effect of every interaction we have out in the world, EVER, determine the outcomes. The "choices". This point of view often leads to questioning the point of pretty much everything...and it's appropriate to explore and find answers that satisfy you (though the fact they do so is beyond one's control ;) )...but it's a strange road to experience, to be sure (and I think philosophers have as much insight here as do scientists, if not more).

[@greyinggoose5495]

@@VoIcanoman I haven't fully digested your first comment but I want to try and respond to some comments / questions you have raised. Let me start by saying I think I agree with many of your statements and I don't wish this to come across as rude but I fail to see the relevance. Starting with the whole 'free will' segment. It's not that I necessarily disagree with you but if you know a way of living without the feeling you have 'free will' then let me know else that should be set aside as we have no other choice. Next, why should probability matter, lets take your extreme example and say it's a one in a millions chance, so what? It was still one possible outcome, no? I also struggle to see how the outcome of the sexual encounter is relevant, I'm not arguing the case that abortion is wrong, I am merely querying your assertion that consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. Even if consent to sex does equal consent to pregnancy there's still a case to be made in support of choice. Further, I do subscribe to the notion that morality is based on the suffering / well being of CC but I again do not see the relevance. I'm not trying to straw man your position but you place a lot of focus on the intended consequences. Are we not also responsible for the unintended consequences? And / or that we're not responsible for the unintended consequences once it passes some threshold of probability? If so what threshold?

[@troyhunte2259]

What if my wife is pregnant and chooses to abort ..as is her right... What if don't don't want the child no financial support or bonding or anything with it, but she wants to keep it... what are my rights?

[@mathildeyoung1823]

Parents shouldn't have the right to kill or neglect their offspring - born or unborn.

[@wynwilliams6977]

The situation is not analogous though is it...

[@wynwilliams6977]

He has the right not to be involved in anyway with the child's life apart from financial support until it is an adult

[@wynwilliams6977]

voodootree I am not being obtuse intentionally or otherwise, I made a factual and accurate observation.

[@franklance9167]

Troy Hunte, this has nothing to do with abortion, this argument has to do with custody and financial rights. This is a completely separate argument from whether or not abortion should be legal. I personally advocate for ALL abortions to be legal no matter what week of gestation, and that a father shouldn't be forced to help out unless he has a say in the matter. if he wants a kid he can adopt, if he doesn't he isn't forced to pay. Simple enough.

[@joem3686]

A baby(minor) cannot give consent to be killed. Nor does a child ask to be placed in its mother’s womb. A mother should not have the right to murder their child. Too many additional false comparisons here.

[@tjgamer9713]

fuck you and your religious fervor

[@ianalan4367]

@MSONA abortion does not require anyone to donate a body part. The question is simply should an unborn human being have the same right to life as those of us who have been born. If not why?

[@ianalan4367]

@MSONA Thank you for the correction. Obviously I meant pregnancy and birth does not require anyone to donate a body part. I also meant 'donate' as in having an organ removed from your body. No, a father (nor mother) should be forced to donate an organ. That has nothing to do with abortion however. Again, no one is being forced to give up an organ. I am aware that in some casses a mother's life is in jeopardy if carrying a child to term. This case is the only justifiable reason I know of for abortion. It is also les than 1% of abortions commited in the U.S. So can we agree that the other 500,000 abortions performed anually has no moral justification? An unborn child is no more forcing a mother to use her body than a new born child that needs the mother to pick up a bottle of formula and feed it. Yet if a mother does not feed her child she would be found guilty of child neglect which is a crime. So, why then is it morally acceptable for her to kill her child developing within her womb for simular reasoning?

[@joem3686]

MSONA why are you limiting this to the father. Loaded questions are dishonest. Just make your point.

[@ianalan4367]

@MSONA First off please know I am sorry for your friend. Septicemia is dangerous and in fact contributed to my father’s death. I understand what you are saying but I cannot except that as a justifiable reason for taking a human life. The reason being is that you did express what happened correctly with the word 'complications'. Septicemia is bacteria entering the body through a cut or opening in the skin. Obviously, the baby does not cause that but it can be a result of medical complications of giving birth. My problem is that the same risk (higher actually) comes with abortion. We cannot reasonably accept a possible septic birth as a justification for abortion when septic abortion is also a risk. The difference between being forced to having an organ removed from your body, and not killing the innocent child developing within a mother’s body is just that. Giving birth to your own flesh and blood does not require you to cut out a body part. The extremely low % of cases such as your friend is not directly caused carrying to term and allowing a child to live by giving birth. It is a medical complication that exists in both abortion and birth. It is a very small percentage but every life being of value it is true that the risk of pregnancy is not always known until late term. That is prediction of offence though. We cannot go around killing people simply because there is a potential that we will get hurt. The bodily autonomy justification almost seems to hold merit. A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body and anything inside of it. When I look at it closer though I have a couple of issues. One is yes, we all have the right to bodily autonomy but that right ends where another person’s body begins. I am allowed to pick up a hammer with my body - I am not allowed to bash someone in the head with it. There are restrictions on our right to bodily autonomy. Except for the unborn so that simply brings us back to the same question; why shouldn’t the unborn have the same right. What is the moral justification? We could say then that the justification is that the unborn is inside the mother’s body and the right to bodily autonomy includes ownership of anything inside it. Thus, the moral justification to killing her own offspring is ownership of an unborn living human being. This argument: that it is just for a woman to kill her unborn child merely because it is inside her body, thus her possession, then that would include late term abortion. In fact, it would then have to include partial birth abortion as part of the baby would still be in its mother thus her possession. Where do we draw that line? 50% of the baby? 25%? If only the feet are left inside her should she still have the right to kill it because it is ‘in her body’? That is what we are suggesting. Do you really think suggesting such justification for owning and killing another human being is ethical?

[@fritzhaselnuss7852]

a topic people clearly overthink or bloat it into an issue when it really isnt....the question is "do we want to support would-be parents who dont want to be that" or not because abortions will continue. Do we as a society want to leave these people alone in their situation or not.

[@mathildeyoung1823]

murder has continued even though it's illegal. Should it be legal because some idiots do it anyway?

[@DeathStarU.S.A]

Save the emotional appeal. It doesn't matter if it's murder of a child or not. The bodily autonomy of the host comes before the child. Should i be able to take away from your body pull-a-part style just to ensure my own survival? Are you fine with that?

[@AtticusHimself]

Can we all _at least_ agree that it's a *difficult topic* worthy of lengthy discussion and moral exploration, and that we shouldn't blindly attach ourselves to any political side's prescribed "Good" or "Bad" sanction? Too often I'm seeing anti- and pro- arguments from people who seem to have zero qualms or conflicts about the dirty or unfortunate side-effects of their side, when both sides have skeletons. I'm well aware legislation, people's health and lives are at stake in real-time, so I'm not saying people aren't right to be at the voting ballots with dead-set opinions, but when we're just discussing philosophically/morally, can we toss out the black/white attitude?

[@missminti]

Why does it need to be debated? It’s legal and it’s necessary. So why turn it into something it isn’t?

[@danaharper9708]

@@missminti Why is it necessary to brutally tear an unborn person apart with a tool?

[@missminti]

Dana Harper I see you are stuck on the physical act of removing a pregnancy. If you eat meat you should be equally disturbed, but I’m guessing you aren’t. You EAT animals torn limb from limb- so settle down.

[@danaharper9708]

@@missminti I agree there is an argument meat eaters should be equally disturbed; however, the solution is to stop eating meat, not continuing to kill unborn persons. Which is exactly the position of vegan secular humanists. I am guilty of eating meat, your point is well made!

[@missminti]

Dana Harper Your sarcasm lacks nuance and misses the mark. I’ll continue to support abortion or perhaps even have one should I need it. People like you drive the wedge further and harden the stance for choicers. You not only make us dislike you because you are nothing but a bunch of finger wagging harpies but your “concern” always seems disingenuous.

[@MFPWM2010]

Whoa! Not even close to a relevant comparison. If you are attacked by someone else you have the right to defend yourself because someone else chose to violate your rights. A baby is not attacking you. YOU chose to engage in behavior which resulted in a human growing inside of you. The baby did not choose to spontaneously appear in your uterus without your consent. Then you ask “who is going to take care of this child?” So you are basically admitting that this is an irresponsible act of convenience. Well, there are plenty of couples who would love to adopt your “mistake,” but you would rather kill the baby instead of giving it a chance to live. And thirdly, most Christians are not reveling in the consequences of someone else’s “sins.” They believe you can be forgiven no matter what you’ve done. I am an atheist by the way, but disagree with abortion. The Christians may have their faults but they at least adhere to a more logical approach on abortion. Mainly, wait to have sex until you can be responsible for the potential consequences. And if you do have an unwanted pregnancy, at least give the baby a chance to have a life by giving it up for adoption. You at least owe it that chance because of your own irresponsibility.

[@laurentbrodie5870]

3:03

[@MFPWM2010]

Laurent Brodie - what’s your point? Yes you chose to have sex. Even with birth control there is a chance of becoming pregnant. You give up the right of bodily autonomy when you choose to engage in behavior which causes another human to grow inside of you. Unfortunately for a person to come into this world they have to grow inside of a woman. That’s just how nature works. There are no other options. Not comparable to a child who has already been born.

[@laurentbrodie5870]

​@@MFPWM2010 You say it's not comparable. Why not? If you're going to legally compel a woman to donate her blood, tissue, and body space to this dependent being for almost a year, why not also legally compel her to donate blood and tissue to the child when it's outside the womb, assuming its life depends on her doing so? What if she had sex knowing she carried a gene for a disease which could potentially endanger the child's life? Does this mean she's now given up her bodily autonomy when the child is born with the disease?

[@MFPWM2010]

Laurent Brodie - It is not comparable because when it is inside of her there are no other options to sustain the life of the fetus. Outside of her that is not the case. There is almost no scenario where you would have to donate your own fluids or tissues to a born person to sustain life.

[@laurentbrodie5870]

@@MFPWM2010 What if there was?

[@johnman9386]

Very weird way of looking at it.Comparing abortion with organ transplant and self defense doesn't make sense to me. 1)Abortion is terminating the "life" of the fetus while organ transplant is letting someone die (taking action not inaction) i)someone you don't know ii)someone who can find other doners iii)and the act of transplanting an organ hurts you directly none of these applies to a pregnant woman Also, 2)You are partially responsible for having sex and getting pregnant in the first case (in most cases) 3) Not giving the baby permission to "use your body without your consent" as Tracy framed it, sounds kind of ridiculous.What if (for the sake of argument) it was possible to remove the baby from the mother's belly and have it grow in some kind of a machine, while the mother stills holds the responsibility to raise it? Would that make it suddenly immoral to have an abortion? I think the strongest argument for abortion is that while the baby can grow up and become a human, at the point of the abortion it doesn't constitute a human. It still doesn't have many distinct characteristics that make a human. Like when you ejaculate you don't consider it an action of killing a potential human being. We can't view things from the perspective of the possibility this being has, because this unborn being could be anything, from ultimate good to incarnated evil, we just don't know. If we look at it for what it really is, stopping an unformed human life from progressing is much more ethical from killing a pig for example. Because the latter is much more evolved in every sense of the way. Yet we don't hesitate to do that. There are many other arguments to be made of course.

[@pauliewalnuts100]

Terrible argument

funny. I opened this video and am instantly hit with a christian ad promoting a book. Now to business: WHERE CAN I FIND VIDEOS OR ONLINE INFO about proof there is no loving god DUE TO MENTALLY HANDICAPPED people and severe physical/mental retardation people? And...i have two points about this THAT I WOULD really like to see people discuss more. Its one of the many reasons why I am not a christian anymore and have a different view of abortion that most Christians and all conservatives. 1) the idea that conservatives and Christians are being suppressed their ideas on the internet by google is RIDICULOUS. I have already implied the incredible impossible difficulty of finding good articles of what I am talking about here, doing a google search. ALMOST ALL the topics and sites that came up on 12 searches where PRO CHRISTIAN/CONSERVATIVE theological discussions and NOTHING on Atheistic views or serious debates about mentally handicapped (with physical autistic) people and proof of no god. I don't know where to look or find this!! Forget the library or bookstores. ATHEISTS ARE BEING SUPPRESSED of their views ALL OVER the internet. I thought when i started my research that I would find the other side of argument. That conservatives and Christians were right. I FIND NO PERSECUTION OR DISCRIMINATION widespread of their views on internet!! 2) I believe that A VERY SUCCESSFUL argument can be made that there is heavy evidence of NO LOVING GOD when it comes to the allowance by God and Theology for extreme physically WITH mentally handicapped children. WOLD IT not be better to abort those kids in first place??? it is cruel on the children when they grow older, and they have no real "souls" and it IS FINANCIALLY ruining the parents and the those that love them. Where is Christ and God for those people? Don't tell me that some of those handicapped people understand what is going on around them. Bullshit. So does a plant or retarded animal. There is no future for that child and its parent to find happiness. Its extreme suffering for BOTH parties. but nobody wants to talk about this on Christian churches, internet sites or videos. The same with Atheist websites. Atheists do have views on this, but i CAN'T FIND them!! I am alone on this. It is very difficult to find people wanting to talk about this. IT IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION. I don't hate severe mentally handicapped children. I work part time with them among other things that i do, during my day. it is only a couple of hours every day. But I see the severe suffering on the parents or they being tired of the work needed. Some of these chidlren cannot take care of themselves. AND THEN I HEAR SOME CHRISTIANS say that they cannot be saved because they have no understanding will to choose Jesus? Man, the last thing I want to hear when i see these living tragedies of autistic chidlren, severe phycially handicapped children with mental damage, is how great God is or that their existence needs to be "explained" to defend God and his allowance of them. I submit that with modern science..if we knew these beings (most of them do not have a conscious soul or will ) when born would be like this, is it really cruel to abort them and save others from suffering and these children from a LIFE OF HELL and a lack of understanding and participating in our world????!! Dawkins was right when the said some years ago, that aborting a child with Down's Syndrome would be okay. Now imagine if they had EVEN MORE serious mental handicapped problems and were confined to a wheelchair or couldn't even take care of themselves. Come on. I want to hear from atheists. is there a book about this done by the Atheist world? 3) when do Atheists get recognized for being discriminated against on the internet? It is almost impossible to find on a regular Google search , views against christian or conservative views.

[@vidfreak56]

Consent is the issue here. Sex is kind of the consent to pregnancy or, at the very least, the risk of pregnancy. So you did kind of consent to it because that's what sex is for. By the way im pro abortion. And i do agree with a lot of what she says, but this is one issue i disagree with.

[@paulk9188]

@vidfreak56-How are you pro abortion knowing you are killing a human being?

[@vidfreak56]

@@paulk9188 The definition of human being is one issue w/ that statement. A what stage of conception does a fertilized egg become a "human being"? Another issue is overpopulation. We simply have far too many people in this world. And while i dont love abortion, I dont love the idea of just dumping people into this world w/o the resources to take care of them. Yet another issue has to do with rape, and incest. No child or woman should be forced to have a baby because they got raped. I dont believe any woman should be strapped down for 9 months either. You aren't going to be able to control what a woman does with her body. And its not necessarily fair to force her to have a baby. Although i do realize she chose to have sex, but its not necessarily true that she also chose to have a baby. But i dont like abortion being used in place of birth control and i would support measures to limit abortion in that case.

[@paulk9188]

@@vidfreak56- 1)A fetus is a human being. It biologically cannot be anything else. There is nothing that a human can procreate but another human, the body would reject it. This is basic Embryology. A human organism is a person. An egg is not an organism. A zygote/embryo/fetus is an organism. FETUS is a Latin word meaning human offspring. The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception-fertilization. At fertilization, the human beings being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated. All you have to do is look at the very definition of the word.. con·cep·tion /kənˈsepSH(ə)n/ the action of conceiving a child or of a child being conceived. synonyms inception of pregnancy, conceiving, fertilization, impregnation, insemination; rarefecundation These are the facts, as is the fact that at approximately 1.5-2 hours after conception that zygote becomes a living organism that is scientifically classified as homo-Sapiens. Every embryology textbook; bar none, agrees that a new human life is created at conception. Now let's look at the definition of "person" Definition of person 1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes. A)Human B) Individuated There you have it. Abortion is the intentional killing of a human being

[@paulk9188]

@vidfreak56-3)Less than 1% of abortions are for rape & incest. According to PEW & Guttmacher 99.3% of abortions are done for convenience. You don't have a right to kill people that inconvenience you.

[@paulk9188]

@vidfreak56- 4)Bodily autonomy is not applicable. Bodily autonomy is defined as the right to self governance over one's own body without external influence or coercion. A fetus is not part of a womans body, its entirely separate from it, even if its growing inside it. So the argument is invalid. Anything else..?

[@nnye1150]

Why exactly is an abortion not immoral. Can someone thoroughly explain it to me

[@mantassalavejus7625]

Most of the "pro-lifers" say that abortion is the act of killing a fetus, which is not. Abortion is the termination of a PREGNANCY which most often results in the death of a fetus(and yes, there are cases where the fetus survives an abortion). And I would also like to know why is not immoral to take away a raped woman's right to abortion if she refuses to keep her rapist's child? And yes, there are raped women who had decided to keep their rapist's child but to say that all women are the same and that they are strong enough to make the same decision as the others did, is blatantly unfair.

[@AnnaP-uh3mc]

nnye11 It’s complicated. The general concept is that while a zygote/embryo is human, it isn’t really a person while it can’t think, feel any pain, survive without living off it’s mother’s body. The mother is absolutely a person who can think and feel so she has the right to be in control of her body. I think it’s neither moral or immoral, it’s too nuanced. I don’t think I’d have one myself but after 2 very complicated pregnancies, there is no way I would force pregnancy and childbirth on to a woman that doesn’t consent to it. I’m more interested in legislation that reduced the need for abortions like affordable healthcare childcare etc.

[@paulk9188]

@Mantas Salavejus-False. There has never been a single case where an abortion must be performed to save the life of the mother..never once. Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent unborn child. There are absolutely no medical conditions which require an abortion to save the life of the mother. If a mother develops a life-threatening condition in pregnancy, such as cancer or an ectopic pregnancy, they will always be treated, even if that treatment causes the unintentional death of the baby. Some rare conditions may require the premature delivery of a child to save the mother’s life, after which all efforts will be made to keep the child alive. Sometimes the baby unfortunately dies but this is not the intention of the operation. These treatments are not abortions. To suggest that they are is grossly dishonest. It also causes huge hurt and distress to mothers who have lost their babies because of life-saving medical treatment. WHAT DO DOCTORS SAY? The top doctors in the field have never considered these life-saving medical treatments to be abortions. For example, in Ireland, if a mother develops cancer of her womb during pregnancy and needs to be treated with surgery she can have a hysterectomy which will remove her womb. Unfortunately her unborn child will die as a result of this, however, this is not and should never be considered as an abortion. Does this terminology matter? Absolutely: because no doctor should be told they have performed an abortion & have to face the possibility of Malpractice and no mother should be told they had an abortion after such an intervention. Abortion doesn't save lives, it kills babies. Btw if a doctor performed an abortion, killed the child, before administering life saving techniques, it would be malpractice. He would lose his license. Educate yourself

[@joelmacinnes2391]

@@mantassalavejus7625 "termination of a pregnancy" means killing the unborn child

[@mantassalavejus7625]

@@joelmacinnes2391 It means removing the unwanted organism from the body of a woman that didn't give her consent to be used as an incubator. And whatever it survives outside her body is up to it.

[@jasonsparks1883]

Aside from the case of rape, which it didn't seem that this is what she was talking about in this video, could we not say that the woman is giving a child consent to use her body as soon as she has sex? Sex is not a necessity in a human life yet the woman has engaged in sex for pleasure knowing very well that there is a chance she will get pregnant. This is no different than a person who goes skydiving for pleasure, in the very rare case that the person dies due to a complication during the dive, was that not a chance that they were willing to take? To me it is very obvious that the woman has made this choice knowing that she could get pregnant, giving consent for that possibility, yet when it occurs she then should be given the ability to say I never consented to this, I would like to take away this human life that I decided to create. I just don't understand in any way this type of thing could be justified.

[@iamthebadwolf7296]

Children are not a punishment for having sex. WTF? Everything has risks. If someone drives a car and gets into a car accident, we don’t just go “oh well, you knew the risks”, we give them medical treatment. If someone has sex and has the unintended consequence of pregnancy, we give them medical treatment. Consent to having sex isn’t consent to getting pregnant. Consenting to becoming pregnant isn’t consent to staying pregnant. Out of curiosity, are you against male masterbation? Are you against fertility clinics? Both of these also kill potential human beings. Fertility clinics destroy millions of unused embryos every year. It may be even more embryos than abortions. The difference is, that embryo in the clinic isn’t bothering anyone. The embryo in a woman’s body is changing her body and risking her life.

[@هلاللهملحد]

@@iamthebadwolf7296 your stance is very poor. Do you think if someone drives the car recklessly and without seatbelt and using his phone, practically responsible to whatever happens to him/her (injury or death)?

[@SeRoAnthem]

"could we not say that the woman is giving a child consent to use her body as soon as she has sex?" Consent to have sex is not consent to becoming pregnant, so no.

[@thricepudding]

I’ve watched several atheist experience videos where they talk about abortion and it blows my mind how this woman is so logical about everything but then brings up “consent of getting pregnant”, rather than consent of becoming pregnant. If you have sex (minus rape), you are consenting to possibly make a person. It is not the same as saying “by driving a car, you consent to being hit by a car”. First off, you ARE consenting to possibly being hit by a car, and if it was an accident, then you had no intent for the end result being taking a life - with abortion you DO have intent for the end result being taking a human life, because of a risk that you took. You don’t have to have sex. I admit that that’s very difficult and I wouldn’t like it if I couldn’t have sex with my girlfriend, and I don’t even want kids - but if it happened, that was the risk we took. For example, what are the odds of pregnancy to make it acceptable? Let’s say there’s a 99 percent chance of pregnancy. Are you allowed to simply keep getting pregnant and killing the life because your intent when having sex was not pregnancy, thus not giving the life consent to grow inside of you? This isn’t just a leech either, it’s a human. Please tell me where I’m wrong. Cause I’ve gone my whole life being pro-choice but I think in the back of my head it was out of convenience and fear. I’m open to philosophical views on when a human life’s development makes it have value rather than just a seed, so-to-speak, but clearly a day before delivery is wrong since the only difference is location, so where’s the line other than conception?

[@thricepudding]

*rather than consent to having sex

[@David-zn2hx]

My wife has decided that she doesn't want anymore kids. But she is still having sex with me. Would be okay for me to switch her birth control with sugar pills to get her pregnant? Technically by having sex with me she is already okay with becoming pregnant so she shouldn't feel violated. Sex and pregnancy are two completely different events. Just because one can lead to the other is irrelevant.

[@thricepudding]

david iaconetti wow. No, that’s completely different because you are violating her. You would be manipulating the probability of the outcome.

[@David-zn2hx]

@@thricepudding I'm violating her because just because she consented to sex, doesn't mean she consented to getting pregnant.

[@theo-dawg8519]

@@David-zn2hx sounds like you need to start going in the back door so you don't have to worry about getting her pregnant.

[@charliehendrix1265]

They still didn't justify abortion in this video at all

[@maidros85]

Well, abortion remains a painful thing to do, but what they talked about here is how religious views can bestow us with a skewed point of view on the whole issue.

[@mathildeyoung1823]

@@maidros85 I don't agree with using religion as a reason to be pro-life. For me and many others it's science and common sense. Both tell is an unborn child is a member of our species (Homo sapiens - i.e. a human being). Common sense tells me that killing a human being that has done nothing wrong is wrong.

[@darcymr353]

@@mathildeyoung1823 forcing a woman to reach full term, against her will, is worse than the act of terminating a pregnancy. The bodily autonomy argument trumps any pro-life argument.

[@mathildeyoung1823]

@@darcymr353Killing a human being that has done nothing wrong is way worse than the law telling someone to ensure the safety of their unborn child. The Supreme Court didn't find a full right to bodily autonomy in the Constitution. They pulled privacy out of the "Constitutional ether" to try to justify killing and even then they said states could restrict abortion after viability to protect the "potential" human. Now that we know an unborn child is a actual human being we should be able to protect them earlier.

[@darcymr353]

@@mathildeyoung1823 I'm not talking about US law or the constitution. A fertilised egg isn't a human being, nor is it an unborn child. Miscarriages are a common occurance so your use of terminology and appeal to emotion are incorrect. A potential for life, is not more important than the inherent right a woman has to bodily autonomy. You can't force women to sacrifice their body, potentially their life and certainly their future, because of a religious ideal that holds a fertilised egg in higher regard than her own rights. Civilised societies around the world recognise that men and women should be afforded equal rights. In no other aspect of life are men expected to relinquish their bodies against their will and neither should women.

[@joelmacinnes2391]

Abortion is not "letting someone die" or "violating them in self defence" it is a deliberate termination of an innocent human being

[@darcymr353]

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. How could you force a woman to relinquish her rights in favour of a fertilised egg that isn't even viable without the woman's body in the first place?

[@joelmacinnes2391]

You have to accept the consequences of your actions

[@darcymr353]

A baby isn't a consequence.

[@rbrown671]

Yes it is.

[@joelmacinnes2391]

@@darcymr353 it is if you dont want one

[@darcymr353]

@@joelmacinnes2391 I think babies are far more valuable than you give them credit for. They deserve to be brought into the world when intended so they have the best life possible, not as a punishment for or consequence of failed contraception, rape or even carelessness. It's appaling that you value them so little, not to mention the parents too whom you completely disregard. It's appalling.

[@joelmacinnes2391]

@@darcymr353 Im not saying babies arent valuable, I think I've mis communicatied my point of view, for someone who has been impregnated out of carelessness, and then wants to abort the fetus, they shouldnt be allowed to, as they've brought this person into the world, so if they see it as a consequence (i.e. dont want a baby) then they have to accept the consequence of their actions

[@Nancy20012]

I don't agree with Tracie and Don on this one. I don't see the example presented with someone's child dying from kidney failure as a valid argument. In that scenario I agree that you should be able to choose whether you donate your kidney as a parent, even if your decision not to do it, kills the child. But you don't bear any responsibility to your child's illness, it's beyond your control. But in the abortion scenario you bear responsibility for being pregnant, you let yourself get pregnant, its a different situation so you can't apply the same principle of morality The only time these 2 scenarios are comparable is in the case of rape, when you couldn't help falling pregnant. But we know that women have abortions for all sorts of reasons, they forgot to take their contraceptive pill, they didn't bother using a condom, they thought 'I will just do it and if I happen to fall pregnant I will have an abortion no big deal' etc. So these 2 scenarios (child with kidney failure and abortion) are not comparable for me. Obviously the primary goal would be sex education from very young age so no one finds themselves in a situation like this.

[@jamiehamel3183]

Athanasia P what if a woman got pregnant on the pill? I on three women who all got pregnant on the pill and they took it religiously. What if you used a condom and it broke!? What if you thought you used a condom but the guy slipped it off with out your knowledge? There are so many, too many grey areas.

[@Nancy20012]

Jamie Hamel the case when the guy slips off the condom is a case when the parents have the responsibility for the pregnancy. Me I don't separate man or woman, I see them both together as a unit versus the child, in terms of bearing responsibility for the pregnancy and what is morally acceptable. For 'accidents' scenarios me personally, I wouldn't condone abortion. I don't think its moral to kill someone because you had an accident, it does not justify it. One should know the safety of the contraceptive method they use and make sure they minimize the risks. Use 2 condoms, use condom + contraceptive pill for example.I am not even going in the dilemma 'what now' etc. Its just in which case I think its morally acceptable ,in my personal opinion, to do something like this.I know that peoples' opinions vary on the subject and in any case I am sure that we all should agree that the answer is to provide relevant information and sex education to young (and older) people to minimize these scenarios.

[@CWHankerson]

What if a woman is raped? She didnt "let herself get pregnant". What about a woman who took steps to prevent pregnancy, like using contraception, and got pregnant anyway? Did she let herself get pregnant? As far as the kidney analogy; when you say the parent bears no responsibility for the child's illness...what if the parent does bear responsibility for the child being ill? What if the parents actions caused the child to become ill, should the parent have to give up a part of their body to save the child?

[@phyllislawson958]

Right they can't compare the two

[@wynwilliams6977]

A women either has full control / atonomy of her body or a women does not, it is very simple, the correct answer is yes btw

[@David.lovesU]

Jesus can't come back soon enough. Dear Christian brothers and sisters we are to be praying for his return

[@christophmuller9078]

Good idea! Keep praying! It has been proven to be SUCH a useful tool. Oh, not for actually achieving anything, but it's a useful tool to make yourself feel like you're doing something, when in actuality you're just sitting on your ass ;-)

[@David.lovesU]

@@christophmuller9078 Give Jesus a chance and you'll know he Loves you inspite of your mockery

[@christophmuller9078]

@@David.lovesU If he ever shows up, I certainly will.

[@ashwinvarghese5525]

@@David.lovesU he loves you unless you are gay or an atheist

[@David.lovesU]

@@ashwinvarghese5525 if you're gay or atheist that individual would have say say aloud "Jesus if you're there if you exist then show me if my lifestyle or lack of relationship with you will send me to eternal separation upon my death" You'll get your answer