There's No Excuse for Abortion Unless You're Certain the Unborn isn't a Person
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 12. 2020
- #prolife #abortion
In Roe vs. Wade, Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, speaking for the majority, said the Court was unable to determine when life begins. He wrote: ‘‘When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus…the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
So since we're skeptical about when life begins, it should be the mother's decision right? Well, no. Philosopher Peter Kreeft argues that "abortion agnosticism" is actually a reason why we should be pro-life, not the other way around.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
For more: www.peterkreeft.com/topics-mo...
isjesusalive.com/unless-youre...
Support me: / isjesusalive
Resources: The Unaborted Socrates: A Dramatic Debate on the Issues Surrounding Abortion by Peter Kreeft amzn.to/39T4fZZ
Original talk: www.peterkreeft.com/audio/19_... (Pro-Life Logic) Georgetown University - 10/19/06 (Free)
Helpful comic: adam4d.com/dont-run-it-over/
Great illustration!
Three good things to note:
-Peter Kreeft's talk covers one of the points that's perhaps easiest to share to illustrate the point of "If you don't know, why would you shoot?" so to speak - the 'Driving at night and see a silhouette on the road' deal.
Would you swerve or hit it and hope it's not a human?
-Solid to back up that point with the dot about conception being the start of human life. That's when unique human DNA is formed, chromosomes decided, and a new entity begins being nurtured by the mother's body by systems in the mother's body that are designed to do just that: nurture and house a new life until it is ready to leave.
It is undoubtedly human, undoubtedly alive, undoubtedly whole (not missing anything just as a toddler is not missing anything: it is developing, sure, but not unwhole)
-Finally, Pascal's Wager is so dang often misunderstood by atheists that I feel like I should help point something out here.
=#1. The wager was compiled from Pascal's writings after he died. We're not 100% sure how he'd present it, so some points that may be paired with it in some circumstances and not in others may not be intended by its author
=#2. Nevertheless, it seems logical to assume that the wager is for those 'on the fence' about the evidence to take the time and look into getting more evidence more clearly, and taking the matter more seriously, since you're not 100% convinced one way or the other, given the gravity of the choice.
I think it fair to state that Pascal's Wager is not meant to be a standalone argument, as so many atheists seem to think it is, but as the 'tipping point' to say "Well at this point if you're still unconvinced, look at the risks, understand them, and then use that as motivation to take the time to figure out your answer more carefully. Put yourself into a position where you can discern more".
That seems to me to be a big reason why Peter Kreeft brought it up in this abortion example. If you're this far in and still not sure which way to lean on the pro-life vs. pro-abortion choice, you seriously need to do either or both of the following: look at the evidence more carefully, or search for more evidence. Why? Because negligence at this juncture would be very likely sorrowful, if not (in the case of abortion) criminal.
P R E A C H
Hey I got an argument from a person who's pro-choice and I kinda need some help could you pls tell me how I could respond to this 😅 ok it starts like this
"People that are pro life are simply Against human atonomy how would You feel if You we're forced to donate blood organs etc.. regardles of the effects it may have on You?"
@@jesusirizarryrodriguez835 Well, hopefully I can help!
Let's break down the argument you posted:
"People that are pro-life are simply against human autonomy", with the example "What if you were forced to donate blood, organs, etc. - how would you feel?"
I think this argument demonstrates very clearly that the person presenting the argument doesn't really understand what they're talking about.
The pro-life position is: "It's not okay to kill innocent human life." If it's a human being in the womb, then we're not allowed to kill it.
That said, they'd likely not like a presentation like this. You'd need to be tactical in your approach to rebut their argument.
So, I'd recommend asking a few questions, first, and get to know your opponent's position. Ask them:
-If someone has autonomy, is it okay for them to commit suicide?
-If someone has autonomy, is it okay for them to murder someone?
=What if the person they murdered was dependent upon them? Would that make it better? Let's say it's a one-year-old, completely dependent upon their parents.
There's a tactic called 'trot out the toddler', so to speak!
-----
Now, a counterargument I predict coming in would be "Well, in this case, the dependence is completely biological: the baby [they'd likely use some dehumanizing term here instead] is literally attached to the mother and siphoning her nutrients (..etc.)!"
This counterargument may not come up, but it strikes me as an assumption that may be behind the claims the argument makes.
-Did you know that the baby-mother relationship is not parasitic at all, but symbiotic? (look up 'fetomaternal transfer' - cells from the baby target disease and damage in the mother's body in order to help out!)
-Let's say a baby is 1 year old and has a rare blood disease that requires blood transfers from the mother. Is it okay to kill them? (this technique is called 'trot out the toddler': take the example that is being handed to you and apply it to a baby outside the womb. Their argument is geographically based, not biologically based!)
-Except in the incredibly rare case of pregnancy via rape, the mother already consented her autonomy towards the act of sex, which is to invite the possibility of someone new coming into her womb.
The woman and the man both made their choice when they went to bed.
If you don't know what contraceptives are in 2021 (and if you don't know that they don't have an 100% success rate), that's not my fault, nor is it a loss of the woman's freedom nor her autonomy. (I advocate abstinence 'till marriage, by the way!)
They chose already: it's a matter of dealing with the life that has come to be due to that act by the time abortion can even be considered.
(in the case of rape: killing the baby who is the result of the act, should pregnancy result from it, does not sooth the conscience of the mother nor help her through the tragedy. There are many stories of women in such horrible circumstances who either carried the baby, or had an abortion: in each case where abortion was chosen, it's made things worse, from what I can tell - now the woman has the guilt of murder on her mind
Look up Live Action's CZcams channel, lots of great stuff there, including such testimonies)
-Have you considered that women who have abortions are roughly six times more likely to commit suicide?
(for comparison: women who have miscarriages are roughly three times more likely)
This is according to a study by Gissler, Hemminki, and Lönnqvist, done in Finland: you can look it up online (just search 'Gissler, Hemminki, Lonnqvist suicide' on a search engine).
======
Now, all that data out of the way, I'd suggest one thing first that you do before you bring up *any* of the above.
Look up the video "Will he change his mind on abortion episode 7" on CZcams, on the channel Live Action.
I've had success mimicking the method in that video:
-Ask the basic questions about abortion towards the person.
="What's your stance: pro life/pro choice?"
="Would you support any abortion restrictions?" (press a bit and clarify 1st, 2nd, or 3rd trimester, if they do not outright say it. If they say no restrictions, clarify 'So up until birth?')
=Find the video by Dr. Levatino on the Live Action CZcams channel related to the latest trimester they're okay with allowing abortions at.
Just search 'Levatino 2nd Trimester', or 'Levatino 1st trimester', on CZcams.
If 1st trimester, there's the Abortion Pill video as well as the D&C video, so pick D&C if they specifically said 1st trimester, or the pill one if they think pill's okay but otherwise no abortion.
Once you've picked the video, Ask "Would you watch this with me? It's about five minutes long."
Watch it with them. (if they're wondering what it's about, say "It's a doctor who has performed over a thousand abortions describing an abortion procedure at the trimester you're okay with. I want to watch it with you and see what you think.")
=Then, continue the video's structure: ask them to summarize their thoughts on the video, if it changed their mind at all, and who they think the video should be shown to.
No need for any aggression: just get their thoughts, use their thoughts to pick which video to watch, watch it with them, then get their thoughts afterwards.
You can go into the direct arguments they have afterwards, or on another day, but just 'scout them out' a bit using that method, I'd think.
====
Many pro-choice people hold their positions because they believe science is on their side and that pro-life people are angry, murderous crazies.
Being kind, inquisitive, and showing data will all work towards shattering this delusion. :)
(most people who are pro-abortion, from what I've seen, have never spent any time looking up any data - it seems like many believe that babies are just 'clumps of cells' throughout most of the pregnancy cycle, so the data part is important!)
God bless: hope it goes well!
Hi Again! Thanks for the response but I Might have been late too seeing Your comment and I kinda responded myself. And since i'm not that good at making arguments and counterarguments I Might have done some fallacys and errors in my comment so he responded back and this time with stadistics so I copy-pasted both mine and he's arguments to see if I could get some advice on how to counter he's comment so heres mine
"Your argument just seems like "I wanna kill this body inside me that doesn't have the chance to chose to live or not for My well-being" that seems like me killing My brother who's always got attention from My parents and not me just to then feel better for myself. It's just not Also You need to let the Person that is pro-life (me) explain the reason why i'm pro life. First I i'm pro-life for ocations like for example lets Say this girl that always hangs around the wrong people always goes to partys and her parents always keep telling to stop this acts because consequenses make come. Now she doesn't listen and she keeps this brainded actions and then she goes to a party gets drunk and haves sex with some guy without wearing protection. Next thing You know a couple a weeks pases if not months and she starts getting signs of this. Well She's pregnant instead she should either pay for her actions have the baby and take care of it and either sew the guy that had sex with her or make him pay for either child support or take care of it asswell. If they can't take care of it adoption is another option and not any other adoption Center a good one we're they take actual care of the child. I have other arguments for ocations like Rape and accidents while wearing protection thats all"
Here is he's argument
"Pregnancy is seriously dangerous, death and severe injuries are not uncommon. Its not about me wanting to kill the fetus but respect a person's right to choose what they do with their body. That's not even a remotely similar situation. You'd be killing a being who does not require your body to grow and survive.
You are using a hypothetical situation to justify you being pro life. Are you just pro life or pro birth? Do you support the idea of the government supporting said babies?
Babies are not consequences. Clearly in this hypothetical situation, You'd consider the woman irresponsible and deserving of a punishment, ie forced to have a baby, risking their life and injury just for the sake of a person who thinks they can make decisions for another's body and having punishment complex.
Pregnancy tests are not accurate until the date of the next period and even then that's dependent on the test. Pregnancy is dated by LMP(Last menstrual period) so already 4 weeks has passed since then and that's assuming a 28 day cycle. 21 to 40 day cycles are normal but there still can be even short or longer. Abortions can take a while to get into and may require travel. It also depends on how far along they are and the available methods in the country.
Child support is easily avoidable and frequently happens. There are over 100,000 kids waiting to be adopted. 300,000 in foster care.
Let's say a 16yr old girl gets pregnant while using birth control and condoms. The bf is violently abusive having broken her ribs and nose. What should she do?"
@@Derek_Baumgartner wow this seems interesting just wondering do you have any other arguments for pro life and counterarguments for pro-choice?
Wow, this was solid.
Peter Kreeft helped me to think more clearly and to love Philosophy
This seriously reminds me of another debate…
In the 16th and 17th century, people argued whether Africans and Native Americans truly had souls or were only “animals in human form” - in this case, this dubious reasoning was used to justify slavery….
🤮🤮🤮
Hey
I just finished this video and I think something that would've helped would've been to just say when human life actually begins at the beginning of the video. I'm not convinced that abortion is bad even after watching the video and I think that has something to with it.
The analogies didn't convince me either as it felt like we were talking about separate issues. The analogies all had humans that were merely disguised as non humans. In these cases there's a definite way to check if it was a human or not. We can check in this case, it's objective.
As I understand it a fetus isn't the same case. It's not that it might be a human it's that we haven't reached a consensus on what it needs to be considered human. We can see what traits it has at most points in its development I believe, but we can't really agree if it should be considered one with those traits only. To me there's never a point in which we'll have knowledge that "a fetus at any point in its development is a human", it's something we decide not a fact.
I really was interested in hearing what the best pro life argument, I haven't interacted much in this discussion and am a personally pro choice but I really watched this expecting to have my mind changed. I wouldn't mind arguing over why my points are silly and why this argument should make me pro life.
Unless the life of the mother is threatened, there’s _never_ an excuse for abortion.
“When a society allows its mothers to murder their unborn children, what’s next?”
Mother Teresa
I don't think there's a lower low. Although I tremble in saying that because whenever I say it they prove me wrong
@@Ap31920 I think the next target on the hit parade is going to be the elderly, in the form of involuntary euthanasia (a nice euphemism for first-degree contract murder; sort of like abortion).
@@Mark-cd2wf I shudder at the idea but to be honest I wouldn't be surprised.
@@Ap31920 I think it’s already being practiced in (where else) Europe.
@@Mark-cd2wf I took a moment to check and if it isn't outright legal it's certainly coming down the pike. Atheists have been telling us for God knows how long that secularization will lead to more peace and less suffering. Europe is very quickly becoming exhibit A to the contrary. Kind of reminds me how in Iceland (if memory served) they brag about curing down syndrome when all they do is murder anyone who has it.
Where is this video taken from? Please 🙏🏼
Gosh that was good
I am loving this Channel. Just subscribed. You just put into words so many of my unformed objections to abortion.
I'm a strong pro-lifer and use to be a proponent of the “uncertainty principle argument”, however, I feel as though there are some issues. The argument is essentially tha unless you are certain, you oughtn't have abortions. Doesn't this outlaw numerous day to day activities? Take coughing as an example - when I am in public and I cough, it is possible that my virus could be transferred to someone which then leads to their death. What about driving, which involves the risk of “unintentionally killing a human being” and thus, from the logic of the argument, ought to be illegal.
We are talking about intentional actions, not accidental or incidental actions.
The Pascal's Wager was never meant to be an argument but to rather challenge the skeptic or for those "over the fence".
It's beyond silly how such a bad argument was responsible for legalising abortion.
You should Never use uncertainty to justify killing people.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana that might be the dumbest response I've ever heard.
Yes, when it comes to justify KILLING, you should always take certainties over uncertainties.
What has that got to do with Azteks sacrificing people? First, the Aztek rulers knew that they were manipulating people, second, the fact that people have wrongly killed in the past does not mean that we should start killing based on uncertainties.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Is English your first language?
I genuinely cannot understand the point you're making.
Are you actually saying that it's better to kill when uncertain of the justification of killing, than it is to kill with certainty of the justification for killing?
This is awesome for a visual learner like myself. Thanks!!
This is poorly done. This is likely someone who generally only talks to people who agree with him.
Obviously embryos are biologically human, and biologically alive.
And, no, we can figure out what persons are.
And this "avoid" risk strategy needs to be applied in a consistent manner.
I made this argument without meaning to once,
I basically, consider the worst case scenario, if I’m wrong I’m demanding women go through 9 months of pain when they don’t need to.
If you’re wrong (pro-choicer) you’re killing people.
Which is the worse outcome?
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana I'm not demanding anything. I can only believe what I'm convinced is the truth, same as you.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana what are you talking about? If you're wrong about God then you and others will go to hell...so I could ask the exact same question yo you 😂😂
That's the worst case scenario you can imagine for forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term? You seriously need to educate yourself on the consequences of the laws you're trying to ban. The worst case scenario is of course the death, abuse or permanent disablement of the woman.
In Ireland when abortion was illegal there was the famous case of a happily expecting mother who died because of the unavoidable grey area of trying to decide when someone is ill enough to legally warrant performing an abortion to save their life. In her case it was left too late and she died. Which of course will happen a lot because doctors will not doubt have to wait for people to reach a critical condition to avoid being charged with murder, even though this will inevitably lead to higher maternal death rates.
There was a case in another country which has abortion bans in place where a 12 year old became pregnant by rape, then tried to kill herself. When she failed at suicide she was left with spine injuries that needed surgery, but she wasn't allowed to have the operation because the foetuses life was placed at a higher value than her health. So she was forced to have her rapists baby and now she's a quadriplegic.
And of course, woman wanting to escape DV relationships will be tethered to their violent abusers by the children they are forced to have with them.
Those are the worst case scenarios.
@@Kereru Well first I’m not against abortions if the mother is going to die. If you can only save one it makes more sense to save the mother. The vast, vast majority of abortions do not happen because of that, or rape.
Are you okay with a woman killing her 5 year old son who is the child of a rapist?
Rape is an evil crime, but you should be very careful about using one heinous crime to justify another, killing innocents
@@ericsonofjohn9384 "Well first I’m not against abortions if the mother is going to die." Good for you, but woman will die because that kind of exception is extremely difficult to define in a practical setting. It's not like there's a very clear line between when someone's very unwell versus actually dying, and if someone survives after the doctor performs an abortion, how do you prove they were actually in danger of dying in the first place? Doctors will be charged with murder for performing abortions to save a woman, and woman will die when doctors wait too long to avoid being charged with murder.