DEBATE: Should Abortion Be a Legal Right? || Destiny VS Kelsey

hey everybody today we are debating whether or not abortion it should be a legal right and we are starting right now ladies and gentlemen thrilled to have you here thanks for coming back we are stoked for this epic debate as today we will be debating as mentioned whether or not abortion should be a legal right I'm going to do a couple of really quick housecleaning type things for the channel this is like two weeks since I've been able to stream I've missed everybody I've missed this this is honestly just such a fun way to come back for such an exciting epic debate so with that I want to just mention up front and then like I said we'll mention the rest of our kind of housecleaning type stuff during the little break periods between the time sections and so at the start I do want to mention though we are pumped as a lot of you guys are familiar with the gentleman named Kent Hovind we were supposed to have that debate yesterday and he was going to debate whether or not evolution is a dangerous idea the only trick is last minute we had a little bit of a delayed start because I forgot my computer card at home and then Kent Hovind wife there was an issue that he just had to make sure she was okay it's not life-threatening she's okay but it was something that we were like totally Kent we want you to put your family first so we were glad that uh you know she's okay and that he will be coming on tomorrow which would be a blast so if you enjoy a good ol Kent Hovind debate that should be a lot of fun and Kent Hovind speaking of I said a lot of people don't know but Kent Hovind is actually Destiny's biological father and I'm just kidding made that up and not true but so they debated before though and then it was an epic debate much like Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader it was a big one so with that I wanna mention if this is your first here consider hitting that subscribe button as we have debates often on religion politics and we are actually also doing additions now where Saturday is poli-sci Saturday will be doing politics political science type stuff and then a faithful or faithless Fridays that will be a regular thing as well and then we are also going to have origins talk tuesdays there's creation evolution Big Bang science all that good stuff so by the way last thing I just want to mention with that no matter if you are Christian atheist Muslim Republican Democrat Jedi or Sith we want you to feel welcome here we are really trying to build a neglected community with that want to say thank so much to our debaters their links are in the description so if you're enjoying this debate today you're like oh I want to hear more you can find them in the description and in addition to that want to mention I'm gonna update a link for Kelsey so they're on Facebook as well I'm gonna put that in the description in a second and then want to mention all of your super Jets today will be going to Save the Children which is also linked in the description the charity watchdog Charity Navigator has given them excellent ratings they are a superb charity that basically nonpartisan fully neutral they feed starving children throughout the world and also work on educating people in impoverished places in the world so such as how to read and so on and with that thrilled to have you here want to just mention our debaters our epic debaters and I'm not just saying that you have to believe me destiny if if people type in like let's say YouTube debaters on Google Destiny's name is probably gonna be the first one that comes up especially for politics destiny is a big timer so we're thrilled I am here as mentioned linked in the description and Kelsey as well as a superb debater and also the president of secular pro-life so an organization that's been around for a while and has gotten a following so want to encourage you to check out both parties and with that thanks for your patience I am just going to read the format for you so last detail is that there will be 15-minute opening statements from each speaker followed by an eight-minute rebuttal from each speaker a 30 minute open discussion period and then five minute closings followed by 25 minutes of Q&A and I want to let you know the debaters don't have to use their full time allotted to them that's up to them and so with that I am going to set the timer usually we had the affirmative start and so destiny if you're willing though I'm willing to defer to you as the debaters if you guys would like it differently like if Kelsey wanted to go first or vice-versa that's really ultimately up to you otherwise destiny are you okay I don't mind going first up to you all um if she wants to otherwise I can do it I don't have a preference okay yeah I'll go ahead hello everyone it's a pleasure to be on the show want to apologize in advance for any issues that I may have with audio unfortunately the power went out at my house shortly before this livestream was to begin so I am on my phone and I'm also in the only place with natural light which is on my balcony you probably hear my neighbor's dogs barking you'll hear cars going by you'll probably hear some thunder from storm that knocked out the power in the first place but also some more pleasant sounds like birds chirping hopefully so again apologies in advance for any audio issues that we may encounter I am NOT a big YouTube or I don't have the experience with all of that setup that others do so I kind of put this together on the fly as he said I'm the president of secular pro-life that's at the volunteer job by by day I'm a lawyer but my my area of practice is not in constitutional rights or anything like that this isn't a set up my my day-to-day practices it's pretty boring you contract stuff condo HOA stuff I watched your earlier debate with the meds pets and I think we we really agree on a lot of things we agree on more than we disagree truly you know you responded to a lot of her arguments with things that I wanted to say you I thought your your comments on bodily autonomy we're thoughtful you didn't allow any sort of ablest line of pro-choice thinking to go by so I thought you did a really good job with that and my understanding is that we agree on unborn baby being alive and being human we agree on abortion ending a human life we agree that abortion is generally unjustified you would think that the exception of your mother's life or severe health issues so so we're just here today I believe to talk about the public policy side of it whether those judgments about the ethics of abortion ought to be codified into policy is that fair I don't know if I'm gonna let all of it I don't know if I'm gonna concede that much for this conversation now okay okay well I didn't watch everything you've spoken about on abortion because it's it's quite extensive like it you know if you have if you start from a place of believing that abortion ends a human life then what we're really talking about here is the role of government whether the government has a role to play in preventing violence between private parties and in general the answer I think would be yes you know most legislation prohibiting violence between private parties is not controversial but I understand that the pregnancy is a special case an abortion is a special case and that we have you know cultural norms around it that differ very much from from other forms of killing that said I I don't find the argument that banning abortion is and is an inappropriate imposition of morality to be convincing because all laws imposed morality to some extent even the law saying you know that you have to pay your condominium assessments is on some level a moral judgment that people ought to pay their poverty so so just saying that you know you don't want to impose your morality on others doesn't really cut it for me I yeah my my concern about yeah I think people who come to this saying I'm personally pro-life politically pro-choice I think yeah I think they're coming at it in good faith I don't I don't need to disparage you at all my my concern with that is that you wind up creating essentially a conception lottery for lack of a better phrase that because you happen to have pro-life beliefs or your partner happens to have pro-life beliefs your child is protected and safe from day one whereas another child who happens to have the misfortune of being conceived by pro-choice parents winds up lacking that protection and you know I I realize of course if there's there are all kinds of inequalities of conception from you know health to income that can affect you throughout your life but but why exacerbate that why I add to that by creating this conception lottery as to you whether you even get to birth in the first place so that's my my general view I'm again I'm open to a freewheeling discussion about whatever whatever may come up in this time together or at least as long as my phone battery will allow excellent thank you very much Kelsey we appreciate that and for Destiny's opening I am resetting the clock and it will start on your first word destiny okay misuk a lot shorter but basically I think that um when we talk about abortion we're basically placing this on on three separate pillars and we can kind of move through at any of these three but it makes probably the most sense to start with the first one and the first point is the is the ball right so I would argue from a pro-choice point of view I would argue that the autonomy that a woman has over her body is not something that should be threatened by the state and I would say that in this case it shouldn't be threatened by the state because I don't think it's a reasonable to assert that a a fetus up to at least six months could possibly be endowed with the same rights that any other kind of person could be and then we can kind of we'll probably a lot of this discussion will center on what we would consider to be a person or how we would grant personhood but I would kind of argue that the position that we would take there is that we typically grant personhood to people that have an experience like ours so for instance the conscious experience that we have as humans are things that we extend to other humans and it seems to be the thing that we protect in terms of in terms of granting like moral consideration to to other people so for example we wouldn't grant moral consideration to a corpse even though biologically it might match up with a lot of different things we don't typically grant moral consideration to things that don't have like conscious experiences yet so like stillborns or people without brains that seems like an extreme example but like for instance if somebody is undergoing like a horrible thing that's like destroying their brain and they're in a coma we don't grant more consideration to them so that would be the area that I would start with on that so that's that's the first pillar the second pillar this is kind of tautological but I mean obviously abortion as a legal right the Supreme Court is affirmed this at least two times you know the roe v wade the Supreme Court made the decision that you that you ought to have the autonomy of your body protected against the state and then that was reaffirmed in Casey V Planned Parenthood when it said that states can't make unreasonable laws encroaching about now obviously you know it it should be allowed because it's legal as kind of thought illogical but yeah we could throw that in there's another pillar and then the third pillar would be pragmatically it just makes more sense for society to allow you to have an abortion there are going to be women that will seek it regardless of what they're not it's legal letting women plan their own families produces so many more better outcomes for society or McConkey fleshless point of view so for instance if you're not being forced to give birth to children your life is going to be better the life of your or lives of your future children will be better on the lives of everybody around you will be better because people in born to single-parent households are probably more likely to commit crime are more likely to leech off of you know physical budgets welfare stuff like that so those are the three kind of pillars that I would justify pro-choice or pro board stances on and then we can discuss any of those three how much time do I have left you've got 12 minutes I could say more but yeah we'll leave it there for a back and forth whatever yeah go for it yeah look I'm fine with being a little more informal about this I'm gonna start with your your second pillar and yes it's tautological but I wanted to to expand on something that you said which was that the Supreme Court has found a right to bodily autonomy I don't think that's quite accurate so the the public discussion of abortion rights takes place on a very different ground than what the Supreme Court originally used in roe v wade and the companion cases the the legal argument the Supreme Court argument has centered around a right to privacy which is not so much part of the public discourse anymore and even within legal circles even within pro-choice legal circles there's been a lot of criticism of roe v wade for some leaps of logic that it took the right privacy is it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution it's it's something that's developed over some years of case law and and and you know it started out I think being used for noble purposes so so to give an example the right privacy was used to strike down a law that had prohibited parents from enrolling their children in private schools where languages other than English were spoken this but this is an old you know and anti-immigrant motivated law you're trying to force families that spoke other languages to assimilate and not to educate their children that way and the Supreme Court said no that there's a there's a right to privacy within the family sphere that permits that type of education so that that really was the origin of the right to privacy idea which you know has been expanded to a point of allowing abortion and that that expansion has what was pretty unprincipled you know from a legal point of view the decision doesn't make whole lot of sense which is why when it was revisited in Casey they had somewhat different and that they still talked about privacy they had a somewhat different approach focusing more on some of the things that you mentioned this idea that women benefit from abortion in terms of being able to participate in society and have careers and and that sort of thing yeah the the feminist argument obviously I'm a woman I am this woman I have uterus I have some sympathy for you know people who want to improve women's station in life but at the same time I do find it offensive because I myself am a woman with with a successful career and I haven't killed anybody for it and I don't need to kill anybody for it and it feels like you know a an industry and an ideology that I deeply oppose is trying to take credit for my professional successes I realize that being offended is not an argument for or against anything but you know the the idea that abortion is necessary for women's equality also bothers me because the the premise has never been tested we have never had a system in place where women are genuinely equal and supported without abortion euro v Wade was in 1973 at that point there was no Pregnancy Discrimination Act it was perfectly legal to fire someone for being for getting pregnant marital rape still perfectly legal in most states up until the early 90s I believe is when the last of those law loopholes were finally resolved at least here in the United States so you know it seems to me that we really haven't forgive me for sounding like a hippie we haven't given peace a chance we haven't given the nonviolent approach to gender equality a chance we just you know went straight to abortion and then try to you know attack on some other things later but when I you know even today when you see this there was just a few weeks ago a an open letter signed by the CEOs of some major fortune 500 companies saying that abortion bans are bad for business and when you see that and when you look at how awful their maternity leave policies are you can't help but think that there's something a little scheme there I've gotten off-track I know you had you've had several other points but but that's just my two cents not getting back to you know none of the Supreme Court decisions have been based on a right of bodily autonomy none of the abortion decisions have been based on a right of bodily autonomy the the there's an old case called buck V Bell on forced sterilization it's never been reversed technically forced sterilization remains a possibility I mean obviously no one's doing it anymore but there is there's no bodily autonomy right codified into either the Constitution or the Supreme Court's abortion decisions that just isn't the direction that they've gone and it the Supreme Court's justifications are very different from approaches movements justifications if that makes sense you bet thank you so much are we or we this do I understand right we're in the open discussion right now I I think so yeah and I felt like I'd been talking a long time so I can keep talking if you want me I can talk all that well yeah so I guess I can respond I mean we'll be talking about like the Supreme Court case kind of like affirming like a right to privacy or whatever in terms of how they interpreted or the or the interpretation of Robie wind I think that's kind of predicated on the idea that a fetus isn't like a real person so therefore like yeah so the state doesn't have an interest or does it isn't a reasonable party to you know having a say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion or not because we consider it the woman's body is her own thing that she has domain over and the station intervene there unless we want to argue that a fetus is a life which would take us over to the moral side of things I take a little bit of issue with the framing that because something's not explicitly in the Constitution but develop from case law that is somehow not as important to law I mean the entire idea of the Supreme Court even giving a these types of things is not in the Constitution right of course that this comes from Barbara V Madison the whole judicial review thing is nowhere to be found of the Constitution so I mean like it's pretty important yeah all right this is this is like a really weird thing and we can branch out to the morality thing what would you say like you haven't killed anybody to to reach your level of a career now I don't know your personal life so I can't really speculate but I mean a lot of children are killed due to miscarriages that happen without the woman even knowing it like if we were to seriously contend that from the moment of conception somebody has considered a human life and we would also have to say that like the worst genocide of all time is occurring literally every single day in the bathroom when a woman goes to the user restroom and has a period that seems a little bit worse than usual and it actually ends up being like an early term miscarriage which seems like a position to me that would be pretty hard to defend that we should be taking active measures to prevent accidental miss Curtis we actually believe that was happening on a daily basis so I yeah i just wrote these telomeres doesn't make sure I respond I've got two more mine's the second one was whether or not abortion was necessary for women's equality or I guess is the last point I don't know if you can say that we haven't given it a chance the idea that we haven't given non abortion a chance I would argue that we give that a chance every single day in the United States there are plenty of children that are born to single-parent households the overwhelming majority of these children are born to women it's much easier for a man to get a woman pregnant and walk away from that relationship never call child support never see the child to do anything than it is for a woman to walk away from that relationship she's already given birth to the child so I mean if we were to make a boy sir completely illegal I don't see that experiment playing out any differently than what already plays out today in American life where if a woman can't have an abortion or chooses not to have an abortion man is like 95% more likely to walk out on that organism and that's alright okay okay um skipping back to to the miscarriage I think you are equivocating a bit on you know when you say genocide I mean we think of genocide as being like deliberate acts of killing miscarriages are natural deaths yeah there are my my my point of view is that miscarriage is a tragedy I won't controversial to say that miscarriage is a tragedy I think the reason that we give it less attention is that we don't have good ways of preventing you know we you know to the extent that the research has been done what we find is that the vast majority particularly when we're talking about earlier miscarriages wind up being due to genetic defects that were present from the moment of conception and that we couldn't possibly have done anything to prevent so I you know I I agree that the pro-life movement ought to care about babies who died by miscarriage and and abortion you know death is death I think the reason that abortion gets so much more attention is just because we feel like there's something to be done whereas with miscarriage 99% of the time it's yeah it's nobody's fault it's just it's natural death people die and at the very beginning of life and in old age those are just they just are the most vulnerable times for people to die that's that's life that's reality you know I think that you can accept that natural death just happens sometimes you know if I hear that a 95 year old has died I'm gonna say oh that's too bad but I'm not gonna be you know marching in the streets demanding better health care for ninety five year olds because I'm sure that that death wasn't preventable it just is what it is you know and I think you can take that position without creating a moral inconsistent okay okay sorry I just reading this done okay so I would I so I think that we kind of run into a little bit of a conundrum here so if we admit that a miscarriage is that like natural death can happen I don't think the idea that it's real death happens I don't think that we just let that argument slide for any other people that we would like fully endowed with human rights so for an example of this due to the due to the evolution we've had as people due to the way that our children grow up it is very hard for a human female to give birth to a human child heads are huge and we have more trouble than any other species our children are worthless until 2 years old or whatever that you know they can barely walk I'm not gonna concede worthlessness but ok yeah I once a worthless I mean where those terms have capability in terms of being capable of surviving their own so like as a result all of this right human delivery is a very difficult thing compared to the delivery that other animals go through but we would never just like allow women to give birth in their homes and then a lot of them die and be like oh well you know natural deaths it's part of the circle of life you know sometimes women just I sometimes babies stick their fingers and you know wall sockets like we usually take active measures to prevent natural minutes I'm short of like you know your example is time to being 95 years old and in a hospital and dying or whatever – typically we try like really hard to prevent all is much natural death this weekend you know if people with chronic diseases genetic disorders whatever like we do a ton of research people sister my process except I can list a million examples yeah I kind of reject this idea that like all the time of miscarriages happen and it's just natural death and that's okay like it seems like you have one of two routes that you can go here either one you can say well you know a miscarriage just kind of happens in their fetuses so you know even though it's sad we don't care as much in which case you're kind of relegating them to either a second-class citizens or something that isn't getting the same you know moral consideration is like a normal person society in which case you think you're running down a slope there that very easily leads you to abortion or – we're gonna have to seriously contend that every single time a miscarriage happens it's actually like a loss of life like it like another like life that we should be defending the same as any other in which case I think there are a lot of moral implications to that that would be really uncommon so for example like the existence of fertility clinics would be deeply immoral because why would you actively try to get somebody pregnant knowing that there's a high degree of chance that the fetus is going to die like I don't even know if that would be considered more should we be aggressively screening people for like first term like first trimester pregnancies like if you've ever had a sexual encounter should you constantly be doing a pregnancy test to make sure you're not going to accidentally miscarry child because I'm sure there are a lot of miscarriages happen early on due to negligence because how you doesn't know they're pregnant should we punish people for those early miscarriages should we actually have investigations into those types of miscarriages to see if those people actually miscarry due to their own negligence if all the same of the way that we would investigate like if a child dies in a household if that was due to parent negligence negligence whatever I think all of these things kind of logically follow from the moral assertion that you know a miscarriage is like a loss of life the same way that a child dying would be a loss of life I just ate the position that a miscarriage is a loss of life and I think doing so affirms the grief that families feel when they experience miscarriage but I don't think that the rest of your implications really follow and what we're dealing with here really is a technological limitation you know back in the day when there was nothing to be done to prevent maternal mortality people just said that that was life and the gods had disfavored us or whatever explanations that came up with in ancient times didn't mean that women weren't people didn't mean that we and women who died in childbirth weren't evil and we saved the lives that we can and at this point in our knowledge as a species we just don't have the ability to prevent most miscarriages or even know what causes them and you're going around saying oh it could be the mother's negligence I don't think there's any basis for that in any kind of research that I I'm very hesitant to to blame a woman for you know who's grieving the loss of her child and suggest that it was in any way her fault because we just don't know and you know from what we can tell it seems to be a genetic issue the vast majority of the time but but I feel like we've gotten kind of far afield from from the topic of whether abortion should be legal so if you don't mind I wanted to to redirect to something that you said early on because I'm sure this is gonna come up in comments from viewers which is it wishes the idea that women are going to abort anyway so we should at least make it safe and legal and I want to talk about this because the the pro-choice person who says who makes like the back alley argument and that's their reason for being frivolous it's really my favorite kind of hurt research because we're starting from the same Bowl of wanting to save lives right this is really an argument about data you know pro-choice people and and advocacy groups have a habit of comparing data from different countries and saying oh well here's a country that has legal abortion and their maternal mortality rates are good and here's a country that outlaws abortion rights of life and their maternal mortality rates will be bad you know the problem with comparing countries like that is that there's just so many other variables at play particularly income because low SES countries tend to have more pro-life legislation because the pro-choice movement originated in wealthier countries that's that's just an accident and you know two can play that game I can say you know ah ha GA has pro-life laws and it's maternal mortality rates are way better than other countries in the region or I could point to Europe and say wow they have much tighter restrictions on abortion than the United States and the United States maternal mortality rate is awful yeah two can play that game it's apples and oranges that the better approach I think is to look within the same country before and after changes in abortion policy and my read of that literature is that it does not support the claim that abortion that legalized abortion saves women's lives I just haven't seen you know that there if you you know start starting with the United States you know before and after Roe you know if you look at a graph of women's health outcomes before and after Roe you know things just get better and better and better over time and there's you there's no you know spike or or change in the in the slope of that graph that you can even identify where it's not in 73 on that crack so I appreciate the yeah I appreciate the goals behind the back alley argument I appreciate you know people are coming at it from a good hearted place I just disagree about the Zetas I don't necessarily disagree with anything in here I don't think that I'm saying that women are going to abort anyway is necessarily a good argument to make it legal more so that just if you predicated this on the idea that a fetus isn't really considered a person we don't grant more consideration to it the same way we wouldn't in normal person then in that case portion should absolutely be legal because we would want to make this procedure as safe and accessible as possible okay and I apologize if I if I misunderstood the argument that you were making so yeah it really does count come down then to you know whether or not you believe you know someone in the womb has has its merits moral consideration that that's that's a fair way of putting it you know and the I you know the position of yes they deserve moral consideration but abortion should be legal anyway that you know that personally pro-life politically for a choice I I had come into I came into this thinking that that was your position but I think I think now having spoken to you more I'm I was mistaken about that oh yeah that's okay I mean we can move over to the I guess the moral pillar is what some of this is contingent upon I still take a little bit of issue with some prior things I've ever kind of moved on from it like I mean like if we really consider for it's like a miscarriage to be a loss of life I would argue that like anytime you engage in sexual activity whether you even if you're on birth control like if you have for instance if you take any alcohol like two to seven days after having sex like you're engaging a pretty reckless behavior that could be endangering like a potential zygote or fetus I think there's like a lot of weird stuff in there but I mean we can we can move from that to like the morality argument if if you want in terms of when we actually consider a fetus to be a person I mean I I don't mind talking about that a little bit more we've got we've got all kinds of kind excuse me while I swatted all mosquitoes it the you had mentioned something earlier about you know if miscarriage truly is loss of life then we shouldn't you it may be pregnancy itself is immoral because it leads to death every pregnancy ultimately leads to I I don't have any I don't see any moral I'm just every every child ever conceived will someday die but that's not a real argument for anything right if you go to the doctor and you're feeling a little sick and you're like I think I have the flu and that I was like you might and you're like what can I get a prescription is like well you're gonna die anyway it might be in six weeks or it might be in 60 years I mean I don't we don't typically argue that way in terms of like what we should protect life right yeah yeah I don't know it's just like the the idea that like this like massive loss of life is occurring around us I feel like if we truly believe that those types of early term miscarriages were like that that level of loss of life that there are like Grammatik steps we can take to fix that and in terms of like the pregnancy I don't know what those steps would be at this at this point in the Velva in the development of modern medicine I don't worsen like basically any sexually active woman should probably constantly be taking prenatal vitamins because she could become pregnant at any point in time without necessarily being aware of it again even if you're on the pill or even if you have other form even an IUD you could get pregnant so I mean like those are reasonable steps if somebody could take if they truly believe they're going to cause a loss of life to happen to do negligence and that sounds like don't prenatal vitamins prevent miscarriage I mean we could probably I'm sure that there are some miscarriages some percentage of miscarriages that are unavoidable but I'm also sure that there are some miscarriages that happened because the person just has no idea that they're pregnant I'm sure that that happens I'm sure there's some percentage that than every we should probably try to avoid that as much as possible we really believe that like an early term miscarriage is like the the death of a child I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree about the implications of all of that yeah I will say you know I don't think there's any reason for anyone whether pro-life or pro-choice to oppose efforts to you know learn more about the causes of miscarriage that we can try to prevent them you think that that ought to be an area of agreement I don't I don't see that being a issue I hope sure well we can go ahead and move on then we came up to the moral argument in terms of when we consider like a fetus to be a person sure you you had said toward the beginning that you think the the defining factor is some someone's consciousness essentially some conscious experience yes right so you know forgive me for simplifying that but yeah and you and you gave some examples of you for instance the the corpse of course not a person stillborn baby which which is that's a younger horse that say the person in a coma who's not going to wake up you know irreversible brain damaged about to die those types of situations are not given those people are not given moral consideration and I think that's that's fair but something else that all of those examples have in common is the fact that they have no future right so the if if the person in the coma did have a possibility of returning to consciousness that person would marry moral consideration you know it's it's not open season on everybody who's comatose in all situations so I tend to and I'm going to totally rip off Don Marquesas argument but the I think it's helpful to start from asking what makes killing wrong in general you know you can say that it you know it's a loss for that person's family and friends and that's well hello I hope that it's a maybe a Wi-Fi or data going in and out rather than like oh oh did I freeze up I'm sorry what's the last thing you heard me play oh yeah I think you were just saying what makes killing somebody wrong yes okay I'm not too far behind um you know so what I said was um duh Marquis in his essay I kind of goes by process of elimination proposes various reasons why Brinn oh sorry Kelsi I thinks I'm not sure if it was for everybody else but it it froze for me a bit yes just a little bit oh no I actually Kelsey if you aren't able to plug in the audio is probably even more vital than the picture and I think you if you're able to turn your camera off it might even make it slightly easier on your phone to keep up with the hot like the amount of processing it's doing I think you lost her but hopefully we can get her back so once in a while this happens I'm just gonna quick switch over to we are waiting on Kelsey I think that I have a good feeling she'll come back otherwise we might have to sometime down the road do a part two to finish the discussion or something but we hopefully would get her back I have a good feeling don't worry oh that reminds me though I actually I can I'll pause the timer and just mention a couple of oh great we got her back already okay you know yes I keep hold on they may we're here we cannot see but that might be good just because it'll be a little bit less labor for your phone hello can you hear us Kelsey I can't I don't know if she said no or I think she was saying no like oh no okay yeah that's what I thought let's see we might it still shows like her little box and that I would think is a good sign but let me check over on the other oh we did lose her but we might we might get her back and would give it maybe one more time and I'll keep an eye on Twitter cuz she she might DM me on there oh and that reminds me I do have to I'm planning on putting her link from Facebook into the description so stoked for a couple of other upcoming debates that we are really excited about is we do have doctor site GART and RN Rob will be debating on science and religion in particular biology and religion and God sake and that is going to be coming up not this Sunday but the last Sunday of this month so that will be definitely a lot of fun that's going to be the 28th as well as standing for truth is scheduled to debate creationist cat this coming Tuesday that's going to be a lot of fun and we also have oh that's right you won't believe this one inspiring philosophy will be debating g-man so that's going to be an electric one I'm sure and other housecleaning stuff we do want to plug a few channels that have debates in addition to ours if you don't know already somehow we want to let you know destiny has a lot of debates so that's one channel where you can find a lot of debates on a smorgasbord of issues then Steve McCray has the great debate community which regularly has debates and discussions and he himself Steve McCray I think definitely has some debates here and there I don't know if non-sequitur show is still doing debates I'm happy to plug their debates if they have them I think the word on the streets is that non sequitur show might be transitioning into a different niche I'm not sure to be honest but whatever they do you know we are happy to let you know where these debates are happening Kelsey glad to see you we can see what's up hey I'm so sorry that's okay totally okay glad to have you back I did the host clinic I forgot to do some of those little announcements from before so with that I think the last thing because we when we W back it's still weird up basically you were just getting to the issue of what makes it wrong to kill in the first place sure sure yeah and I'll try to be brief because I know we've ate through a bunch of time but technical difficulties but the he da Marquis who originally put forward this argument in an essay kind of goes through a series of possibilities of why killing might be wrong so and that's not specific to abortion interests in general so he talks about the loss to the victim's family and friends with which is fine I mean that's obviously an aspect of why killing is wrong but it can't be the only reason because you know it's just as wrong to kill a hermit you someone who's less integrated into society he talks about killing as a moral injury to the killer and I mean maybe but that means that that intuitively doesn't quite seem right and he goes through a number of these possibilities and what he lands on is that you're depriving the victim of their future experiences and if that's the case if if the wrongness of the killing doesn't depend on the person's consciousness in that moment I mean I you know somebody could sneak into my house and put a gun to my head while I'm sleeping and I would not not be consciously aware of my own death that wouldn't make it any less wrong you know if consciousness in the present moment is less important than you know what future experiences are being taken away then it would seem to follow that a fetus should merit moral consideration because regardless of whether they're you know conscious of their right to life you know consciously experiencing anything in the moment they have that future just like you know the comatose person who's going to wake up has the future so on that basis it seems to me that that we do have a and I think that that that's a better explanation than present consciousness because we do extend moral consideration as I said to to people who are not conscious in the moment and who may not be for considerable length of time as in the example of a comatose person okay so this is an interesting egg review that I've haven't heard before so I'm gonna ask a good probing questions because on his face I feel like I would completely reject this argument so the question is what makes killing wrong so we're not having thought about this a great deal it's actually haven't thought about that particular question great deal of my kind of gut reaction to our most things wrong because they tend to violate the autonomy of some agent that we would normally want to have autonomy typically in society what most of our laws are hopefully centered around keeping people safe so that they can enjoy the the most out of their autonomy and then if when we revoke this autonomy it's usually for explicit valuable reasons so for instance we don't grant autonomy to six-year-olds because we don't think they can actually keep themselves safe so to switch this out number two say that well in reality killing is wrong because we're depriving somebody of their future experiences that argument sounds not very satisfying to me because I can think it like a couple reasons firstly it almost sounds like there are tears of how wrong a murder is based on the amount of time of person expected to have left so for instance let's say that we know that somebody's going to die of cancer three months is killing that person less wrong than killing somebody that's maybe you know 25 years old and could be expected to live till sixty or seventy how would you respond to a question I kind of curious I would say you know that killing is wrong i I think you you can't know how much time a person has left you can make educated guesses you know on an actuarial basis but the the premise I think is that any amount of future experience that what what right does anybody have to tear away any amount of experience from some other person you know whether they're going to live to be a hundred or get hit by a bus tomorrow it's kind of beside the point it's it's up to that person to at least have the chance to then make the most of their own their top yeah so I don't disagree with what you said but I think it's because you kind of hinted at like what the underlying thing so we can kind of talk about future experience but I don't think that's the important part I think what you said at the end there that it's up to them to decide I think that's the reason why we typically consider killing to be wrong is because you're removing the autonomy for another person it's not the idea that we're depriving somebody of the creature experience it's the idea that we're depriving them of their future experience against their will and in order for somebody to be deprived of the future experience it for us to care about that that person has to be an agent that's capable of making a decision about their future so for instance if I were to go outside and crush a rock which I can't do because I'm not starting to do that but if I were to crush a rock I technically I've deprived that rock a future experiences we don't care about the future experience of the rock because the rock can't make a decision about what it would like its future experience to be so I would argue that future experience is predicated on something being sentient or conscience because if it's not having an experience like we have it doesn't really have any sort of consideration for any kind of future experience so the same way that like a fetus that's only 2 or 3 months old much the same as a rock this doesn't really have a concept of any kind of future experience isn't really happy autonomy of an agent that makes decisions so we're not really depriving anything that we would consider autonomous of any kind of future expand the the problem that you run into there is that it just as well justifies infanticide you know an infant has no more autonomous ability to consider what their future experiences should be than a fetus and I think you run into a and you you can correct me if I'm wrong but I think there's an underlying idea here that a person has to be aware of their rights to have them I don't subscribe to that I do think that it's possible for someone to have rights and not be aware of those rights to give kind of a silly example back when the health care reform was being debated that that's a bad phrasing it's possible be intubated back when the Affordable Care Act was being attracted and amendments were made the courts and that kind of thing and you know there's all kinds of discussion about making sure that children were insured and that children had health care the onion put out an article saying oh you know all these people are trying to get more health care health care and doctor's visits for children but we wouldn't interviewed children and they don't want to go to the doctor more often yeah which is a silly thing but if you think there's a right to health care you're probably not going to be convinced by the fact that the kids themselves don't think they have a right to health care or understand that concept so if you if you look you take a step back from that and say okay the way to solve this problem is to look at someone's ability to be autonomous in the future you run into the exact same problem that the infant just like videus the fetus has that capacity assuming you don't kill them now to autonomously direct their future experiences so again I would argue that the difference between I think it's around it seems like our ability to have a conscious experience that happens around six months in the world that this is when the prefrontal cortex develops and this is the area of the brain that we seem to believe it kind of is where consciousness kind of comes from so if you were to talk about like the conscious experience of a two-year-old we could have a meaningful conversation about that now they might not have the wherewithal to choose or to crawl in the most advantageous direction but it is having a conscious experience that we would consider who what we're protecting same thing with a six-year-old so nickel to sixty year old but something that is in the womb that doesn't have that brain develop Chet basically has the same types of preferences as a rock or a tree or any other physical object that exists that doesn't have a conscious experience we have no way of relating to it or no way of like making any type of moral statement against this thing because it just doesn't have an experience that we can talk about and talking about potential experiences just puts us in a really weird area that I mean we can go down that road if we want to talk like potential experiences but we run into like anti-natal estar gyun's that i think they're pretty hard to argue against but what do you mean by anti-natal most arguments um well if we want to talk about like the potential experiences of anything I think we've been I think we would make an argument that it's pretty easy to say that all forms of conception if we want to consider experiences that aren't happening yet we could argue that all forms of conception are immoral because you're exposing something to a potential suffering that never consented to it so for instance life generally has if you don't have suffering your beliefs are exposed to a risk of suffering and to take somebody and expose them to that without them actually consenting to what we would consider this to be immoral in every other aspect of society even if we believe that most people would be better off for it so for instance if 100 people walked into a church you know sermon and 95 of them came out with a million dollars and five of them got their arms cut off even if we even if we said most people came out of that invitation Slee we would argue unless who informed them going in that was a possibility that's a highly immoral act yeah okay so okay I I'm not I'm not sure I quite follow it so so I understand you obviously liked something yes especially now because I'm getting being eaten alive by mosquitoes which makes it a little hard for you folks so forgive me but so you're saying that if we treat the fetus and you know a as as morally relevant because of there your agency then whether you abort them or give birth to them you're harming them is that the argument that that birth itself would be a harm because you don't know you haven't because the fetus is not consented to life on the outside and all the problems that come with that my argument is that moral consideration is granted to things that have an experience like our own that's my kind of baseline argument that starts at about six months in the world if we want to not happen if we want to say well anything could have a potential experience is something that should have more consideration then I would bring up well okay well we're going to talk about potential experiences how can you subject anything to potential suffering without getting its consent that seems to be like a pretty big violation of its kind of what I'm saying so basically the short version is like if you want to have a baby and you think that we should consider its experience at all points even before it's having an experience well how do you escape things like antinatalism that says that giving birth to something it is exposing it to potential suffering that it never consented to I mean I obviously I don't buy the antenatal as' argument I I think I think the idea of consenting to your life is just bizarre whether yeah wet wet but I think it's bizarre at any point right whether you think life begins at conception or at birth it's like agree 100% so getting to your life is bizarre but that's because it's bizarre because it's unimaginable it's unimaginable for us to talk about the experience of anything that exists in the womb before six months six to seven or eight months we can start to make guesses because it has that prefrontal cortex you know it exists probably in a pretty large room or I guess not that large at six months it swims around it can feel warmth it can hear some others voice its processing things that we do but prior to that I would agree that it is bizarre that we could ask a consent to anything because it can't it doesn't have an experience like ours which is why I don't have the credit more consideration well I think I think bility to consent to anything is it's something that rises much later in life I think the ability and forgive me understand going to find a phone charger I think the you you seem to be tying together the concepts of someone being morally relevant and having to get that person's consent for things I just don't that it's not right though in childhood and I think you acknowledged before I mean that when you're dealing with a child who's you know ability to make good decisions for themselves is limited or non-existent yeah consent is impossible as much as you might like to to get it it's just I think we're just talking about two different things when we're talking about someone being morally relevant for purposes of protecting them from from you know being killed versus getting their consent for you know how they're going to be raised or what their life is going to be no I guess like my quest would be like if we're talking about the future experience is something how do you escape when people ask you about like the future experience of like like like like a child that doesn't exist at all yet so like let's say for instance like a friend was gonna go over and have sex with somebody else and you prevent that from happening did you just effectively murder like the creation of a potential fetus or how do you escape those kinds of problems so this is this is one of the objections that that Marquess anticipates and he addresses it better than I can in the you know and the format of this debate but but basically the idea is you can't violate the writings of an individual you can't identify there's no there's no pointing to you know whose right is being violated exactly with abortion you may or may not agree that just is morally relevant but you at least know who is dying in this abortion it's this fetus whereas if you have you know this broader idea of you know even prior to conception there are rights I think that's problematic now there are there are some contexts where people have tried to make that argument totally outside of abortion so for instance you know arguments that people yet to be conceived have the right to a better environment you know environmental protections being justified on the basis of future generations or you hear it sometimes in the concept sorry in the context of of national debt you know how is it moral to impose these debts on people who haven't received yet but those are you more on a class basis rather than you know talking about individual sure so one of the problems we run into ah I wish I'd read the paper I'm not sure well the person who's our cursory Frank I don't know them fully it's all ice could expand on this what do you say you can't violate the right of an individual you can't identify you're essentially you're engaging in a form of begging the question because what we're really asking is what is an individual so for me if I say well an individual is somebody that has a conscious experience like your own well that statement is just as true for me as it is for you so I'll say you can't violate the right of any people that you can identify but I would argue that a fetus is not identifiable as an individual but you would say well as I goat is identifiable as an individual and then somebody else might say well you know a sperm and an ovum can be identifiable as parts of an individual the same when the fetus isn't a quality visual so really like parts of that's that's the rub well sure but not read by itself don't have a future on their own well but nothing by itself as a future is not a zygote is just a I think a single seller like a collection of very few cells and that is no future on its own it has no identical brain no identical nervous system so I mean like it needs parts from them from the mom you know the same way that I know them these parts from the sperm to come together and form a zygote as I go needs parts of the moms and form a greater Holden and that thing needs more parts than the mother develop I mean where we draw the line seems to be somewhat arbitrary I'm going with the conscious experience because that seems to be what we identify what does the thing that makes you you know we have more consideration but if we don't do that yeah I'm just I'm asking what is the individual I think there's two different you know when you talk about you know needing more parts and more person there's a difference between you know so a sperm cell on its own if it doesn't fertilize an egg it's just gonna you know die in a couple days and we got that same same at the egg it's not fertilized and then it's and Scott once the two combined what they need is not more parts what they need is nutrition you know if you're talking about you know getting more parts from the mother and that being a threat to individuality you know we all need nutrition throughout our like we're all growing and changing throughout our lives and taking in more thisis body I think that becomes nonsense two-minute warning okay yeah so I mean I would I would say we have to be really careful this phrasing because we that's like that's like a pro-choice Eggman every just made so for instance like to say that a sperm cell will die in a couple days on its own you know ovaries die in a couple days on their own I mean a fetus will die in a couple days sometimes oh that's typically how pro-choice this will argue in favor of abortion a fetus is not viable outside the womb so that means it's okay to a court we can argue that what they need is is just nutrition but that's not really what a fetus needs it doesn't need nutrition in the same way that I need nutrition it literally needs to be connected inside of another thing and then it needs like a specialized environment instead of another violence organism I think we're going above and beyond just requiring nutrition like we're requiring my like the body and the revocation of the autonomy of another like physical biological agent like all at the same time I think I think it's above and beyond just nutrition I would say okay and now we're now we've circled around back to you bodily autonomy and what is the extent of bodily autonomy and and I should be killing clearly I do think bodily autonomy is a value I don't think it's absolute I think that you can you know have mandatory vaccination I think you know nobody is objecting to an eight-year-old being unable to go into a tattoo parlor and get a tattoo but it's my body no no nobody thinks that that the right to bodily autonomy is absolute so so it's a question of of finding that balance and I do think you know trying to circle back to the original debate topic that's finding that balance is an appropriate role for for government and for public policy sure to be clear I'm not trying to circle back to the to the bottom of anything I was just taking issue with how you find nutrition if you say something just needs nutrition to survive and you're like okay cool and then you clobber me over the head and you hook somebody up to my kidney because their kidneys don't work and their blood is getting poised and you're like well here you go you're just providing the nutrition now I would take issue with the framing of how you use that word nutrition I don't think they need nutrition they need access to my body much the same way that a fetus we're gonna body doesn't just give nutrition it their leaves access to your body so I was just taking issue without framing they're using the word nutrition okay okay fair enough I yeah so the the source I think oh I need to step in it if it's okay if we move into the closings we've run out of time for the open discussion is it is this something that you're able to cover in the closing otherwise yes take us long it's okay I'm not gonna like call clock on you this minute okay now you know I kind of lost my train of thought to be honest I mean we've gone through a lot of oh I know it I was missing it the the the analogy of forced organ donation I think that's a really good analogy for why it's wrong to get women pregnant when they don't want but once the donation quote-unquote has occurred you have a different set of moral consideration so if you were to try to imagine and I know that this is a crazy hypothetical but if you were to imagine that you you go to the hospital for some routine operation maybe it happened equity or something and instead due to some terrible act of medical negligence they won't wind up taking one of your kidneys and giving it to somebody else and that person is now reliant on your kidney that's terrible you should definitely be compensated for that loss of your bodily autonomy under the law but can you go and stab the guy who has your kidney to to get it back I don't think so I don't think bodily autonomy extends quite so far as to allow lethal violence and that's so that that was all I was gonna say about that but didn't you know if we want to move to to just general closings we've covered obviously a lot of brown this afternoon I haven't really been able to take notes due to my technological issues that I'm having I still I'm having some internet issues I have power back thankfully not full Internet so I'll just say that I've had I've had a really enjoyable experience meeting with you my we we didn't go a whole lot into the question of you know if the the child is if the fetus is worthy of moral consideration and if abortion is a killing and if abortion is unjustified and you are personally like does it follow that you should also be politically pro-life or can you take this step of not wanting to impose your values on someone else we didn't really talk much about that maybe it's that I can come up during Q&A with our listeners but I I would just say that I I think the consistent position to take is to be one or the other political politically and personally be pro-life and pro-life or be pro-choice and for choice but I think I think mixing the two together puts you in a position of having to twist into moral knots gosh yeah with that we will let each of you if you want to say anything in addition on that issue you are more than welcome to as we go to the closing statement so you don't have to use all five minutes what's closing scene oh sorry no that look we'll consider that your closing so sorry about that no that's definitely got it and with that we will go to Destiny's closing statements so thank you very much Kelsey we really appreciate it and destiny the floor is yours yeah sound like I feel like on the on the pro-choice side I feel like or on the pro-life side rather I feel like there's it's really difficult to establish a season or why we should yield more consideration to something that just doesn't have a conscious experience once we start to make arguments that kind of defend potential future experiences we just we run into all sorts of bizarre moral conundrums that I mean seem even on their face to be like completely bizarre or completely unsolvable you know and even we even start to make arguments that the pro-choice er would use so for instance like well you know a sperm is meaningfully different from those I go because you know like a really early fetus can survive on its own it's like yeah of course there's these are reasons why we don't grant either of these things moral consideration I would argue that uh I would argue that the most consistent time to do it is when something's having an experience like our own when things have experiences we can relate to them obviously we feel pain we their voices we you know have our emotions and all these things and that usually starts around six months in the womb and that any abortion that happens before then I mean it's the same thing is is crushing a rock or you know knocking over or whatever that these are just these are things that exist that maybe at one point can have experiences that we shouldn't worry about but until they get to that point we just don't really consider them and addressing real quick the thing about like you wake up and you find that somebody has stolen a kidney from you and put it in someone else it feels wrong Lourdes feels bad is that like we'll hold on you could take the kidney back you know you can't just do that but I would argue actually you can I would argue two things in that in that analogy one you can go and take your kidney back from the person and two we can see that it is morally wrong to murder that person they seem contradictory on their face but the the confusion is that the moral weight of killing that person doesn't actually fall on a person that takes their kidney back it falls on the person that originally took their kidney from them and gave them to another person so if we have person a B and C person C steals the kidney from person a and gives it to person B person a has every right to get their kidney back from person B it will cause that person to be killed or murdered but the weight of that murder will every single time fall on person C and that's why I would address that issue and that's all I got you got it thank you very much we will now move into the Q&A so for your questions feel free to submit them into the live chat we do have a good list already but if you have any others you can just help me out a little bit by putting at modern-day debate at the start that'll just tag it so it'll be orange for me and it'll be easier for me to pull those out but we will start with super chats the Crawdaddy zero to nine thanks for your super chat he says I always found it very odd that a woman wants to give her body rights up to the government to decide can she I think he means can Kelsey explained that I don't think that I'm giving up anything by saying that other people's children and my children deserve equal protection that this kind of gets back to the point I was making at the very beginning that you know that I don't want to see a conception lottery and I don't see that as giving away my bodily rights if I don't believe that I have a right to commit violence against my children to start with I don't believe anyone does so I don't see it as giving anything up gosh yeah thank you very much next up we have Michael Dresden says don't forget to Like and sub if you haven't already thanks for your support Michael we appreciate that and by the way all super chats 100% will go to Save the Children the 30% that YouTube takes we as a channel where I'm trying to get in connection with YouTube to ask if they won't take it during our charity streams but in the meantime we're just going to use past super chat like money that's come in and we'll kind of bring that 30% back up so that it's at the full hundred percent so next up another avenue to donate where that's not an issue I thought you would mention yes there is so if you use stream labs there is a link in the description that usually says support the stream and you can actually make oh yeah it's a stream labs comm slash modern-day debate you can make your donation and then YouTube doesn't take the 30 percent out of it so that basically goes in through stream labs rather than you – and we can read that out loud as well so thanks for mentioning that Kelsey I appreciate that and Kyle's bookkeeper I have a feeling this isn't really Kyle's bookkeeper they say excited that 100% of superjet so now I'm going to need it's not quite right it's still going to save the children but whoever that is thanks for your donation to save the children the Crawdaddy thanks for your super chat he says please no G man he's a tool oh come on g-man is I just you gotta love him he's got passion and it were thankful that he comes on he's he's a character next up we've got the Crawdaddy zero to nine thanks again Pierre super chat he said so you're saying parents are obligated to give their newborn their blood or organs if needed simply because the newborn can have a future I think that's for Kelsey I think you know big I think newborns present a different case just because his support for the newborn could potentially come from other sources I think we would definitely look askance at a parent you used to give blood to their needy child for no reason other than they can feel like it but we have blood banks we have collective responsibility for that where we you know created a structure something that is not a moral dilemma guys yeah thanks so much we appreciate it and then we have new subscribers I missed a lot of these so sorry it was just flying and I'm I'm a little bit extra scattered today so hunter fight we appreciate you subscribing and talk late actually tonight can I ask a question on that actually I'm really curious on that because he kind of sites up that a little let's say for instance there wasn't another kidney available and let's say that you had a child that was six years old and that child needed a kidney to survive do you think that a parent should be compelled by Cifaretto state violence to donate a kidney to that child or that if a child died the parent would be helped like legally responsible I think under current law that parent would likely be held responsible for child neglect if you're if you think of your child dies because you don't donate a kidney to your child that the parent so ignoring current law just morally you think I'm current well that's a possibility I'm not a criminal attorney I'm but my my understanding of that area of law is that denying medical care to your child is not just a nine medical care but that you yourself should be compelled by the state that you to be a moral person to that you should give your kidney to your child if your child is six years old they have a kidney problem and unikitty to survive it you should absolutely be morally compelled and and legally compelled to do that do you think so otherwise well morally I think absolutely legally I don't know if that situation has come up before I think there is a possibility under current law that refusal to do so would be medical medical neglect of your child I don't know that for a fact because I'm not sure if it's come up yes I'm not I'm not answering the current legal question ability that's already the law but do you think it that should be the law that a parent should be forced much the same way that you would argue somebody should be forced to carry a child to term under the law do you think that a parent should be forced to donate their kidney to the child so I'm not I think that I think probably a better analogy is the liver if we're trying to analogize this to pregnancy which is over after nine months and your uterus goes back to its normal size the liver can be donated partially and will regrow so I think you know if we if we make that the analogy yeah I don't know what that that seems horribly selfish or a parent not to donate to to their dying child okay so then so you would argue that the parents should be compelled I would take issue with the idea that the uterus goes back to his normal size because pregnancy does cause a reversible changes to your body but even we grant that you would say that the law should say that the parent underbred of state violence should absolutely be compelled to donate a part of their body to their child that they don't have an option that they have to I mean you're saying threat of state violence like someone's putting a gun to their head I think you know I think if someone were to fail to their liver in that situation and the child died they would likely be charged with some form of negligent homicide look and I think that that prosecution would be just okay gosh sure next up thanks very much both of you we have another question or I should say these are yeah so thanks for those new subscribers and questions we have one from shirt son what should be the best what should the best policies be to reduce the number of abortions I think that might be for both speakers I hope it is because I think this is an area of a lot of common ground secular pearl Lake is a big supporter of comprehensive sex education we support near the use of condoms to prevent unplanned pregnancies in the spread of STDs we support just you know in general better support services for women particularly those who are economically vulnerable you know who are single mothers two older children already you know all of those things I think ought to be common ground measures and we have seen reductions in abortion rates from implementation of not not full-blown abortion bans since none of those have gone into effect it since Roe but from for example requirements of informed consent you know that the the abortion clinic has to present information on creative development prior to abortion requiring parental notification for an abortion on a minor so that the parents have an opportunity to step in and say now you know hold hold on wait we are going to support you this is not going to ruin your life we're not shaming you we're here to help you know those kinds of incremental measures have been shown to reduce abortion rates I mean I would argue that reducing abortion in terms of baking soda pregnancy never happens is it really good so things like contraceptive use contraceptive use sex education these are really good things I would say that threatening people so for instance I don't agree with the framing that rental consent is a way to make it so that the parents can provide support to the child for their future child parents can't they're like short of adoption having a child is a lifelong commitment like the fact that your parents will help you through it a little bit isn't going to change the impact that's going to have on your life these seems to be roadblocks that people put up just to make it impossible so we didn't get an abortion I don't think that people are genuinely reconsidering their abortion when you go to a doctor and they're forced to show you pictures of like determinated sadism something I would reject refraining of that guy next I'm not sure how else informed consent could have an impact on abortion rates if women aren't changing their mind it doesn't add to the cost of an abortion to have that informed consent and for us and I don't believe it involves photos of dead babies I'd the the the point I was trying on parental notification was was not so I and I may have phrased it badly but what I had in mind was you know the teenager who gets pregnant and freaks out and thinks oh my god I have to hide this from my parents they're gonna kill me they're gonna freak out I have to get and you know get a secret abortion and then she may be pleasantly surprised to find that her find out that her parents actually are supportive and will love like that that's what I had in mind when I said someone what I mean like is that up for the doctor to decide though like what there are cases where the parents they were not going to kill the child but they will legitimately like make the life health of a child that actually gets pregnant I mean I don't know if I would want a medical institution to decide how my parents are going to feel about a medical procedure because it may very well be that they are going to be absolutely upset and want to kill me for doing so for getting pregnant an early age I mean it seems like we don't require that for any other type of things so I don't know why we would here but I know I think we do generally require parental consent for surgeries on minors abortion is the exception I can't think of any other surgical procedure that a child can have without their parents knowing about it yeah yeah that's probably true yeah but but but to your point about abusive situations there there is a procedure called judicial pipe as create about Supreme Court where a judge can evaluate potential abusive situations and make perverted referrals then and waive revenues but that that's a that's very personal gosh yeah thanks so much next up we will go to darth calculus thanks for your question it is for either do you think there is a similarity between abortion and drugs regarding the phrase they're going to do it anyway so just make it legal i think similar arguments are being made I don't know what do you think Steven I mean yeah I mean that it's kind of similar but like the the morality by both of these is a lot different right like yeah yeah that if you're gonna if they're gonna do it anyway then just like make it legal make it safe there's a good argument unless you believe that there's like a moral wrong being committed right so I mean that's what that question comes down to right I mean with drug use the only person you can nourish yourself unless you're you know off driving well intoxicated would we can all agree as well and there are laws against that regardless right right gosh shit thanks so much next up Walter White thanks for your question and Walter asked when would you say it is no longer okay to abort is there a biological answer to it I mean I would say it around six months is when the fetus begins to develop the parts of its brain needed to have a conscious experience which seems to be what we're most interested in with people and if I could remove one part of the body to make it so that you don't think a person is worthy of moral consideration it would probably be that part of a brain that gives you an experience gotcha I think Kelsey if you want to answer to you've been oh I mean I don't think abortion is appropriate at any point I can see if it to the second half of that question of can biology answer it not really about landing biology can inform the discussion but you know there's there's no you know personhood organ that forms at this particular second you the in the science is helpful but it's not going to be dispositive of the moral question God shine next mark Caesar has a question for you Kelsey thanks and yes could you ask LC when she considers a fertile fertilized egg to be a viable human I'm not entirely sure what you use that so so viability is an interesting concept it's it's really a Supreme Court created a concept but by setting it at 24 weeks so savate viability as as a legal concept or as a legal / medical concept is the point at which the baby can survive outside legally it's been set at 24 weeks but on the ground it's gonna vary tremendously from person to person right yeah so so we all grow at different rates do different people are different and and the environment matters as well so to take for example a woman who lives within walking distance of a hospital with a fantastic NICU versus a mother in a more rural area that doesn't have good hospital access you know maybe they're the same week number of weeks long and pregnancy but the one would survive and the other wouldn't just based on how far away the NICU is and of course then either one of them could travel during you yes so the the viability idea is very subjective and that's why the Supreme Court has set it at 24 weeks not because babies can't survive before that point some can and have but it's just an arbitrary policymaking position from the word so if the question is when when if your defining viability as as when someone can survive outside the womb that's that's the answer if there's some other definition of viability being used that I'm not sure gosh yeah thanks so much next a slam and thanks for that question mark slam are in thanks for your question she asks is destiny familiar with the quote unquote complete lives program and they asked Aurora's Kelsey familiar with it i I am not know I'd like to know what that is you got it it's new to me as well but I think I saw another question from slam RN thanks for your second question and that is Ken does Kelsey have an opinion on how minorities are targeted and the beliefs of margaret sanger in eugenics yeah so um we could do several it was fun on that topic I'll try to be brief yeah I think certainly in the earlier days of the abortion movement there was an unpleasant racial component Justice Ginsburg what who was not on the court at the time row v Wade was decided she she doing later but she she commented that she was surprised that the same court that upheld that said Don Roe later allowed prohibitions on taxpayer funding of abortion because she thought Roe was was geared toward not having too many of the populations we don't want too many of which is a frightening so so yes race does matter and we do to this day see a disproportionate you know in terms of you know the percentage of black women in the population versus percentage of abortion clients who are black it it's a stur being discrepancy but I would not go so far as to suggest that you know every abortion clinic owner today is some kind of eugenicist I think you know that that history is there and that it still has some influence but you also have to consider how much of abortion is driven by financial crisis and that financial crisis is more likely to occur among people of color so that explains at least part of the variant gosh thanks so much next up we will hopefully get to we're gonna get to as many questions as we can we have a late influx of them and we have to close the Q&A and take just as we got a lot of questions so don't try to speed through these as fast as possible so Landon Freeman thanks for your question we appreciate it for destiny if pro-abortion advocates have such a compelling case why do many rely on ad hominem straumann and the euphemisms I mean every person relies on a homonyms and euphemisms it's just a that's that's every side of every political debate ever gosh yeah thanks you've been very good today Thanks next up thanks for your question Stanislaus bolongo we appreciate it they asked for destiny do you have a defeater for the Jesse Lee Peterson's pro-life analogy well I think I think that's a dumb name I don't think he's asking a real question I don't even know what that is gosh I appreciate it a comrade thanks for your question it says Stephen says we should extend moral rights to beings with conscious experiences but not potential conscious experiences does that mean it's okay to kill someone who is asleep I don't think so I think there's a continuation of the conscious experience there that like somebody that goes to sleep and then wakes up is having like a conscious experience has been temporarily interrupted I think this is meaningfully different than something that has never had a conscious experience at any point in its life so for instance like we wouldn't say that a sleeping person has the same sort of experience as like a rock that never has and never will a conscious experience gotcha next up thanks for that question fierce deity asks will you make up with Hasan in this abortion debate this is another me and go to the next time gosh yeah okay next Walter white asked Kelsey when when does life begin for you yo macka yeah Yamanaka won a nobel prize for turning a liver cell in an embryo so is drinking a beer that kills liver cells abortion so someone took a liver cell and turn it into an embryo is what are you saying I think so I am not familiar with that research I take issue with the the framing of the question of wind is like in for you I don't think that that is the sort of question that is reliant upon a person's subjective experience I think life begins when the overwhelming scientific consensus says just wait sperm meets egg this idea and and I'm not I'm not suggesting that that Stephen hooks listener or or even that it's all that prevalent but I have seen this sort of idea that the life of any particular embryo or fetus begins when the mother decides that it begins almost as though we have like a supernatural ability to like through the power of our own thoughts create if I'm all about girl power women are awesome but we get that that's that's just out there gotcha thanks for your response and Kent Hovind CPA don't think it's as real CPA but they sent a super shot thanks for that super shot I don't understand what this means I said I've had it up to here with fetuses okay but thanks for your donation to save the children I don't know what's I don't know the slang anymore if that was saying but anyway Ashley a Julia thanks for your question they asked destiny what happens to bodily autonomy of the mother if you believe abortions after six months ought to be regulated the bodily autonomy of the mother isn't really considered at that point if we consider that the fetus is something that ought to have more consideration granted to it so for instance we would say that like stealing money from a person is wrong and telling somebody that they like have to give money to somebody Emma's gonna make tax arguments apparently wrong but like we wouldn't say that well paying child support is wrong because we'll violate that autonomy in that case because we're protecting like the future or the autonomy of another like currently existing thing so autonomy is relevant when you're talking about like having an abortion because I don't consider the fetus to be a living person but past six months when it is well the autonomy of the mother doesn't override the autonomy of the seat is to survive at that point of that they've been six months old you got it thanks so much next up Jesus is Lord asks question for destiny do you think a child who survives a botched a botched or failed abortion should be killed is it to me yes yeah wait what was it what was the question I'm sorry to cut out a little that's all right they asked do you think a child who survives a botched or failed abortion should be killed I think they mean like immediately after the abortion was right like like more alive in the in the course of an abortion procedure I think okay I mean if it is if it's less than six months it doesn't have it's like brain developed or whatever then then sure I mean I wouldn't consider that a murder but I mean if it's post six months I don't think you should be having that abortion anyway because that does have a conscious experience and it ought to have all this duration gosh I've got a push back so you're so before six you know so let's say like I think the earliest surviving is like maybe 22 or 23 weeks you know just short six-month cut up are you suggesting that even though that baby is now outside the womb and not a direct threat to anybody's bodily autonomy they should nonetheless be killed because mom just doesn't want to have to have a baby out there isn't interested in placing for adoption you think that is a sufficient justification at that school yeah of course I don't need a justification because I don't consider it I don't consider something worthy of more consideration much the same that I don't need sufficient justification to trim my nails you know over a sink I mean like the flip side of that is that fertility clinics that store you know unused psychos have an implanted yet are committing again another sort of genocide when they when they dump these at the end of the month because they're no longer viable I mean I don't I wouldn't consider that to be like a mass murder being carried out by fertility clinic because these are things that our grant moral considerations oh I think you're I think you're putting yourself in a corner with respect to prematurity that's it but we can move on well how I mean to establish why moral considerations should be granted I granted at a state of having a conscious experience and I don't believe that we've fully fleshed out or that you fully justified an alternative position there in terms of when you would grant more considerations that to to anything well I I thought the whole point of any right to abortion was to vindicate bodily autonomy if you're saying you know go ahead and kill the premature infant who doesn't have a conscious experience that's going way beyond a right to abortion that's creating essentially a right to a dead baby I I don't I don't know how the bodily autonomy think plays in here it's it's more just a baby that has that has let that has exited the womb in a botched abortion procedure baby made it out alive why would the mother then have any stay over what happens to the life of that baby yeah so again the phrasing here is a form of begging a question we're saying the baby made that it alive you're already winning your conclusion just on that Freight framing I wouldn't say that a baby made it out I would say that a two-week-old yeah sure that's what a 22-week whatever it is once out of the mother's body why why should the woman then what what interest does she have in in that child's life or death why would she at that point be the decision-maker when bodily autonomy isn't on the table I mean that's an interesting question I would argue that whatever came out would be the possession of that person and that we should respect their right to whenever it comes out of their body so much the same way that like if I went to the hospital when I had a kidney removed I think I should probably have like a right to hold on to that I don't know if I'm not sure what are the legislation says right now like in a doctor like Steele that body parts from you if they take it out or do you have the right to like walk away with it but no I mean whatever I think it has to be disposed of as medical waste pursuant to you know okay sure then yeah then whatever the law sure whatever the laws it would be disposed of then I guess is medical waste then but no I don't like I guess if you consented to it you could wanted to take I I cannot disagree with you most of all I think that's Wow I mean I understand you can't but you haven't provided any reason why moral considerations should be granted besides some big intuition ISM the idea that like well of course it's alive because it's a baby but you haven't really established any reason why we should give moral consideration to that group of cells I need the same as a tumor being pulled out of somebody versus a 20 we hold fetus it doesn't have a conscious experience the fetus has now left the body is no longer a fetus is a prematurely born neonate and you're saying because that infant exited the body of this person that she now has like possession over that premature infant as a thing and like no node forgive me yet I want to get possession of a human being is just messed up oh yeah I mean again yeah I already said we can move on but again like we've we've engaged so much Peggy the question like your console was like how can you have possession of a human being well I'm not saying it's even okay but the baby is plenty but I'm not saying it's maybe okay but like that's a person I'm not saying it's a person like you constantly beg the question we do phrasing you know right and I'm not I'm not trying to beg the question I guess I came into this discussion assuming that you wouldn't condone infanticide that we were only talking about it right to abortion you know of a killing taking place within the youth I thought that's what we were arguing about and it has it has turned out that your pleasure why would y'all I don't think a person is like whether or not there give more consideration is determined by geographic location I would say you could kill a person in a uterus I mean I don't think you should be able to avoid some me a seven or eight month that's so that's a ridiculous proposition so somebody becomes a human only once they're born like the passage through somebody's stomach well I I agree that that's ridiculous its current law wait you can have late late term abortions are legal in all parts of the United States I was not aware of that I'm almost positive that's not true yeah so doctors who will do them are few and far between it's not like there's one in all 50 states but under the Supreme Court precedent you don't have person you know you don't have the right to life as a person under the Constitution until birth oh okay III don't know if that's true now but yeah go ahead I'm sorry but my my only point is that we haven't really established why these things should be granted personhood but that was my only point that's all stuff I just wanted to give Stephen a chance to respond and then I will get to these last questions really quick of us all right so next up awesome brawler says hello bun L wanna chat tomorrow is that must be somebody you know is am i pronouncing it right is it but not bun L yeah it's just another meme guy gosh yeah and ehm thanks for your question they said for destiny why is he not willing to debate abortion with Raj Patel Raj that's the other that Donna dumb name skip um he yes sorry you got a lot of fans following you over here thanks for your question okay that was actually a question for somebody else in the chat sorry about that so with that I want to say thank you so much to our speakers who are linked in the description so if you have enjoyed this if you're like oh man I really want to hear more actually I would encourage you go check out their links so that you can hear more of their content read more of their content and maybe subscribe for emails where videos whatever you like so thanks so much to our speakers for being here hopping in the hot seat and me my pleasure yeah you bet and so with that want to say also thanks everybody for your questions really interesting questions as well as thanks for your super shots as mentioned 1% will be going to save the children and also excited that tomorrow Kent Hovind will be on debating with mr. Archaeopteryx is alias as that will be a big event so thanks for coming by everybody if you enjoy this video feel free to give it a like we're glad to out of here and keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable take care hi next time

36 Replies to “DEBATE: Should Abortion Be a Legal Right? || Destiny VS Kelsey”

  1. That's too bad about her electricity situation. In my town when someone has a barking dog the cops are called and that person gets a ticket, thereby taking care of the barking dog issue. I would hate to live somewhere where they didn't have this noise ordinance.

  2. When I asked Save the Children whether their reproductive healthcare (or some similar wording that often is used as a euphemism for abortion) includes performing or promoting abortion, the response I received consisted of a defense of abortion. I assumed that was a "yes", and I told them at least a few times that I no longer wished to support an organization that may be killing children they were supposed to be "saving", but I continued to receive emails for several months saying my prepaid card had been declined. You have to really research organizations before supporting them and read the fine print.

  3. When i saw this i was like wtf [33.56
    ahmad dictator

    ​@Smitty you may care only about the mind, but we care about the soul more
    ] PROVE there is a soul that survives death ffs YOU CANT…….

  4. Allowing another person to needlessly suffer terrible pain every day just to make oneself feel better is morally wrong. If someone's unborn baby has a condition in which it would live only very briefly and during that time would only experience excruciating pain, the parents should have the right to decide to end that baby's life. That said, that is how I personally feel and I would never ever make that choice for someone else. Other people think it's perfectly fine and morally right to let another person suffer in excruciating pain because just being alive is more important and again, it makes them feel better about themselves. If they think that then fine, but I think it's morally wrong and if I were in that situation, I wouldn't want someone to make the choice for me, much like I wouldn't want to make the choice for someone else.

  5. For a time I was pro-choice with exceptions but always personally pro-life. Arguments like Kelsey’s as well as images of abortions firmly planted me on the pro-life side. I appreciate seeing a woman on the pro life side debating because it forces people to not say “well you are a man” and dismiss a valid argument.

  6. Hey. Why stop there. Lots of parents kill their toddlers, After all they brought them into the world and they should be able to take then out. Lets make it legal. Making it legal makes murdering people RIGHT doesn't it ?
    Like in china not so long ago when it was perfectly acceptable to drown your first born if it was a female.

  7. One of the best discussions so far. Very polite, well-expressed views! And a good answer to my question.

  8. At 45:50 D says that what makes most wrong things wrong is that they violate the autonomy of someone who would want to have autonomy.

    Even if that's true as far as it goes, it's superficial, because would we continue to think that a person's autonomy was so important if they could not USE their autonomy to secure something beyond mere autonomy — in particular, future experience?

    At 47:45 D claims that we wouldn't care about someone being deprived of their future experiences unless that somebody is an agent who is capable of making a decision about their future. (K's face becomes super-doubting at this point.) He tries to illustrate that idea by saying that it's okay to crush a rock — even though we deprive it of its future experiences — because it could not exercise autonomy anyway.

    But I think the real reason our intuitions tell us it's okay to crush a rock even though we deprive it of its future experiences is that its FUTURE EXPERIENCES would not have been much anyway.

    Everything bears out Don Marquis. Evolution has designed all living beings with a happiness payoff in the brain that guides all their decisions. We do not value anything except happiness unless it is somehow instrumental to happiness. And happiness of course means future happiness. It is impossible now to attain past happiness.

    I think D had a good point in saying that the deprivation-of-future-experiences argument implies that it would be less wrong to kill someone if we knew that their future experience would be short. But in fact I think that if their future experience will be short, killing them does indeed do less harm to them. I bite that bullet. I think that if we could know that a person's remaining time would be short, we should consider that person's life to have less value than the lives of others. But:

    "it would not be wise for society to try to implement, in practice, some objective calculation of value. Because if it were known that everybody was being rated in terms of their expendability, that would cause tremendous tension in society. We have to maintain the existing social convention 'everyone’s life is of equal value,' and continue to codify that convention in terms of equal legal rights. (Except in a triage situation . . .) Philosophically I don’t think that everyone has equal inherent value, but I think that society should assign everyone equal inherent value."

  9. I'm pretty adamantly pro choice. That being said, between this discussion, and her discussion with Dillahunty, I really appreciate Kelsey's approach to this issue. It's really nice to see a person tackle this issue without the theocratic baggage.
    Thank you for presenting a challenge to my values.

  10. Okay. it needs to be said about charity streams. You should really just have people donate directly. It would be the easiest way to bypass the 30%. Post a link and do it that way.

  11. She got him. If his argument is humans aren't worthy of life and protection and have the same moral status as a rock until 6 months gestation, it follows that it would be fine to kill an infant born at 22 or 23 weeks. His argument broke down completely there.

  12. This debate felt more like a discussion. Very low-key, no high drama (like the GDC) which is refreshing although admit it, the drama is a TEEEENY bit why debates are viewed.
    I mean, so I heard.
    From a friend…

  13. I never heard of either of these people before. They both had interesting points. Although I would avoid an abortion preferring adoption (unless I was in danger of dying) I also don't think the State has any rights to my insides. It's a private decision, especially if the mothers life is threatened. Why should the State kill her and not the baby?
    That said, adoption is an ideal choice if possible because there are so many people seeking parenthood who just can't make it happen biologically.

  14. SO SHWEEEETTT…much love Tee with LIONS NAMED LEO.[the music worldwide}

    oooo touchy subject…..and well i am pro choice and pro life….in abortion no one wins…

  15. @27:00 No ma'am we do KNOW that lack of access to/use of adequate prenatal care is the leading cause of preventable miscarriages.

  16. Destiny is pointing out where her logic naturally ends up and she has no clue how to respond (because it's ridiculous) so she just says a lot of words lol

  17. Abortion is a tragedy.No matter what your position on abortion is, I think we should agree that in an ideal world , women wouldn’t be in the position to make that choice.Too bad that’s not the world we live in, but it is a world we should work towards.

  18. Once the child has the ability to feel and have a consciousness within the womb it should have the same rights as a person. That time is long enough for the woman to decide to abort. If she goes past that then she has committed to her choice and now the baby/fetus and the mother are now sharing the mother’s body. She can abort for ANY reason up to that point. Obviously abortion is ok after that for medical/life threatening conditions. Now watch me get dumbass comments from people on both sides.

  19. Destiny lost the argument when challenged with how premature children prior to 6 months can survive. I guess it must be a moving organ or a rock that needs attention and care. His futile attempts to misapply the Begging the Question fallacy was an apparent epic failure.

  20. Wait, did Destiny change his moral arguments against abortion recently? Almost everything he said during that portion, such as a woman's bodily autonomy winning out over a fetuses right to life, and fetuses not being considered persons, seems to run completely contrary to a lot of the arguments he's made against abortion in the recent past.

  21. Kelsey made a lot of sense from a non religious point of view. As an atheist she has, so far, got me on her side.

  22. …Also the forced organ donation argument will not work here. First of all, that would apparently be illegal for the potential recipient of organ donation to be killed. Next, If one brings a human life into the world, they are obligated morally to protect it. An organ donor did not reproduce the recepient so the organ donor is not obligated to donate his or her organ(s) to begin with.

  23. Too much is made about brain development with regards to consciousness as that relates to personhood. Studies on NDE's and Ancephally show that consicousness can exist independently of the brain. Even so, those who are comotose are not conscious, yet are considered persons.

  24. To take one of Destiny's arguments to a ridiculous extreme, when I have to ma5turbate because there's no woman available, if someone doesn't provide me with a woman to inseminate, are "They" denying the possible life of a future child from my sperm?

  25. Destinys pillars are built on sand.
    Morality has to be oriented by an objective force. A force predicated on macro empericism.
    One's moral relativism cannot and ought never trump that of objective morality.
    What planet is this destiny on.
    He espouses that a man can just walk away from a woman that he has had a child with. This aspersion is complete rubbish.
    Half the men in prison are as a result of struggling to pay child maintenance.
    Destiny is truly full of cognitive dissonance.

  26. i disagree with Kelsey on the not being able to be pro life personally and pro choice politically. if this is about bodily autonomy. then i can be willing to host said fetus to allow them to inhabit my body but still respect some one not wanting to allow them into their body. just because i personally accept the burden doesn't mean other have to. you cannot force a burden that violates a persons autonomy on to some one this is a violation of consent. its the same as mandatory sex partners that incel calls for. i simply do not agree on removing consent from people….

    now those artificial incubation wombs they be working on has the possibility of saving the life of these kids once removed…thats awesome

  27. I’m on the fence with this issue. I believe that a fetus is a human baby even if it’s not autonomous yet and that abortion is killing a baby human. The main reason I still consider abortions necessary is that women who get abortions for non-medical reasons obviously don’t want their baby, and forcing them to birth and care for a child is not ideal for the mother, baby or society.

  28. The anti-natalist idea that non-existence is preferable to potential suffering is pro suicide. Additionally, does not provide sufficient reason for us to assist those in a coma (of which have no real autonomy or experiences) and bringing them back to self-autonomy induces potential suffering inherently.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *