How Your Instincts About The Abortion Debate are Fooling You (meme)


Whenever you talk about this subject,
somebody’s gonna get ticked off This is one of those controversial subjects So let’s get controversial Aright, let’s get into it Okay so this meme says: So right off the bat this mean does seem to appeal to
our intuitions correctly Now I know if I walked into a lab and I saw some crazed scientist holding a petri dish in one hand and holding a baby by the head in
the other hand and he told me he’s gonna drop one and told me to choose, I’m gonna be like: How’d I end up here? This fool done lost his mind! This fool is trippin! Oh, this isn’t the restroom. Sorry. Wrong door Okay but really, if I was in this
situation my instincts is automatically gonna tell me to save the baby But this meme does put us in a hypothetical situation where we probably wouldn’t
have much time to rationalize our decision But if we had a few moments
after the fact and we had some time to reflect on why our instincts told us to
choose the baby, I think we can come up with a few good reasons If I was for real
in this kind of situation I think my
instinct would be like Well the embryo
is not in the womb. And because the embryo is not in the womb, then it has a
lower chance of survival than the baby does So my instinct is gonna tell me to
choose the baby I think that our instinct functions this way in other situations For example, Picture that you were walking by a river and you saw a
baby and a man drowning Now, you know you can only save one, so which one would you choose? Now, of course, most of us are gonna choose to save the baby because we instinctively know that the man has a higher chance of survival than the baby does So it seems like our intuitions can calculate chances of survival at a much
higher rate than we often realize But the rhetoric in this meme isn’t
appealing the chances of survival instead what its appealing to is worth
and value What this meme seems to be implying is that because we choose the baby we all must instinctively know that a
baby has much more value or worth than an embryo does But if that’s the case we
can just go back to that last example If we go back to our example about the baby
and the man drowning in the river And our instincts tell us to save the baby,
does that mean that we all instinctively know that the man is not human or
that the man doesn’t have the same worth of value as the baby? Of course not So if the rhetorical point that the meme is making is that because our instincts
tell us to save the baby instead of the embryo that therefore the embryo is not
human and does not have the same value or worth as a human Then, that’s just not
a very good argument This leads to an even more important question: and that’s it the embryo and the child can both have an equal amount of value and worth We could avoid this entire scenario if we just prevented the mad scientist from
being in that position in the first place Because without the intervention
of the mad scientist, both the embryo and the baby would go on to live And to return to the meme’s real life parallel without intervention, this embryo would
grow to be somebody’s mother, grandmother wife, cousin, sister, brother, best friend,
and so on. If both the embryo and the baby have the potential to live a full
life and have a full future Are we justified and removing that potential from either one of them? Of course this is the question the highlights the real
issue. But we can talk about that some other time. So the next time you’re bored on a
Friday night and you and the homies is rolling around looking for something to
do, and one of you decides to go to the scientific lab, so you guys go in there
and you open the door, then you see some fool holding a baby in one hand and a
petri dish with an embryo in the other and he tells you he’s gonna drop one and
he tells you that you have to choose which one you want to save, what are you
gonna say?

37 Replies to “How Your Instincts About The Abortion Debate are Fooling You (meme)”

  1. Great video! One more way of thinking of it may be this:
    We associate the baby with humanness because of certain visual distinguishing features: shape, eyes, expressions, familiarity with the look of babies, so forth. (Think of Disney films which are able to portray non-human objects as human-like by adding these features, thereby causing us to associate them with humanness). On the flip side, we don't perceive those features with the petri dish.
    Really, this is a question of psychological associations before it is a question of values or even survival possibilities.

  2. Yeah, I’d catch the baby. Does this prove I don’t really believe the embryo is human? If the choice was between saving a human member of my family and saving a non-related human, you bet I’d save my human family member. Because someone is forcing me to make a value statement based on personal emotion, does that negate the equal objective worth of either parties involved in my choice? Does someone already know and love the already-born infant? Then the suffering of the loved ones will be greater if the infant is dropped. I agree that miscarriage is less tragic than a death from SIDS. Only because of the suffering of the loved ones involved. It’s not an objective statement on human life. It’s an emotional choice based on minimizing suffering. And it’s a thoroughly stupid argument. What are we supposed to say to this: “Oh, gee, George! I see the light now. Because I’d rather you dropped the embryo than the already-known-and-loved, out-of-the-womb infant, I must agree with you that, therefore, it’s perfectly all right to rip the embryo apart limb by limb and suck him out with a vacuum cleaner. How silly of me to not have seen it before!”

  3. What if it were a newborn baby and a 99 year old man, which would I save? The baby, easy. I would not even hesitate. What follows from this, that the baby is more human than the 99 year old man? Of course not; that's silly.

  4. Something that fits in a petri dish is a really early stage embryo, such a fertilized egg (zygote) or blastula. Even if you have to sacrifice One Million zygotes or blastulas to save a single infant baby, it makes sense. The baby is a PERSON. The stuff in the petri dishes are just genetic material.

  5. The example referred to in this video takes advantage of the lack of developed defense mechanism. The cuteness, crying, etc., are all defense mechanisms designed to create attachment and illicit help for the baby. The embryo in the pitri dish is not even visible to the naked eye and as such has not yet developed a defense mechanism. Without his or her (remember if that embyro is alive and healthy it already has a gender, so that's either a boy or a girl in the dish) mother or father to protect him/her, it then it's easy for an enemy to come along and kill him/her.

    That is all abortion is. Killing a baby before any defense mechanisms develop.

  6. This helps to highlight the current illogical view of abortion by the secular world that human life has relative value. If the mother wants to abort a pregnancy, she is allowed to do so free of legal consequences. However, take that same pregnant woman and have her killed by a third party and it's possible the killer could be charged with two murders.

    How is it logical the fetus only has value when the mother says it does?

  7. That same argument about potential can also be applied to sperm. Following that logic, every man who masturbates is committing mass murder.

  8. Save the embryo and call the cops (if the embryo will survive with some medical help). I mean this way they at least have to pay for their murder…

  9. Fetus definition is…
    In human development, a fetus, also spelled foetus, is a prenatal human between its embryonic state and its birth.

    Abortionists do both. They slaughter the “baby” in the Petri dish, and they also allow the third term baby to die on a table if the abortion is botched. They DROP both! Hillary believed this mass murder was ok, and Obama did too! So what is her point?! Abortion is murder. Murder is evil. 60 million babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade in 1973. The same people who believe in choice fight for that tree that will be cut down.

  10. Also, if I found myself in the situation, I might've only gone for the baby because I might not be able to identify what's in the petri dish.

    And, at best, the argument proves what I, individually, believe at the time take to be a life. It's an argument at best about my psychological state. If I were a baby-hating Satanist, I might let both die. Again, the conclusion doesn't follow.

    There's also a tone more wrong with this argument.

  11. The lesser evil? Sometimes we come to a cross roads where neither choice is preferable, our instinct tells us to choose the path that'll cause the least harm. The embryo being small has less of a chance to sustain damage in the fall, the baby being a lot larger has a high chance of damage, causing pain. The author of the meme is being very deceitful in the assumption that all things are equal. The embryo, the baby, and the man all have equal value, but they don't have equal circumstances, thus special consideration for each individual is required to choose the path that has the highest chance of all surviving.

  12. Honestly my reaction was the baby because I did not realize it was talking of a living embryo rather than an 'unfertilized' egg cell. Yes, that sounds dumb, but it is at least truth. This message is something typical of the enemy, I think. Maybe even want ing to 'trick' people with exactly the same lack of knowledge. And I do not like the sound of someone telling the other blind away to 'now admit it', in order to convince someone from their cruel lie tarned as 'an outward fact'.
    Sorry if this bothers people, but this, as well as with emotions, is a typical influence of the devil in someone or by society.
    And I consider abortion as simply something horrible. It is murder- after all it is a heartbeat. And the way society virals how lovely some animals are, when they love each other- sometimes they get better treatment than humans and this is where I get mad. Yes, I am Christian and it is only God, who saved me. No one else does, but we can stretch a hand to those who need help. God bless. X

    The great number of abortions in the US, as well as stories from medicines about teen pregnancies and parents 'not wanting their kids lives ruined' leads me to the assumption that they might need more sexual education when they are young. We in Germany have it starting from 9-10. But this is only a superficial view. I don't know much of people the US, and what their lives are. In Germany they used to think abortion seem 'more modern', though I hardly ever met someone who did say, that they would ever abort, when the prevention did not work, or even when they would be raped. The baby did not choose something like that as well.
    So someone can simply do, what someone can do. Adopt. Or simply and easier (even more grace to God):
    Love.

  13. instinct?? naturally speaking, whatever you tell me, my body is wired in such a way that one looks like a clear dish and one looks like a child. if you held two babies, one naked, one in a shape-obscuring…black garbage bag or something (and i couldn't hear it cry), i'm willing to bet i'd INSTINCTually reach to save the one that looks and sounds like a baby every time. maybe that proves that any baby placed in a black garbage bag is objectively worthless, and my instincts reflect that such is a universally understood truth. points made in the video were still more pivotal. peace of Christ <3

  14. Eh, I'm a Christian and I would never get an abortion (unless for like a medical reason) but I understand that not everyone is in a situation where they can take care of a child. I dont really have a problem as long as they're not carried out really late in the pregnancy (which almost never happens)

  15. I would actually save the man drowning.
    With the baby, if it died, there is a 100 percent chance of it going to heaven
    If the man died, there is a chance of him going to hell

  16. To me chances of survival come second to sentience.
    Hypothetically, assuming the baby and the embryo have an equal chance of survival, which one would you choose?

  17. They like to think that instinct is the same as a decision when you think logically just so they can try and rationalize murdering a child.

  18. That scenario makes zero sense in the context of the abortion debate. A more accurate scenario would be a mother in trouble during childbirth, only one can be saved. Which do you choose? Most would say that's an impossible choice.

  19. There is nowhere near enough information in this scenario for me to make a proper decision! What is the Petri dish made of (glass or plastic)? Is the dish sealed (i.e. how likely is it to open and spill its contents when dropped – if the contents spill then the embryo dies otherwise there really shouldn't be any problem at all if the dish remains intact)? In what position is the baby being held (which part of the baby will hit the floor first)? Is the baby asleep (if so it is not likely to change position when dropped vs. squirming around)? What is the floor made out of? etc., etc. Answering questions like these will help determine the level of threat faced by the baby and the embryo thus helping to determine which one should be allowed to drop to the floor (the one facing the lesser risk).

  20. Yeah, that is 1 test of many. Now lets put an embryo in one hand and a banana in another, which one is more important? Even still, there are people that would drop a baby for a banana, and do it with a smile on their face. There is no higher ground than the simple truth. Do not abort, it's against God's law.

  21. I've just recently discovered this channel and have been enjoying the videos, but I'm not sure that the approach used in this video is the best one for rebutting this meme. To give just one example of a problem I see with this approach, the justification offered for who we would choose to save in each scenario seems to be inconsistent. First, it's argued that we would choose to save the baby over the fertilized egg in the petri dish because we instinctively know that the fertilized egg is LESS likely to survive on its own since it isn't in the womb … so we save the baby. However, when we come to the example of the man and the baby drowning, it's argued that we'd probably try to save the baby because we instinctively know that the man is MORE likely to survive on his own … so we save the baby again. This would seem to suggest the quality of being more or less likely to survive on its own isn't really what's ultimately governing our choice.

    It seems to me that the proper response to this meme would take a form similar to the distinction we often have to make when discussing objective moral values duties. When someone tries to argue that objective moral values and duties don't exist because people disagree about what they are, the proper response is to point out that the person is failing to make a distinction between epistemology and ontology. The question of whether or not objective moral values and duties exist (ontology) is simply a different question than whether or how we might get to know what they are if they do exist (epistemology). Likewise, this meme seeks to capitalize on our personal feelings and biases about the RELATIVE DEGREE of value we personally place on one specific life or another while pretending to say something objective about the humanity of a fertilized egg or fetus and the intrinsic value of human life itself. How we personally feel about one life versus another or about one stage of life versus another is simply a different question than how we determine what constitutes a human life and whether or not all human life has intrinsic value.

    We can see the distinction by changing the dilemma to remove children and differences in developmental stages entirely. Consider the same scenario as presented in this meme, but make the choice between your friend and a total stranger. If you were FORCED to choose between your friend being killed or a complete stranger, who would you intuitively choose to save? It's almost certainly going to be your friend. And how much more certain would your answer be if it was not just some random friend but your BEST friend or even your spouse? Why would you choose to save your spouse over a stranger? Because you have more of an emotional connection and sense of familiarity with your spouse than with the stranger. In other words, the two lives do not have equal SUBJECTIVE value TO YOU. However, choosing to save your spouse over a stranger would not prove that you think the stranger isn't human or that their life lacks the objective value inherent to all human life. Your choice in an expression of your personal feelings, your sense of emotional connection and the relative value that one of those lives has to you OVER AND ABOVE the baseline value you attribute to all human life. Choosing to save your spouse over a stranger would not mean you admit that murdering the stranger is morally permissible.

    Now, try a different scenario. Suppose the choice you were forced to make was now between two strangers. One is a person who is alive and well and the other is in a coma with little expectation of recovery. You would likely choose to save the person who is alive and well, but that DOESN'T mean you think the person in a coma isn't human, that their life doesn't have intrinsic worth, or that murdering them is morally permissible. Instead, you would be making your choice on factors that go above and beyond the recognition of the baseline intrinsic value of both human lives and would be considering their relative EXTRINSIC value. One life has more chance of continuing to be productive and is more aware of its condition than the other, so we would tend to value those factors in a situation where we were FORCED to make a choice of saving one or the other, but our actual MORAL position would be that both lives have equal INTRINSIC value and neither one should be murdered.

    And so, when we finally come back to this meme, it seems to me that most of us would choose to save the baby because we are more familiar with and have more emotional connection to a baby than to a fertilized egg and, AT THAT MOMENT, the baby is more aware of its condition than the fertilized egg. That's why we would always tend to choose the baby. But the fact that we would choose the baby for those reasons IF WE WERE FORCED TO proves exactly nothing about what we really believe to be true at a rational level about the humanity of the fertilized egg, its intrinsic value as a human life, or its right not to be intentionally deprived of life. We could choose the baby 100% of the time in that thought experiment and still rationally maintain that life begins at conception, that all human life has intrinsic value, and that human beings should not be murdered.

  22. You have no idea how much effort I put into watching this video. For some reason this video just didn't want to load. so I've been watching this 5 min video as it over a few days as if it was 5 hours. It weird as other videos loaded. Even now as I am writing this comment, the video is saying 'no connection'. It's a bit annoying. Other than that great video, gave up on the last minute but still good.

Leave a Reply

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