Whatever Podcast - Abortion Debate

00:00:00.000 a special debate edition of the whatever podcast i am your host and moderator brian atlas a few

00:00:05.460 quick announcements before the show begins this podcast is viewer supported heavy youtube

00:00:10.000 demonetization so please consider donating through stream labs instead of soup chatting as youtube

00:00:14.640 takes a 30 cut the stream labs link is in the description basically if you super chat 100

00:00:19.460 youtube takes 30 if you donate 100 stream labs only takes three donations and super chats for

00:00:24.440 this special episode will be ten dollars and up will be displayed in stream overlay donations and

00:00:29.180 super chats 50 and up will be read answered at intervals throughout the show if you want to

00:00:33.840 interact nearly instantly with us and weigh in on the debate live consider sending a tts text to

00:00:39.740 speech message we have bumped that just for the sake of a flowing conversation to uh 199 and up

00:00:47.620 triggers tts tts is via stream labs only so if any of you psychos really want to weigh in on the

00:00:52.740 discussion please see the description for all triggers in full details without further ado i am

00:00:58.340 joined today by destiny famous internet personality live streamer and political commentator who will

00:01:05.180 be arguing the pro-choice side or as he prefers the pro-abortion side and we have trent horn trent earned

00:01:12.400 master's degrees in the fields of theology philosophy and bioethics trent is an adjunct professor of

00:01:19.000 apologetics at holy apostles college and he's the author of nine books trent will be arguing the

00:01:26.580 pro-life side thank you guys for joining me appreciate it i think a good jumping off point

00:01:32.400 for each of you if and if any of you wish to uh further introduce yourselves otherwise we can just

00:01:36.280 get right in what is your basic stance on abortion and destiny why don't we have you start

00:01:41.800 yeah so i think that the typical pro-life argument is the idea that we say that life begins at the moment

00:01:48.800 conception i believe that there is some kind of life that begins at the moment of conception but the

00:01:52.460 thing that we're interested in protecting is the human conscious experience whenever we talk about

00:01:57.140 a person we're not usually talking about a body or a collection of cells we're talking about some

00:02:00.780 other conscious sentient being whenever we're talking about pain suffering harm happiness joy any

00:02:06.840 of these emotions we're usually talking about somebody that can experience them as such when we

00:02:11.440 look at the end of life the instructive moment is when the person no longer has or is capable of

00:02:15.640 having a conscious experience so i think when we look at the beginning of life we should also start

00:02:19.080 at the same point which is when that conscious experience forms so my argument is abortion should

00:02:23.960 be illegal at the moment that the fetus is capable of having all of the parts communicating that can

00:02:28.760 deploy said conscious experience which i read is anywhere from 20 to 28 weeks so legally i say probably

00:02:34.140 about 20 weeks would be the safe point to start protecting that person that's now developed in the

00:02:38.320 womb all right right and so my position would be that your value comes not from what you can do but from

00:02:46.060 what you are that human beings acquire and lose different abilities throughout their existence

00:02:51.100 and many of our abilities are also shared by non-human beings that don't have a right to life

00:02:56.580 like when it comes to consciousness there are animals that exhibit levels of consciousness beyond

00:03:01.760 what many humans exhibit like infants for example there are many non-human animals more conscious than

00:03:06.960 them so i don't think that it's consciousness that makes us valuable what makes us valuable is that

00:03:11.200 we're members of a kind of a rational kind and every member of that kind has equal intrinsic value so i

00:03:18.060 just think that every human being has equal rights equal dignity and that this phrase every human being would

00:03:25.080 include every member of the human species so that begins at fertilization and then that would end when

00:03:32.600 someone dies when their body parts no longer function together as a whole so when their body parts

00:03:38.660 you begin to decompose when your body starts to fall apart that's when you stop existing you start

00:03:43.840 existing when your body parts work together to allow you to grow and develop which biologists would

00:03:48.320 agree happens at fertilization so that would be the pro-life anti-abortion position and then i guess a

00:03:53.920 little thing on my background too i also host a podcast called the council of trent c-o-u-n-s-c-l if

00:04:00.600 you're catholic could get the joke and that's available on youtube you'll want to go and check that out

00:04:04.400 okay rock and roll um and we have the everyone's links are in the description i think we have your

00:04:10.580 podcast linked in the uh description as well so uh just a point of clarification for destiny um

00:04:17.440 at what point because i know i think you have a time limit on it or not the time limit but

00:04:22.920 you don't think abortion should occur after when or how long i'd say legislatively i'd say 20 weeks

00:04:28.400 okay okay gotcha and uh is that for you is there any circumstance where abortion is justified

00:04:37.640 well i would say that i would agree with states that have laws that allow you to use medical

00:04:44.720 interventions to protect the life of the woman so i believe that we should treat unborn human beings

00:04:50.140 human fetuses human embryos like we would treat born human beings and there can be cases where if a

00:04:55.760 born human being even an innocent born human being threatens the life of another innocent born human

00:05:00.920 being like if you know somebody their drink gets spiked at a party and they go crazy and they grab

00:05:05.780 a gun or they're going to shoot people you might have to use lethal force to protect other people

00:05:09.780 but i believe that most abortions are not meant they're not meant to protect someone's life

00:05:14.980 uh they instead are meant to protect elements of one's lifestyle i don't mean to put it crudely but

00:05:21.000 social reasons economic reasons uh i just i think just as we don't kill toddlers just because they

00:05:27.380 might be in a difficult situation like their mom the dad's left mom lost her job we don't kill toddlers

00:05:33.260 in a really bad situation to try to make it better we shouldn't do the same to unborn human beings if

00:05:37.900 they're if they have the same value as a toddler does okay got it um so

00:05:44.460 i think a good another good jumping off point is when do you each believe that personhood begins

00:05:53.880 um between that 20 to 28 week point whenever the there's a part where all of the structures in the

00:06:01.220 brain are in place and then they begin to communicate with each other such that you would

00:06:04.260 have some conscious experience i would say that's your personhood okay yeah and i would say that personhood

00:06:10.520 though you don't necessarily what's interesting about the pro-life position is you don't have to

00:06:14.540 believe a human embryo or human fetus is a person to be against abortion there's actually multiple

00:06:21.080 arguments against to be against abortion uh now i think that all uh human beings all living human

00:06:27.100 beings are persons now they might be injured so they might be disabled persons who you know can't

00:06:32.500 function rationally they might be in a coma they might be have alzheimer's or dementia but i think

00:06:37.580 every human being is a person but even if you didn't believe the unborn were persons you can

00:06:42.120 even sidestep the personhood question because you could ask this question why is death bad why is it

00:06:48.800 bad to cause the death of an infant or the death of you or me but not bad most people agree it's not

00:06:55.660 bad to cause the death of like a pig even vegans don't want to usually don't treat the death of a human

00:07:02.040 infant like the death of a pig so why is death bad i think most people agree that death is bad

00:07:06.940 because it's it's deprivational it deprives us of something it's bad when humans die uh not because

00:07:13.920 they have necessarily a desire to live animals don't like infants don't have that but what makes

00:07:19.000 death bad for humans is it deprives a human of unique experiences like if an infant dies they lose a future

00:07:26.500 like ours uh that's why it's so tragic when an infant dies it also makes sense why it's sad but not as

00:07:32.880 tragic if like a 99 year old dies because they don't have as much of a future so then it would

00:07:38.640 follow and then of course the reason we you know have pork chops and burgers or at least don't treat

00:07:42.600 them as the same as killing humans because animals don't have a future like ours so if that's what

00:07:47.500 makes killing so wrong well human embryos and human fetuses they do have that even if you're not

00:07:52.480 consciously aware of it they have that and killing them deprives them of that really valuable thing

00:07:57.620 and so that's why another way to think of abortion being wrong even if you don't have the personhood

00:08:02.700 element there do you have a response or do you find that when you use that argument of future

00:08:10.040 experience can you run into trouble with people challenging you that that future experience might

00:08:14.200 be horrible enough such that it could actually justify an abortion so for instance let's say in

00:08:17.840 the case of like i think tay-sachs disease is a really rough one where i think children can die

00:08:21.600 i think often before the age of five right right um if your defense uh abortion is bad because it's

00:08:26.160 depriving somebody of a future experience i think baked into that assumption is that the future

00:08:30.420 experience is on a whole like a net positive right right so doesn't that kind of make your

00:08:36.120 point that point like conditional on a positive future experience which would justify the pro-choice

00:08:40.260 argument of you should abort people that might end up in horrible circumstances well i think that

00:08:44.180 the future like ours argument i consider it a secondary argument for my position so it may not show i

00:08:49.820 agree with you that it doesn't show that all killing is wrong like if your boss is dying of a heart

00:08:55.800 attack and you shoot him like you don't really deprive him of a valuable future but they're still

00:09:00.060 wrong for you to do that you know so i don't think that it shows all killing is wrong but i think it

00:09:05.600 shows many many acts of killing in general are wrong and there are far more healthy unborn children or

00:09:13.120 even infants for example like you might miss the tay-sachs diagnosis and now you have an infant who has

00:09:18.820 tay-sachs but most people even in that case most people wouldn't directly kill that infant who they know is

00:09:24.860 going to die in a few years uh so there i think the other argument would be well all human beings have

00:09:30.120 this intrinsic value they're all persons due respect even if they might be disabled or dying

00:09:34.980 but i think that the future like ours argument has the benefit of explaining why the vast majority of

00:09:41.360 human killings are wrong uh but also why it's not wrong to kill animals even if you have a pretty smart

00:09:47.780 animal like pigs are pretty smart they can play video games to earn treats they can they can beat a lot of

00:09:53.540 infants at things but we turn pigs into pork chops we don't do that to infants and i think only of the

00:10:00.200 future like ours argument or the fact that just humans are persons by their nature can explain that

00:10:07.260 if we go with your view that well it's consciousness that matters um i don't think it works and if you

00:10:13.960 bracket it to say oh i'm talking about human consciousness then i think it gets arbitrary

00:10:18.740 i i would agree to some extent that it gets arbitrary but arbitrary and only the ultimately

00:10:24.300 skeptical sense of like all morality absent a religious justification can arguably be arbitrary

00:10:29.300 so um i can half agree with you there but i i think we both probably agree that the human conscious

00:10:34.740 experience is significantly altered or different than the animal conscious experience um i have had some

00:10:39.960 people bring up the argument that like well if you're defending conscious experience what about

00:10:43.680 conscious experience of pigs or dogs uh you know a two-year-old dog might have more of a

00:10:47.520 conscious experience than a six-month-old or six-week-old child right um my understanding

00:10:51.780 is human development doesn't happen that way i don't think that we at like uh six months in the

00:10:55.800 womb that we have like a lizard consciousness and then we're born and we have like a horse

00:10:59.900 consciousness and then we're like one years old and we have like a primate consciousness and then it

00:11:03.340 becomes like a human consciousness uh my assumption is once all the parts are in place

00:11:07.080 um you have to gather kind of these uh these quality of these experiences in life you see things you

00:11:12.720 experience things and your mind kind of grows but the development is done now it's just the

00:11:17.200 acquisition of experience and then kind of like the connected neurons and everything i don't think

00:11:20.980 that our conscious experience significantly changes such that it's evolving from like one animal to

00:11:25.460 the next i think these are probably all stages of like human conscious experience and then i would

00:11:31.160 go back to um it sounded like you kind of said earlier that there's kind of this like um

00:11:35.260 ontological category of like human and then at all stages you protect that human thing from fetus to

00:11:41.160 end of metabolic activity and then i would agree with you except i would bracket that inside the

00:11:44.980 conscious experience part right and the reason i don't bracket that is because there are two reasons

00:11:50.340 i think you're going to include non-human animals or arbitrarily disqualify them or you're going to

00:11:57.620 exclude some human beings um well i guess let me ask you just a question here so i've got this this is a

00:12:04.760 cool book actually if anyone wants to get it's called a child is born by leonard nilson he is

00:12:10.880 actually pro-choice uh he doesn't let pro-lifers use these pictures in their books and stuff but

00:12:16.180 he pioneered in utero photography back in the 50s and 60s he died in 2017 so like this would be a 26

00:12:26.340 week old fetus and so that so that would fall under your definition requires legal protection

00:12:32.220 right yeah but not because of what it looks like but yeah well i'm just i'm just showing the thing

00:12:37.000 sure i think it's important in this app like this is an app i understand these things are remote and

00:12:40.920 i'm fine showing actually from all the stages so if you want to bring me back up here like

00:12:45.100 this would be first trimester so that's about um we actually go back so this would be a embryo it's

00:12:52.840 about four weeks old uh most abortions happen right after this point but you can see the heartbeat

00:12:58.260 things like that so that'd be the first trimester then we go forward a little bit more

00:13:02.900 we've got eight weeks so that'd be an embryo at eight weeks

00:13:07.720 then this would be well fetus at eight weeks i should say then this would be 12 weeks that's what

00:13:16.480 we have here and then right before the cutoff right before destiny's cutoff would be

00:13:23.660 this would be 19 weeks and then so my question though is this at 26 weeks let's bring that up

00:13:34.140 here my question would be uh why why is the killing of this thing so bad that it ought to be illegal

00:13:44.180 can you just explain to me the badness like what's happening here that's so bad it ought to be illegal

00:13:49.220 um without getting ultra fundamental i think that probably every constructed human moral system on

00:13:56.120 the planet agrees that we're all probably afforded a negative right to life that for somebody to

00:14:01.320 infringe on our right to life requires a big hurdle to surmount right so if i'm trying to kill you if

00:14:08.140 i've done some violation of a law you know where states decided to put somebody to death that for the

00:14:12.620 most part if governments exist for any reason one of the most fundamental reasons are protection to life

00:14:17.420 quite literally that negative right afforded to us so as long as all of us are humans as long as we're

00:14:22.540 all social creatures and we've all got some agreement to live and work and exist with one another that

00:14:26.920 negative right to life ought to be protected um at at all stages of when a person exists so it's like

00:14:32.880 a social contract essentially yeah would a society be incorrect if the social contract included

00:14:40.660 uh all biological human beings so every human embryo or fetus

00:14:44.980 um when you say correct or incorrect what do you mean by that would it be a morally bad or evil

00:14:53.800 contract for example 150 years ago there was a social contract that said some human beings could

00:14:59.720 be enslaved for example uh throughout most human history social contracts have excluded certain groups

00:15:05.820 of people were the social contracts in those societies immoral um so immoral is kind of in a

00:15:16.160 way begging the question of which moral system are we using obviously insofar as theirs were concerned it

00:15:20.820 wasn't uh for me personally i don't believe in any sort of like moral realism i don't believe in any kind

00:15:26.020 of like moral fact so i don't think i could evaluate from some objective frame of reference this thing is

00:15:31.340 absolutely morally correct or this thing is absolutely morally incorrect um as far as i'm aware i don't

00:15:36.400 believe that we have any organs to allow us to perceive any sort of moral fact in the world so i

00:15:41.140 think that moral systems are invented by people i think that we all have kind of shared intuitions

00:15:45.220 and so when we're writing like any kind of moral system i think what we're doing is we're kind of

00:15:49.180 leaning into the intuitions that people have and we're trying to write rules explaining kind of why

00:15:54.060 people feel the things they do as an analogy to that did you ever take any musical training

00:15:57.380 yes i was in the seventh grade and i was an idiot and instead of picking the guitar i picked the

00:16:03.320 trumpet okay it turns out girls like the guitar more than the trumpet true so for music there's

00:16:08.300 something called music theory which is a theory of explaining how music sounds away to a certain

00:16:12.200 person right a music theorist can't write and say this is going to sound good to you all a music

00:16:17.380 theory person can do is say well these things tend to sound good let's figure out the rules for why

00:16:22.400 they do and why they don't and i believe that morality is constructed in the same way so i'd be like

00:16:26.040 probably like a non-cognitivist school of thought under like a moral anti-realism i guess so to go

00:16:31.360 back when you ask me is something like objectively right or wrong i don't believe that there is an

00:16:35.060 objective right or wrong just like i don't think there's like an objective beautiful or an objective

00:16:38.960 best song or an objective anything like that yeah so when so like i would say it's evil to rape someone

00:16:48.000 it is wrong to do that and it is a fact that no one should ever do that full stop would you just say

00:16:55.480 rape makes you feel bad you don't like it you'd prefer people don't do that yeah that's essentially

00:17:01.900 the non-cognitivist position right because i don't think you can i don't believe there's a fact to be

00:17:06.680 observed my challenge would be is how do i observe a moral fact well i just think that we have a sense

00:17:12.600 of observing morality just like we have a sense of observing the natural world and it's not the matrix

00:17:16.860 we have an intuitive ability to do that and i have no i have no reason to deny that that ability to

00:17:23.740 exist that that ability exists i just just as i know the world around us is real even if i can't

00:17:29.560 prove that i know that it's an objective fact that it's wrong to rape children for example

00:17:34.040 so let's say that you had two people and they came together and just we were observing the natural world

00:17:39.620 and two people had a disagreement over if i dropped this cup you know will the cup go to the

00:17:44.140 ground or not right do we believe in gravity essentially um i think that if there was a

00:17:49.020 disagreement between those two people i think that we can run tests that appeal to our faculty where

00:17:54.500 we can god damn it brian there's a motorcycle outside is it a leaf blower no who knows we all

00:18:01.760 there's sense data that basically we can acquire from the real world and then it can assuming none of

00:18:05.780 us are psychotic or delusional we can come to an agreement over whether the cup will fall or not

00:18:09.440 if two of us were to analyze a situation um we can say like the rape of kids because that's a

00:18:14.500 pretty obviously wrong one for most people but if we go into harrier situations like say kyle

00:18:18.820 rittenhouse defending himself there's a disagreement there over whether or not you might have a right

00:18:23.220 to kill somebody based on them attacking you how do you observe the disagreement like how do you

00:18:27.760 figure how do you reconcile who's right or wrong if there's a moral fact there well just like in

00:18:31.980 general let's say there are facts of history uh just because we might disagree about which historical

00:18:37.860 facts are true or not we might not have access to all the information or make inferences we can

00:18:42.280 still say that you know it was a fact that the civil war happened for example even if we disagree

00:18:47.660 about what exactly caused it or something like that so when it comes to morality even if we disagree

00:18:53.040 about some the fact that there is disagreement about moral issues i think that shows there's

00:18:58.100 objective morality now as a religious person i do think there is ultimately a universal moral law

00:19:05.620 giver what people might call god that ultimately explains that but even if you didn't believe in

00:19:09.160 god and there are many moral realists who don't you could believe that well the fact that we the fact

00:19:15.260 that we talk about abortion we're not talking about abortion like we talk about um sports teams or talk

00:19:22.680 about fashion you know does this look good does that look good that's very subjective but it seems like

00:19:27.920 when we talk about abortion we can make moral progress we can get closer to having a better position

00:19:33.260 like i think america has made moral progress and getting into slavery giving women the right to

00:19:38.720 vote things like that uh but if moral but if there were no objective morals you couldn't call it

00:19:44.660 progress it would just be change just like how fashion changes yeah i agree but i mean moral progress is

00:19:50.280 begging the question that there is an objective morality right in order to make progress there must be

00:19:54.320 something you're progressing well let's let's get out of the basement and go back to abortion let's sure well i do

00:19:57.780 want to say one thing because you said you can have a disagreement over historical truth

00:20:01.300 again that truth are empirical things like i could uncover archaeologically like uh some item that

00:20:08.180 disproves or proves another theory that's fundamentally different i think than a disagreement over a moral

00:20:12.640 fact for instance two people somebody a woman says something slightly rude to her husband the husband

00:20:17.880 strikes the woman to discipline her two people come together and they say i disagree on whether or not

00:20:22.880 that's right or wrong what what where is the moral fact how do you actually determine concretely

00:20:27.500 who is right or wrong because for historical fact the answer is there right somehow there's some piece

00:20:32.560 of evidence you could find to prove yes this did happen and no this didn't but for a moral dispute how

00:20:36.760 do you reconcile that between two different people who disagree well i think what you would do is you

00:20:40.520 would start with the most basic intuitions that we can see are correct like just starting with uh you

00:20:47.620 ought to do good and avoid evil uh it's wrong to rape and torture someone because it's fun for you

00:20:55.340 uh courage is better than cowardice and these are just basement level things that people can see are

00:21:01.100 true just like we can see the natural world around us we can see the external world there might be some

00:21:05.120 colorblind people who can't see it like we do but that doesn't take away from the objective thing

00:21:10.280 let's go back i want to wait this is it's a i understand we can't go back but these i think

00:21:14.880 these parts are pretty important because it's going to inform a lot of this okay let's let's put a pin

00:21:18.140 in it because i want to i want to talk about your view about abortion though because i think

00:21:21.460 okay when it comes i think here's what i i think honestly happens in these it doesn't have to just be

00:21:26.560 abortion give me any moral dispute sure we'll say is all right here's moral issue x you have

00:21:32.660 your view i have my view and we critique and a lot of the ways we critique each other's views is

00:21:37.080 your view leads to these crazy consequences yeah but your view leads to crazy consequences

00:21:43.460 so then we then we kind of say okay whose view leads to kind of less crazy consequences and that

00:21:48.820 may be the more reasonable view we all told i think that happens a lot in moral discourse yeah so i want

00:21:55.060 so your view then would be this and then i'll talk about the consequences and i'll talk about just the

00:21:59.760 overall what i think is wrong with the view um that a person exists when you lose the immediate

00:22:07.840 ability to be conscious i guess when you permanently lose it like if you're in a persistent vegetative

00:22:12.740 state permanently you're no longer a person when you lose consciousness you're not a person anymore

00:22:17.280 when you lose it permanently so you start to be a person when you gain it prior to 20 weeks

00:22:22.840 there is no person there's no one there with a right to life in the fetus correct your view

00:22:29.800 so i have a few questions then uh would it be wrong to cause a healthy fetus to become permanently

00:22:37.640 unconscious no okay uh so would it be wrong to cause this permanent unconsciousness to use let's say

00:22:46.920 you could keep growing the fetus into an older uh body to use it for organ harvesting maybe as a

00:22:52.620 kind of sex doll even uh as long as it never became conscious or didn't have the fact never became

00:22:56.700 conscious okay related question but we'll circle back soon uh what are your thoughts on fake child

00:23:04.960 pornography using ai or virtual images oh um fake child pornography um i'm not going to have a strong

00:23:13.500 opinion on the on the action itself it's going to be consequential in nature in terms of like what

00:23:18.360 are the impacts of doing it so say you create a bunch and people stop actually abusing children i'd

00:23:23.480 probably be in favor of it um say you create a bunch and it leads to an increased harm of children

00:23:27.400 i'd probably oppose to you don't you have a practical objection not an in principle objection no

00:23:31.120 that wouldn't be like no yeah okay uh so that circles back so let's say we had people who took

00:23:36.140 fetuses made them permanently unconscious and made them infant toddler or child sex dolls

00:23:42.680 so we have you know so we have unconscious um infants and toddlers they were never conscious

00:23:49.240 they're used as child sex dolls uh your only objection to that practice would be if it caused

00:23:56.600 more pedophilia among other conscious correction yeah because i would say there's no no person is

00:24:02.320 being harmed there okay so child sex dolls uh could be on the table okay kind of although i would fight

00:24:09.120 the framing of this because child is intuition pumping the idea that it's a fully formed developed

00:24:13.260 human and i would never call a brainless thing fine uh yes so then i would say uh human human body

00:24:20.340 lacking a brain i would say you can do whatever you want a biological human organism uh that proceeds

00:24:26.560 through the child stages sure that is never conscious sure there we go all right um would it be wrong

00:24:33.440 to kill a newborn who has never been conscious um assuming it lacked the ability to be conscious sure

00:24:41.000 it's not or you can you can kill it there's nothing to kill you could end the existence of whatever that

00:24:45.960 is yes well suppose it didn't permanently lack the ability uh if we if we gave it um drugs or something

00:24:55.680 like that uh or maybe it'll naturally come out of it in a few months when you say come out of it um

00:25:01.920 we start to get into an area where you're like kind of um disintegrating my concept of consciousness so

00:25:08.860 i consider conscious experience to be an emergent property of the underlying structures of the brain

00:25:13.600 communicating with each other so if you're telling me what if you had all the underlying structures but

00:25:17.580 you didn't have that conscious experience it's a really hard one for me to conceptualize to say the

00:25:21.760 structures still have to develop i guess sure then it's an undeveloped yeah then i would say it's

00:25:25.120 free game for whatever yeah for example i think this came up a little bit in your dialogue with lila

00:25:29.680 um you have an anencephalic child who doesn't have an upper brain someone like jackson buell yeah

00:25:36.640 uh people can look that up online uh doctors said he'll probably dot most anencephalic children

00:25:41.660 the upper brain uh does not develop so you just the neural tube fails to close so you just have a lower

00:25:47.040 brain and jackson lived to be about five uh now his parents claimed that he did exhibit signs of

00:25:53.940 consciousness some other people might debate that i don't know but you would say that if he

00:25:58.820 if a newborn didn't you know never developed consciousness i mean i guess it's like a fetus

00:26:04.260 and never developed it the structures haven't developed yet in the brain okay uh here's one

00:26:11.140 that'd be interesting um suppose we had a drug that could uh so you take the anencephaly case

00:26:19.140 uh normally if you don't grow your upper if your brain consciousness doesn't develop it's never going

00:26:24.980 to develop suppose we had a drug in the future that could allow an anencephalic fetus uh to develop

00:26:32.840 consciousness but if we don't give it the drug it'll never be conscious uh does that human fetus

00:26:39.720 that human being biological human being would they have a right to that treatment um i don't think they

00:26:45.520 would have any rights yet because rights i would say are only afforded to persons i don't think fetuses

00:26:49.600 are afforded any rights so no it would not have a right to it no so even if we had a newborn

00:26:53.160 correct who could be conscious if we gave them medicine uh they don't have any kind of right to

00:27:00.540 that treatment no and i guess although again i would fight i would fight on the optics for me

00:27:05.340 because when you say newborn we're intuition pumping a normal healthy nine month fetus that's

00:27:09.700 now delivered but i would fight that whatever you're describing is a very inhuman a new well it

00:27:14.840 is a newly born human being that has a brain injury or a lack of parts of a brain right as a has it is a

00:27:22.300 newly born human being with a congenital cerebral defect okay and we could give this human being

00:27:32.040 medication for them to have a normal and healthy life but you're saying this human being would have

00:27:38.560 no right to it and i guess their parents couldn't wouldn't have a right to say this child ought to be

00:27:45.920 treated any more than somebody who has a dog that's injured would have a right to similar treatment

00:27:50.300 i mean they i mean the i mean you have a right to treat your animals right but well the question

00:27:56.420 of whether we as a human society will treat this infant will be similar is there some moral

00:28:00.280 compulsion like a health care system to provide emergency services or something yes yeah yeah no

00:28:03.740 i would say no okay so not provide no duty to provide medical care to newly born human beings who

00:28:12.260 have a brain defect kind of although again i'm going to fight because when you say newly born

00:28:17.160 human beings you're intuition pumping a normal healthy what do you mean what do you mean by

00:28:21.040 intuition when i say intuition pump what i mean is it's like would you do you think it's okay to

00:28:25.700 um rape a person that doesn't have a brain and then if i say well i guess it's a it's not barely a

00:28:31.780 person you're like okay so you're it's okay to rape people with brain injuries i would fight and i

00:28:35.280 would say well when you say people or person the intuition is when somebody thinks of a person they

00:28:39.560 think of like a normal healthy functioning person and then you're plugging in like all of the

00:28:43.240 normative baggage of raping somebody which is ordinarily we would all agree is an unethical

00:28:47.660 thing to do to a person or i sure or i could be in describing it accurately a newly born human being

00:28:55.860 because human being is a biological category most people have a deep intuition that newly born human

00:29:03.100 beings are persons even though they don't where does that intuition come from though it comes from

00:29:08.240 the moral sense that we have uh the same sense we have that people are persons regardless of their

00:29:13.840 skin color no i disagree i think it probably comes from us seeing human beings that are born

00:29:17.840 and the vast majority of them being healthy right if it was the case that only five percent of human

00:29:22.420 beings that were born you know come out with fully functioning brains that intuition could be

00:29:27.000 markedly different so that's the only reason why i fight on the newborn child with a brain injury

00:29:31.700 we're talking about an exceptional kind of like when pro um but like when pro-choice people

00:29:36.580 argue about um uh like abortions to save the life of the mother and like shouldn't this be legal

00:29:41.880 pro-lifers will usually point out well that's an exceptional circumstance a very rare case of

00:29:45.460 abortion right i would argue that whatever you're talking about would be a 0.00001 this is a very

00:29:50.080 rare i don't even know if these types of brain injuries exist when people are born except for like

00:29:53.060 the hydrocephalus or and well anencephaly is a real condition what i'm talking about is a

00:29:57.840 hypothetical example of we develop medicine to treat it sure and that's not as far-fetched as a brain

00:30:03.860 transplant or a teleporter i mean 150 years ago a hip replacement would be science fiction

00:30:09.320 and now we can do that that is true but i don't know if we've made any progress in terms of like

00:30:13.420 brain regrowth or transplants or but i mean who's to say it could happen in the future right i do have a

00:30:19.380 concern like when you say i am intuition pumping i agree with you people can have misleading examples

00:30:26.100 i'm trying to keep the language very clear here but i would say the way you use the term makes it sound

00:30:31.560 like intuition pumps are bad that's not traditionally how the term is used so for example the term comes

00:30:38.420 from the philosopher daniel dennett so he coined the term i think back in the 80s he wrote a book

00:30:42.900 in 2013 called intuition pumps and other tools for thinking he says this i coined the term in the first

00:30:49.260 of my public critiques of the philosopher john searle's famous chinese room thought experiment

00:30:53.300 some thinkers concluded i meant the term to be disparaging or dismissive on the contrary i love

00:30:59.840 intuition pumps that is some intuition pumps are excellent some are dubious and only a few are

00:31:05.520 downright deceptive so i agree with you someone could create a thought experiment that's deceptive

00:31:11.680 in its nature but the fact that i'm just describing what is happening to members of the human species

00:31:16.180 i don't think that's deceptive in any way sure and i partially agree uh so for instance if somebody says

00:31:22.500 why would you hit your own wife that makes about as much sense as keying your own car

00:31:26.560 we could argue that there is a pump there that i think is like the fact that you would compare your

00:31:30.980 wife to a car maybe demonstrates that there's another issue going on well yeah i would say that

00:31:34.960 the example has a mistaken set of assumptions built into it which you can do for any thought

00:31:38.860 experiment but the only reason why i'm fighting on this particular point is because oftentimes

00:31:42.360 when we say a person or a child there is a feature in our mind of what a feature complete

00:31:47.580 person or child is but when we say a person or child absent things that are typically essential to

00:31:52.660 that person or child it feels a little uh iffy at the end to say okay so you'd be okay doing this

00:31:57.180 to a person or a child um i'm okay with it i'm only marking it for the audience because i know that

00:32:02.000 the way that you're phrasing it makes it sound a certain type of way and i want to fight the

00:32:05.140 rhetorical uh here's another question then um now you would agree though that infants have

00:32:10.780 consciousness they're they're aware of things uh we'll talk we talk about the level of consciousness

00:32:16.340 um so it'd be wrong to kill them what if a human being was injured and because of their injury

00:32:23.080 they had um they permanently were at the level of consciousness of a newborn would you say that

00:32:30.500 that's still a person i believe so my understanding is that like once you once those parts in the brain

00:32:35.000 are communicating and you've got some level of conscious experience you can it's it's there it's

00:32:39.400 not again like i said i don't believe that you go from like lizard consciousness to dog consciousness

00:32:43.200 to ape consciousness to human consciousness like once it's there it's there it's got to be in that

00:32:46.800 bucket of human conscious experiences even if it might be relatively subdued do you think a three

00:32:53.080 year old human being is more conscious of the outside world than a newborn infant um whether or not it's

00:33:01.520 more or less conscious i don't know if that's as much part of the development of the brain versus the

00:33:06.320 acquisition of sense data so if you take a one month old and for some reason it's like a little bit

00:33:11.960 developmentally delayed in terms of like it's the brain growth but it can still collect and accrue

00:33:16.760 a whole bunch of experiences then that level of development might be enough to gain uh a surprising

00:33:23.120 understanding of the world i mean obviously it's going to be cognitive impairment but i don't know

00:33:26.720 if like the three-year-old is more conscious because they have a higher level of consciousness

00:33:30.580 or if they've just been spending more time collecting data about the world like i would say a 25

00:33:34.640 year old is probably more conscious of the world than a 10 year old but i don't know if that's because

00:33:38.420 like the 25 year old developmentally or consciously um from an experience is like more mature as they've

00:33:43.840 collected more data and i agree with you a 25 year old will have more conscious experiences but i'm

00:33:49.520 talking about the very act of perceiving the outside world uh i would say that a five-year-old and a 25

00:33:57.420 year old um it's pretty similar time might run a little bit slower for the five-year-old they haven't

00:34:02.820 been around as long that's why summer break felt forever when we were kids and now it goes by fast

00:34:08.140 and we're parents yeah but i i mean i have three kids i've seen the infant stage all the time they're

00:34:14.980 they're basically eating machines pooping machines they don't they can't even they can't recognize you

00:34:21.660 just by sight would you agree that an infant and then a one-year-old their brain has to get bigger

00:34:28.680 and develop more neurons and synaptic connections to have more different kinds of experiences wouldn't

00:34:35.240 they i don't know if i would say it's like i don't think i would call them an inhuman conscious though

00:34:39.880 prior to that this is probably just like part of the development of a conscious experience but like

00:34:43.680 my understanding is that even in the womb i believe um uh children whatever you would call it like a

00:34:49.400 third trimester developed thing can identify differences in languages for instance so i don't

00:34:54.320 know i think i take issues sometimes with the framing that like a one-month-old is like or here's

00:34:58.640 the third trimester fetus hears different sounds can differentiate different languages um i believe

00:35:04.400 that like on newborns i think the city was like i think they tested it was like one three and five

00:35:08.960 days i think but you can um test like the uh i think it's they hook something up to the head and

00:35:13.840 they see the differences between the native language a non-native language and then gibberish and i believe

00:35:18.920 that newborn like within a week can already differentiate different sounds that are not part of the native

00:35:23.680 language so i don't think like a one-day-old is like just a blob that has no concept of anything

00:35:27.680 i think even in the womb like fetuses are already starting to accrue data about the outside world i

00:35:31.520 agree with that but do you think a dog could probably understand like dogs can understand the content of

00:35:37.200 words like sit and stay um i don't know i'm not entirely sure about that i'm pretty agnostic on

00:35:43.040 the conscious experience of animals i feel like human conscious experience is a really sophisticated

00:35:46.880 sapient thing i don't know if i would say that animals have anything even resembling our experience

00:35:50.720 i'm not entirely sure i agree it's not like you or me but have you ever had a dog lots yeah did you

00:35:57.360 ever train them with commands yeah okay so it seems like like an infant that they don't recognize like

00:36:06.000 verbal commands would be great if they did uh or like the example i gave with um with pigs uh you can

00:36:13.360 people can google this online pig plays video games uh you know they have pigs they have to move the

00:36:18.800 cursor to get it onto the blue dot and they get a treat and they can do that more than just what

00:36:23.040 random chance would allow like pigs seem pretty smart uh they i think it'd be fair to say they have

00:36:30.400 more of a conscious awareness of the world than like what a newborn infant has i don't know if that's

00:36:35.920 true um i think that smart is a word that we use but i don't know if like ability to problem solve or

00:36:42.800 do pavlovian associations is the same type of thing as having a robust sapien experience that humans

00:36:48.720 have i do agree that dogs and pigs and um dolphins especially can learn really complicated intricate

00:36:54.080 patterns but i don't know if they have the same like semantic understanding of the world or type

00:36:59.360 of conscious sapien experience that humans do even if they can do really complicated pattern

00:37:03.280 recognition essentially yes because this is what i'm trying to figure out here is that so let's say

00:37:07.520 someone's permanently at the newborn level so they're very disabled uh so in that case do you think

00:37:13.360 there's people if that person that person might be on a feeding tube because they might be really

00:37:17.680 hard to manage imagine a 35 year old who acts like a newborn might have to restrain them maybe can't

00:37:23.600 spoon feed them might put them on a feeding tube people in that situation might be very difficult and

00:37:29.280 they're not going to have rational experiences like you or me do you think a lot of people would

00:37:33.440 want to withhold food in that case um possibly but i think probably social contract and everything

00:37:39.840 with the agreement that we have we wouldn't do that to old people that need a lot of help with

00:37:42.560 themselves so we don't do that to people with um extraordinary mental disabilities like low

00:37:46.080 functioning autistic people or something so this is this would probably fall in the category of

00:37:49.760 protected people due to the rights that we afford everybody and so you don't have a principled

00:37:54.160 objection against the social contract being widened to include unborn human beings you just

00:38:01.120 personally don't agree with it um would i have a problem with it being widened i mean

00:38:08.160 i would because i would disagree with the widening of it i disagree with the moral justification for

00:38:11.680 it i guess with a metaphysical justification for it because i don't think that i don't think a one

00:38:15.200 self thing is the same thing as a as an adult or even a third trimester it's not this it is i agree

00:38:21.280 it's not the same i don't think it's the same thing in kind it's it is well it is the same biological

00:38:27.360 kind you're saying that it's moral value changes but as a moral anti-realist you can't believe moral

00:38:33.920 value exists subjectively it's just your opinion yeah but just because you're an anti-realist doesn't

00:38:38.080 mean that you can't have opinions on you just don't believe that those opinions are rooted in a moral

00:38:41.680 fact right right you're entitled to your opinions however incorrect they may be correct and you're

00:38:46.800 entitled to your opinions but only if they come but you can't you can't say they're incorrect

00:38:50.480 well because you have a i mean but if you would argue with a muslim scholar they would disagree

00:38:54.080 right or a jewish jewish scholar um or any other type of religion right so the fact that we

00:38:59.760 disagree shows that there's some kind of objective truth we're all trying to to seek out that is a

00:39:04.640 total non sequitur there are people that disagree with whether vegeto or gogeto would win in a fight

00:39:08.960 in dragon ball gt but that doesn't make them any more real just because two people disagree over a

00:39:13.440 fictional thing doesn't necessarily mean that fictional thing might be real i don't hold people

00:39:16.960 morally blameworthy based on the position they hold of who would win in a fight superman or goku

00:39:21.920 i would just like to point out i think don't whatever you're gonna say is wrong

00:39:24.400 well i'm pretty sure dragon ball gt is not canon just letting you know that's an objective fact

00:39:30.880 just letting you know well but if we argue over whether it is or isn't canon apparently it becomes

00:39:35.600 an objective fact i reckon we ought to stick to uh the abortion topic but um but no no but i will

00:39:40.320 take issue because you said that a couple times now just because two people disagree over something

00:39:44.240 doesn't necessarily mean there's an objective fact of the matter right i agree but also it doesn't

00:39:48.000 follow that just because people disagree that there is no objective fact well that no i never used that

00:39:52.880 though what i said was the inability to reconcile a disagreement means that there might not be an

00:39:57.360 objective fact because there's no sensory organ that we have to perceive moral fact again to the

00:40:02.960 one example husband hits a wife how can anybody agree or disagree whether that ought to be a way

00:40:08.160 that we discipline people for instance you said you the situation you described is underdeveloped i'd

00:40:12.960 ask why did he hit his wife how exactly did he hit his wife uh if he hit her because she's uh gone

00:40:20.480 crazy because of some kind of drug and is going to attack she hits him uh he hits her because she

00:40:24.880 disrespects him in public she says something like um my husband doesn't uh make the bed in the morning

00:40:30.400 pisses me off and then he slaps her in public and i would say that that is wrong even when society once

00:40:34.880 said it was right and then but then another person disagrees with you how do you reconcile the

00:40:39.680 disagreement well we would we would go and once again i want to get too far away from abortion here but

00:40:43.920 we would go back to our basic framework for understanding morality so if you look at natural

00:40:50.000 law for example or just even basic intuitions we say natural law yeah well natural law is just

00:40:56.640 things have a nature they have a way that where they flourish uh we can see a good tree versus a bad

00:41:02.480 tree non-morally sure do you get worried that you run into weird naturalistic fallacies or assumptions

00:41:08.480 there for instance it's natural for very young people to have sex before marriage naturalistically

00:41:12.400 right sure so how does natural law how do you reconcile that with biblical law well i'm not

00:41:16.320 even bringing the bible into this so like when i would look at let's say like what our organs are

00:41:20.240 for i would say okay well what is sex uh what does it do uh yeah it creates these pleasurable feelings

00:41:26.080 but it also involves the exchange of gametes and that creates uh a biological human being and

00:41:32.800 people are going to guess disagree when it has moral value but allowed to continue to develop

00:41:36.720 normally it will develop and it's a very needy human being nearly everybody agrees that when

00:41:40.800 it's born sure this needy thing is going to die unless somebody takes care of it i agree but

00:41:45.520 backing up there's a lot of other manipulations of sexual organs that don't involve the creation

00:41:49.360 of a child sure but i don't i don't want to uh derail us in talking about sexual morality though

00:41:54.400 that is an issue when it comes to abortion i do think i will real quick just because it's a little

00:41:59.120 because i understand that you've set up a lot of questions for i will say intuition pumping um that

00:42:04.160 kind of make my position sound insane you can ask me questions too that's why well but these are the

00:42:08.240 questions that i'm more interested in because you come from a position of moral authority where you

00:42:12.080 believe that you have a set of objective facts you want to argue in favor of but my argument to you

00:42:15.840 would be i don't believe that you can ever prove an objective fact without diving into the bible

00:42:19.440 there's no way that we can reconcile moral fact disagreements because we don't have a sensory

00:42:24.080 organ to perceive it we can argue over color we can argue over gravity we can argue over things

00:42:28.240 we can perceive but morality we can't perceive we just have how we feel about it and i don't think

00:42:31.760 it's a satisfying answer for a lot of people and i would just say if that were true there's really no point in

00:42:36.480 us talking about this at all right now like you'd have to say it's not an objective fact like is it

00:42:42.240 an objective fact that the state should allow women to have abortions is it an objective fact that the

00:42:47.200 state should well that should is doing a lot of work there shouldn't with regards to my purported morals

00:42:52.480 i would say yes it is that they should be allowed to have an abortion well it's but it's not objective

00:42:58.160 you're just saying i would really like it without them being objective right or no well what you're saying

00:43:03.840 here is that you would just like if the state did what you thought was good correct what you agreed

00:43:07.840 with what yes correct or not even though you thought was good because that's a factual category

00:43:12.640 what makes you feel good if the world were that way correct okay that's an opinion it is okay that's

00:43:20.320 why we argue with each other is to our but i believe at the end of the day we're engaged in the same

00:43:24.000 game it just i think that you feel like you're standing on more solid ground than you actually have

00:43:27.680 i do think so let me here's another question do you think post-abortive women who think they are

00:43:33.040 murderers or women who mourn miscarriage like it's the death of a baby that they're deluded um

00:43:42.800 not necessarily no do you think i think that when they're i think that when they're mourning i think

00:43:48.480 that they're mourning um a missed opportunity rather than the thing itself i think but if you asked them

00:43:55.200 um women who've had abortions and say i'm a murderer or a woman who miscarries this is my baby

00:44:02.000 died i think most of them wouldn't phrase it because some of those women may have also gone

00:44:06.400 through periods of infertility and i'm sure they would say their period of infertility was different

00:44:12.240 than the loss than the death of the human being that was residing in their womb

00:44:17.360 so i guess let me put it to you this way what i'm saying is that i think if a woman and miscarries or

00:44:21.040 if she has an abortion and later comes to have regrets about it i think that the feeling she

00:44:25.200 has is probably not like oh my god there was that three-week fetus and i terminated it she's probably

00:44:29.600 thinking like i there was a baby that could have existed i could have delivered a baby i would have

00:44:32.880 had a child there was a person there that's now gone do you think those women ever say i i killed

00:44:37.600 my baby not something will probably yeah okay probably say that do you think a woman who says i'm a

00:44:42.880 murderer because i had my period and i expelled an egg from my body she's like i murdered a human

00:44:49.520 being do you think she's deluded um if you thought you murdered a human being because you had a

00:44:55.600 period yeah you you passed an egg it didn't get fertilized and that egg died she's probably as a

00:45:02.800 loaded word but i said she's probably deluded yeah why is she deluded um i'm not even sure what she i

00:45:09.280 mean periods are part of normal human menstruation are you crying every month because you're murdering

00:45:15.200 my point is that i i agree but i would also i i would take the same intuitive answer and i would

00:45:21.600 say does a woman cry or feel bad when she accidentally has a slightly rougher period she

00:45:26.080 doesn't realize that she's miscarried because there's a lot of miscarriages happen early early

00:45:30.720 on when women don't even know they're pregnant yet no i agree i am not saying that uh because an

00:45:35.920 unborn human being is a person that everyone who miscarries will react properly or react uh with intense

00:45:44.720 grief okay there's lots of born people that die we don't shed a tier four at all there's people

00:45:48.080 dying right now as we're talking and you know okay but my point is that if we if the unborn if a human

00:45:54.880 embryo prior to 20 weeks would you agree that it has the same moral status as an ovum an egg um

00:46:04.560 same i mean they're different things but yeah roughly the same i guess yeah as a no moral status yeah

00:46:09.920 okay so then i would say that if a woman is we would consider her deluded or off the reservation

00:46:15.680 or hey there's nothing to get worked up over here it was just an ovum you're you're operating with

00:46:20.480 really mistaken sense of the world it seems like under your view we should have that same mentality

00:46:26.880 towards post-abortive women prior to 20 weeks but i think my view better aligns with most people's

00:46:33.040 intuitions that the death of a human embryo or fetus is far far different morally than the death

00:46:41.760 of an ovum but they're not valuing that fetus they're valuing what it would become and again i

00:46:45.520 agree with what you're saying but i think that you're skipping over really important steps if i

00:46:49.840 steal ten thousand dollars from somebody did i steal a hundred thousand dollars from them i didn't but

00:46:55.280 if i still ten thousand dollars from somebody when they're 20 maybe when they're 25 they're like oh god

00:46:59.760 like if i would have invested this or 27 over seven years maybe i could have had a hundred thousand

00:47:03.920 dollars so when they're 25 they might feel really bad they feel like i should be a hundred thousand

00:47:08.640 dollars richer but that doesn't change the fact that seven years earlier i only stole ten thousand

00:47:12.640 dollars not a hundred thousand dollars so if somebody loses a fetus they might feel bad because

00:47:16.720 now they're missing the child that could have been much the same that if somebody would have

00:47:20.000 connected with the right person earlier in life maybe they could have had a wonderful marriage

00:47:23.040 but just because they're mourning the fact that they didn't meet a person at the right time

00:47:25.600 doesn't mean they're suddenly divorced the marriage never happens so you're saying when

00:47:29.440 somebody grieves over a miscarriage at let's say you know 12 weeks that's the same grief as like

00:47:37.920 misconnections on craigslist like oh he could have been the one yeah okay i'll leave it up to our

00:47:43.680 listeners to see if that is plausible um and the last one i guess um just to make sure you're on the

00:47:50.320 record of this uh do you agree with laws that would make it illegal to kill wanted fetuses like let's

00:47:55.920 say a woman's pregnant she's really excited her boyfriend is like i wanted to get that abortion

00:48:00.560 and you know he gives her he slips her a drug or he like kicks her in the stomach or something to kill

00:48:05.120 the baby kill sorry to kill the unborn human being uh and that human being dies or he kills the

00:48:12.320 pregnant woman and this 12 week fetus dies along with her in like 35 38 states and under federal law

00:48:21.120 that would be homicide for killing that unborn human being do you not agree with those laws prior

00:48:27.440 to 20 weeks now okay all righty so and like i said and i'm fine to pitch back over to you you can i mean

00:48:34.560 you can tarry i have more for you you can interrogate me also i want to recap your view and what it leads

00:48:40.240 to um well just just to recap it's permissible to kill infants who have not been conscious yet uh

00:48:49.600 to kill toddlers oh yeah what if toddler loses all of his memories and they're never and they're not

00:48:55.120 going to come back he's at the same stage as like a 19 week fetus um and and it there that's a it's

00:49:03.680 impossible that's like asking me like are you killed when you teleport on star trek i don't think i have

00:49:07.840 an answer for that i don't think that's it's a very difficult hypothetical i think it challenges

00:49:11.040 the concept of identity but i don't know if that gets into like a human life or not a human life

00:49:14.720 we're talking about deleting somebody's memory and resetting their brain to 19 weeks but why does it

00:49:21.520 because i guess well i guess here is what if i gave you this argument let me i have here because your

00:49:29.360 symmetry the symmetry argument you're making i feel like it is um i can make a better one that runs on the

00:49:37.360 same principles okay so what about this argument a person stops i don't endorse this for everything

00:49:44.480 but let's just do it for this this discussion okay a person stops existing when future conscious

00:49:51.120 experience becomes impossible for that individual okay do you agree with that when future conscious

00:49:58.480 experience becomes impossible for that individual yeah they lose the ability to have a conscious yeah

00:50:02.160 sure all right so a person stops existing when future conscious experience becomes impossible for

00:50:07.840 that individual um number two a person exists as long as future conscious experiences are probable for

00:50:16.640 that individual well they and they and they had one prior yes because otherwise that sentence is

00:50:24.080 meaningless why don't why don't i add this writer to it then uh and any conscious experiences they have

00:50:30.400 must be psychologically connected to any previous experiences uh maybe it's just the sentence that

00:50:38.080 you gave a person exists as long as future conscious experience is possible so you've got the future

00:50:43.280 conscious experience on there but when you say a person exists that person i think begs the conscious

00:50:49.200 experience because i don't know what it means for a person to exist if there is no conscious experience

00:50:53.840 yet i'm just trying to do the exact same symmetry argument you're doing that if you stop existing

00:50:59.040 at the if you were an individual okay and you stop existing when for this individual

00:51:07.360 future conscious experiences are impossible correct then why can't we say then the other one would be

00:51:14.160 for this individual this individual is a person as long as future conscious experiences are probable

00:51:24.000 yeah as long as you but you're when you're making the graph and the math thing you have to have the

00:51:27.680 filled in circle and then the ray it's just saying like look this person future conscious experiences

00:51:32.560 they're impossible you are not a person correct so the symmetry for that and in fact i'm actually

00:51:38.320 being generous because the symmetry would not be improbable it'd be possible sure so it my point would

00:51:44.640 just be then a person if a person stops existing when future conscious experience becomes impossible

00:51:51.760 why can't we say a person exists as long as the future experiences are possible and a person starts

00:52:02.080 existing at the first moment those experiences are possible i think that is my position it isn't

00:52:10.800 because i would say so for example if somebody uh ends up in a persistent vegetative state

00:52:19.200 uh they've lost their immediate capacity to have conscious experiences but some people do come out of

00:52:26.480 persistent vegetative states okay all right so the point is not that they're able to have conscious

00:52:32.320 experiences it's just that at some point in the future they will be able to do that okay okay so then

00:52:39.920 wouldn't it follow then for that individual even when they were an embryo they're in the same position

00:52:44.480 at some point in the future they'll have conscious experiences i feel like your rejoinder is just going to be

00:52:49.600 the pvs person has the machinery for it the embryo doesn't but i just don't see how that's relevant

00:52:55.200 to the symmetry here because the when you say the fetus will in the future it hasn't yet there's no

00:53:01.040 person yet a person in a vegetative state or a coma there is a person to speak of if i have a coma right

00:53:06.960 now you can say stephen was a person and he might have a future conscious experience if i haven't even

00:53:12.160 existed yet there's no stephen to even speak of right there's nothing there to speak of yeah but

00:53:16.480 every being with conscious experiences will have a first experience correct and i think that happens

00:53:22.000 at 20 to 28 weeks do you think a one cell organism is having an experience no it's not do you think a

00:53:27.200 20 cell organism is having an experience but i would say what makes you a person is not the moment you

00:53:32.320 have the experience but that you're the kind of being who can have those experiences just as someone

00:53:38.880 who is brain dead is the kind of being who will never have those experiences an embryo is between

00:53:44.800 a yeah what's interesting an embryo and a corpse a corpse the difference is a corpse is a human

00:53:50.160 organism that has lost organic unity okay the parts don't work together for the good of the whole

00:53:56.400 and so it will decompose okay it will lose composition it will fall apart uh an embryo is

00:54:03.920 a living organism its parts work together to grow other parts when it becomes sophisticated enough it

00:54:09.680 will grow a brain to take over to keep development going that's only with the help of the mother though

00:54:15.840 right well all of us need our mom's help when we're little we need to be fed we need to be uh nothing

00:54:20.960 else past birth needs to be connected biologically to another thing right so whatever definition you give

00:54:26.240 of the zygote the single cell with the union i'm gonna i would argue you could give that same

00:54:30.960 definition for a sperm or an or an egg you can argue that a sperm or an egg on its own will never

00:54:35.520 develop anything the sperm or the egg need an egg or a sperm however the fetus will never develop in

00:54:40.720 anything it needs the sustenance from the mother right so here's the difference uh i believe that

00:54:45.920 something is an organism if you can give it time nutrition and a proper environment and it has the

00:54:52.880 capacity to develop into a mature member of a species and it only needs those three things

00:54:57.840 time nutrition proper environment however great but that's entirely arbitrary why i could it's a

00:55:04.960 definition of an organism it's different that's why sperm and egg and cancer cells they are body parts you

00:55:10.880 give them time nutrients and environment they'll always be that same type of thing they cannot develop

00:55:16.720 it depends on how we define environment right because a sperm put in the environment of an egg will

00:55:21.440 eventually join and become as it grows with a inside the womb into something like a human eventually

00:55:27.520 right right but i would say that when the sperm and the egg combine the sperm and egg no longer

00:55:32.800 exist anymore they've undergone a substantial change they're defined as being what do you think is more

00:55:37.760 different a sperm or a one-celled organism from a nine-month baby what do you think is more different

00:55:43.600 there wait come again what is yeah there's one sperm or one egg what's more different the one sperm

00:55:49.440 the one egg to the zygote or the zygote to the nine-month fetus they're diff they are different in a

00:55:57.600 myriad of ways so but your argument you're saying that that nine-month fetus is more in common with

00:56:02.720 the single cell zygote than a sperm or an egg has with a single cell nine a nine-month fetus and zygote

00:56:09.280 are the same kind of thing because the words zygote and fetus if you look them up would say this is the

00:56:15.360 stage of development in the life of a human being so a nine-month fetus and a zygote are very different

00:56:20.480 one's going to have billions of more cells for example but a sperm and egg and a zygote the

00:56:25.360 difference there is greater because we're not talking about degree like a zygote and a fetus

00:56:30.080 they're different in degrees more cells more abilities but the sperm egg and the the human embryo

00:56:36.560 they're different in kind these are organs their body parts they're not a whole body i understand what

00:56:42.480 you're saying i just i don't know if um i'm i'm pushing you on the arbitrariness of you're saying

00:56:48.880 a difference in kind because that single cell organism is nothing in kind it's got genes it's

00:56:56.480 got you know a genetic profile well without the nutrients from the mom it's it'll grow into two

00:57:00.960 four eight cells and then what die so in your world the in kind of that if you don't if you don't give

00:57:07.200 nutrients to an infant what will happen to them um the infant could die as well could or will but

00:57:13.200 that conscious experience is already there so it escapes my issue no but i'm saying that the

00:57:18.080 point you're making i don't see how it shows that the embryo is not a person or doesn't have moral

00:57:22.080 value just because i'm just saying yeah because your age or you have a strange definition of time

00:57:26.800 nutrition and proper environment um and then you are drawing an arbitrary border around i'm saying

00:57:32.320 that's what makes something an organism yeah but we're not arguing over something being an organism

00:57:38.080 or not right we're arguing over when something gets personhood yeah and i'm saying persons are

00:57:42.720 kinds of organisms a person is a kind of being capable of of rational existence well yeah it's a kind of being

00:57:52.400 capable of rational existence but though that stops when the being is dead correct because it the being

00:57:58.800 doesn't exist anymore it's gone back to body parts well it does exist or what do you mean it doesn't

00:58:02.960 exist i would say that what part stops existing the organic unity so when you are dead so if you um

00:58:11.840 when i die however you want to define that let's say well that's pretty important it is important but

00:58:16.720 just because we can't define the moment when somebody dies we know the difference between dead

00:58:20.960 people and living people dead people uh their bodies start to decompose because their blood's not

00:58:26.720 being pumped it's not being oxygenated the parts aren't working together for the good of the whole

00:58:31.200 uh embry from fertilization onward a human organism has this my point is just that human organisms are

00:58:38.720 persons because they belong to a rational kind i really i guess let me put it out here this is what

00:58:43.840 i think when it comes down to the abortion debate i think there's really only three defensible views

00:58:50.160 and yours is and yours is not one of them uh there just to be clear on that just real quick is

00:58:54.240 he's a human organisms are part of a rational kind i agree with you yes we're just fighting over if

00:58:59.840 the brackets extend to the 20 weeks to zero weeks basically right i do agree with that statement but

00:59:05.280 the statement is begging the question of what is a human order i'm saying you don't need the immediate

00:59:09.440 capacity you don't need the immediate capacity to be conscious to be a person because i think you're

00:59:16.960 still a person uh even if you have a brain injury and you've lost that ability temporarily uh

00:59:23.680 i believe and just what the examples that i gave earlier i think that most people would say

00:59:27.680 it is wrong to take a healthy fetus permanently make them unconscious and do god knows what with them

00:59:35.120 and the only i think the only thing that can explain why that's wrong is because that human fetus

00:59:40.240 has a right to properly develop in virtue of being a person and i think it's a very strong moral intuition

00:59:45.440 most people would share sure do you think that if um do you think if it was the case that a fetus

00:59:51.360 were to grow um 8 16 32 to 64 cells in size and then it had some kind of deformation or it wasn't

00:59:59.440 able to develop past that point do you think we have a moral obligation to deliver the 64 cell organism

01:00:04.560 and then keep it alive in a dish for as long as we can assuming we could deliver it i think we have a

01:00:08.800 moral obligation to provide medical care to sick humans yeah okay so that's why i gave the example like

01:00:14.560 we provide um spina bifida treatments even i think we could do it possibly before the 20-week cutoff like

01:00:20.640 we could start having medical technology for uh fetuses before 20 weeks sure i'm not i'm not to

01:00:28.640 be clear i'm not talking about any of that i just to be very very very clear what i'm saying is a

01:00:32.480 woman is having trouble maybe the pregnancy is not going okay but we have the ability to keep

01:00:37.040 any organism alive in a petri dish for as long as you want you would say there's a moral obligation to

01:00:41.840 safely deliver using a microscope and tweezers or whatever a 64 cell organism and put it in a petri

01:00:47.200 dish and then provide nutrients and keep that thing alive until the end of its natural

01:00:50.480 no i think that you should provide proportionate medical care so for example my wife and i were

01:00:55.600 dealing with miscarriage like our child almost miscarried we we rushed to get progesterone to

01:01:01.520 inject her with it it's it's thick as concrete it's rough to administer but we were doing that to save

01:01:06.400 the life of that actual child who might have been only a few cells more than 64 because most people figure

01:01:12.320 it out it's a lot older than that um actually i have an interesting question wait wait no no no

01:01:18.400 wait wait we can ask the question write it down but because you used a word here to escape that

01:01:21.840 wait on the book can you show me what the one week thing looks like yeah sure or what's the

01:01:25.440 earliest picture the earliest yeah sure i've got that right here um here yeah this would be this guy

01:01:33.520 so i'm asking if you have to deliver that so this would be a notice yeah this is a new human being

01:01:38.560 yep right here so if we had the technology to deliver that and the care was quite simple you

01:01:43.120 just water the dish and maybe put a couple of nutrients in the dish and you could keep that

01:01:47.280 alive for five to ten years you'd be just as morally obligated to keep that alive in a petri dish

01:01:51.600 than you would for a child that might be born a little bit unhealthy keeping that alive i don't

01:01:55.440 know if we're morally obligated to sustain the life of a human being by putting them essentially in a

01:01:59.920 freezer freezer it'd be a petri dish you could play music for whatever you want probably wouldn't do

01:02:04.480 very much good at that stage but the music i would sure but but your position because now you're

01:02:10.160 because you're relying on human intuition a lot you're trying to say that like it's so obvious

01:02:13.680 that there's a life but now when i've challenged you to putting that thing in a petri dish and

01:02:16.640 watering it if i were to ask you the same question about let's say a child is born and it's only going

01:02:20.240 to live to be six months to one year old right i'm a parent you're a parent both of us would probably

01:02:24.320 say yeah do everything you can for it you can't just kill it even if it's going to die at an early

01:02:27.680 age right now i'm asking you for the 64 cell organism we have the same obligation for that in a

01:02:32.080 petri dish yeah but you could have all these examples where we don't know what to do what

01:02:34.560 if they said you know hey destiny for your child we don't know if we can save them but if you put

01:02:38.400 them in this cryo tank in 200 years we think they'll come up with a cure i agree it would be

01:02:43.280 hard but that's why to quote you earlier it's just a hypothetical so earlier you asked me about a

01:02:46.880 child born missing parts of its brain that we could inject a drug to give it more of a brain in the

01:02:50.000 future that's a pretty crazy hypothetical so i'm asking you an equally crazy hypothetical a 64 cell

01:02:54.800 organism is born do we have an obligation to keep it alive in a petri dish and definitely because some

01:02:58.880 hypotheticals are going to be closer to reality than others uh brain transplants and swaps are

01:03:05.120 pretty far away cryogenetics is closer but still not quite there uh i feel like the example i gave is

01:03:12.560 just is it wrong to take a healthy fetus and cause them to be permanently unconscious that's pretty i mean

01:03:21.440 we lobotomize born people it's not that far out of the road lobotomies do not mean a loss of

01:03:24.720 consciousness when you say healthy fetus it implies healthy functioning brain function so

01:03:28.240 right i'm saying a lot of words before 20 weeks there's no person there you could destroy the

01:03:32.000 brain the developing brain correct there's no problem yeah but in your world if a 64 cell thing

01:03:37.600 was born it needs to be kept alive in a petri dish until natural metabolic function cease no we should

01:03:42.080 provide medical care for human beings prior to birth we might disagree about what kind of care that is

01:03:47.280 let's take for example though fetal alcohol syndrome okay now under your view here's what i'm i'm

01:03:53.680 curious about um you've given the analogy before that drinking while pregnant uh that doesn't harm

01:04:00.560 an individual it harms a person in the future like if you hang a piano and it's got withering wires

01:04:07.760 and it's going to fall on bob in three days yeah it's bad because it's going to fall on him in three

01:04:12.320 days and i guess the analogy there is like when the child's born eventually they're going to figure out

01:04:17.360 why am i not like the other kids you know that they're going to figure you know the harm is later

01:04:21.120 i guess than instead of when you were drinking before correct okay uh is a woman let's say a

01:04:27.680 woman's diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome and the the this human being has wait can you clarify

01:04:32.720 like sorry the woman yeah the not the woman the the the child the human fetus has fetal alcohol

01:04:37.760 syndrome okay uh is she morally obligated to abort that fetus and start over um is the fetus past 20

01:04:45.440 weeks no um is she morally obligated to abort a pre 20 week fetus knowing if she does nothing a human

01:04:55.280 being under your view with fetal alcohol syndrome will come into existence

01:04:58.400 i'm i would lean towards no why but it would be close because i don't know under what circumstances

01:05:13.840 would you be morally obligated to terminate a pre um i don't think that's a level of harm that justifies

01:05:21.360 it like for instance if a child was to be born with any number maybe it could have uh huntington's disease

01:05:26.160 or a taste sex anything else would we morally obligate people to abort or down syndrome or any

01:05:29.760 kind of i don't know if you could morally obligate people to abort those things i think that's i think

01:05:34.240 it gets into a weird uh eugenic state territory do you think it's wrong but do you think it's wrong for

01:05:39.200 someone to um is it wrong for someone to drink to excess because they don't care if the fetus gets fetal

01:05:46.960 alcohol syndrome yes then what's the difference if that's wrong why wouldn't it be wrong to refuse to

01:05:52.640 abort that child human being i mean you can do future harm to something and it's wrong but that

01:05:58.640 doesn't necessarily mean that that thing uh has to be terminated like i think these two things are

01:06:03.040 disconnected right but i'm saying that in both cases the end result is the same you do something

01:06:10.480 and it causes a being with a disability to come into existence uh and you're saying well yeah it's it's

01:06:16.720 wrong to drink well i guess we say here is it wrong to cause a fetus to have fetal alcohol syndrome if

01:06:22.000 you're planning to get an abortion at 12 weeks anyways okay so it sounds like there that'd be

01:06:28.880 to make through the piano analogy is it wrong to put a piano in a building for it to fall over in

01:06:32.880 three days if you don't think a person is going to be underneath the building no well let me give

01:06:35.920 you to the piano analogy suppose you have the piano the only way to keep it from hitting bob is to cut

01:06:42.880 the wire early so it drops on bob's shopping cart yeah bob's a homeless man push his shopping cart

01:06:48.240 around so it's either going to destroy because that's more like pregnancy then the piano is

01:06:52.640 either going to destroy harm bob the person or harm the non-person the shopping cart it seems like you

01:06:58.720 only have two choices there would you say there you're obligated to destroy the shopping cart

01:07:05.600 um where does the obligation to destroy the shopping cart from come from i don't understand that

01:07:11.520 bob is pushing he's pushing his shopping cart and you hung that well here well here we cannot even

01:07:17.520 without the analogy okay because i'm following you on the fetal alcohol syndrome thing we can agree that

01:07:20.800 it's wrong for i think we both agree it would be wrong to cause harm to a future person by drinking

01:07:25.680 alcohol while you're pregnant well let's say the only alternative i'm using the piano example yeah i want

01:07:31.440 to still we can still keep with it okay um if in the piano because you seem pretty clear here if in the

01:07:36.000 piano example we only have two choices we do nothing and it injures bob or we do something and

01:07:44.000 it destroys bob's shopping cart you seem pretty confident we should injure the non-person correct

01:07:50.960 and yet you don't feel that way where a woman who has fetal alcohol syndrome she has two choices

01:07:55.040 she does nothing baby is born has fas or you do something and the pre-viable fetus is destroyed yeah

01:08:02.160 okay maybe we're off the the part of your analogy that's um or the the part of the hypothetical game

01:08:06.800 that's challenging is to force her to do something so let's say it was the case that a woman was

01:08:10.480 drinking and then she gets a pregnancy it's like oh shit i'm pregnant yeah and i'm 16 weeks pregnant

01:08:15.360 yes and she's like i'm gonna have an abortion because i don't want to harm a future person i think

01:08:18.240 that's totally fine the question is you originally posted was which should we obligate her to have an

01:08:22.480 abortion at 16 weeks that gets a lot harder i think but should we obligate destroying the cart

01:08:27.360 instead of hurting bob that's the thing though it's destroying the cart versus hurting bob

01:08:31.520 like fetal alcohol syndrome is often not like lethal it's not like the life is completely let's

01:08:35.840 say it's a it's a light piano that's gonna cause damage uh-huh it's still gonna it's gonna make bob

01:08:41.200 messed up for a while when it hits him in the head i don't know if you can obligate because at that

01:08:44.880 point then shouldn't you obligate the termination of any fetus that might have certain types of

01:08:49.280 conditions you're i'm using the word eugenics and well not under and once again i'm trying to tease out

01:08:53.840 your view because under your view it is impossible to harm a fetus prior to 20 weeks

01:09:01.200 it is but there's a harm to the mother and to the autonomy of the mother if you force her to have

01:09:05.360 an abortion like there is a harm in losing a future person much the same that if i steal ten thousand

01:09:11.120 dollars from somebody in 30 years it might have been a hundred thousand dollars the difference is

01:09:14.560 when i take that ten thousand dollars i'm not taking a hundred dollars much the same that i could

01:09:18.240 deprive somebody of a future person and they could actually experience a deprivation of the future

01:09:22.240 person but killing somebody 16 week fetus is not the same as killing their two-year-old two years

01:09:26.560 later that's the difference right but i would say that we force people like parents all the time to

01:09:32.400 do or not do certain things that their children don't come to harm uh you know we we restrict uh

01:09:38.960 even even things like secondhand smoke for example in really restricted situations with a child i think

01:09:44.640 parents get obligated all the time but sure but we would never say that like a child exposed to heavy

01:09:48.720 secondhand smoke should we kill him before he has lung cancer or something right we would never make

01:09:52.960 that now my view of course is that anybody with a disease or a genetic defect or a condition we

01:09:58.480 should help that person we shouldn't kill them regardless of their stage of development okay all

01:10:04.240 right oh sorry we can it's always weird i mean i'm not sure do you want to go anywhere else actually

01:10:09.520 well we have one super chat we could read here really quick uh we have alan grana hey thank you man for

01:10:16.320 the uh super chat appreciate it no say no pay if you can't force her to become a mom then you shouldn't

01:10:20.800 be able to force him to become a father and pay for something he doesn't want fair is fair i believe

01:10:26.720 this is in reference to uh uh there's a there's a specific term for it i think the financial abortion

01:10:33.120 i think that's not the preferred term though from people who are actually advocating for what what it

01:10:37.520 is i think it's uh deadbeat dadism no no it's uh i've heard i've heard of male abortion i i think it's uh

01:10:44.560 uh it's it's evading me at this moment but i think it's something like uh paternal legal paternal

01:10:52.720 surrender i think is the the desired term by people that advocate for it so in essence um

01:11:00.640 if a child is born because you know in certain states women can get abortions uh they're advocating

01:11:08.800 that well if the woman in the instance that the woman opts to keep the child that the father right

01:11:15.600 could uh surrender all legal obligations from custody and also from having to pay child support

01:11:23.520 right um i don't know if you guys it's some semi-related to this conversation i don't know

01:11:30.000 if you guys have any thoughts on that are you in favor of uh i i think that if the if the state

01:11:34.720 could theoretically provide everything then fine but insofar as the state can't usually um questions

01:11:39.360 regarding child support are made in the best interest of the child um if you want to talk

01:11:42.320 about like what's fair around child development there's you're never going to get a good answer

01:11:46.160 there because it's not fair that women have to deliver kids and men don't so it's kind of a silly

01:11:49.200 proposition to say well what's the most fair about child support because there's nothing fair about

01:11:52.400 delivering a kid right so yeah and i would just say that mothers and fathers have equal though

01:11:58.880 different responsibilities they're both equally responsible to care for their children but they're

01:12:03.120 going to have different responsibilities because men and women are biologically different women

01:12:08.320 intimately provide food shelter for unborn children and men typically provide by expending calories to

01:12:14.960 work to provide resources for for the mother and child so that's um i think that's how i would go

01:12:20.480 through there gotcha let me i do have one i actually do have one question for you trent okay um from a

01:12:25.440 legislative perspective so would you like to see abortion made illegal i would like to see

01:12:33.600 the fetuses that are wanted uh so the fetuses that are wanted i would just want the unwanted ones to

01:12:42.240 be treated the same way so in places where we say yeah if a guy you know kills a pregnant woman you

01:12:49.680 know that's so sad she wanted that baby like we need justice for that or we protect those children or

01:12:54.560 we provide medical care even before 20 weeks even to help these children uh i would just want the law

01:13:02.320 the law already provides protection for wanted fetuses i would just want it to extend the same

01:13:07.520 thing to the unwanted ones do you think it'd be fair to give a woman the death penalty if she had an

01:13:11.680 abortion for her twins well i don't believe in the death penalty in general do you think it'd be fair

01:13:15.360 to put her in jail for life um maybe it depends uh i guess i might say maybe the penalty we give for

01:13:21.280 an abortion well for example there was a woman in nebraska a few weeks ago she uh performed got an

01:13:27.520 abortion at 29 weeks and when she texted her mom one of the reasons she did it was because she was

01:13:32.880 really excited to be able to fit back into her jeans again so do you think she should be legally punished

01:13:38.160 for 29 weeks yes sure how much um whatever infanticide the punishment would be i would say

01:13:44.320 the same so you but you would say the same for one week yeah well i would say that the the punishments

01:13:50.400 that we give at one week we can't even get an abortion in one week five weeks i would say that the the law

01:13:56.880 and how we apply it um it's going to be different based on like in that example the person that woman

01:14:01.920 seemed very callous uh very uncaring another woman in another case um she might respond differently

01:14:09.120 sure i'm talking strictly in the case of murder not a or no even in the well give me the other

01:14:14.320 example i'm curious because whatever no go ahead i'll let you well what was the other example you're

01:14:19.280 going to go oh i don't think i would i mean i wasn't giving the exam i'm just saying there's going

01:14:22.480 to be a lot of different cases but but in any of these cases would we excuse the murder of a one-year-old

01:14:27.120 child no we wouldn't so but i would say that we we do end up giving different punishments uh i know

01:14:34.160 that people who kill five-year-olds or ten-year-olds sometimes the punishment there is different than

01:14:39.440 like a newborn infant for example so i don't know exactly what it should be but i do think that we

01:14:46.160 should treat uh the the deliberate killing of human beings before birth that can be established even

01:14:52.960 early on let's say five or six weeks we should treat it with serious gravity even on par with

01:14:57.520 serious gravity should be the same as a five week old abortion i think should be treated the same in

01:15:02.640 your view as a five-year-old child murder yeah i think that they should be they should both be

01:15:07.360 treated the same yeah okay but i think that even if our even if pro-lifers were mistaken about what

01:15:13.360 kind of punishments that we would give uh it wouldn't show that the pro-choice position is incorrect

01:15:20.240 uh someone could believe in animal rights for example and be inconsistent on how to punish

01:15:26.080 people for what they do with animals things like that even if someone were inconsistent and i don't

01:15:30.560 think that it's inconsistent sure uh we should um it should be treated with a certain gravity though i

01:15:36.000 also think that the laws that we pass now um right now they do tend to focus more on the abortion

01:15:41.120 providers because we live in a we live in a weird time sure but i'm just asking like what was that wait

01:15:46.240 what are the two what are the two cell thing look like again i like the zygote i like i want to see

01:15:51.280 the thing sure of course okay so a woman that takes plan b to get rid of maybe something like this

01:15:58.000 would suffer the same legal penalty as a woman that murders her five-year-old child

01:16:02.720 yeah i think there could be who murders their five-year-old child like out of the womb i think a

01:16:08.480 jury might find things to be a little bit different um they'd both be charged with first-degree murder of

01:16:14.000 a human being plan b you it's literally premeditation you go to take the pill you really want to fit in

01:16:18.160 your jeans first one with a five-year-old who's just like tired of it they're too annoying they

01:16:22.000 don't want to deal with it anymore murders the child so that that thing and then the five-year-old

01:16:25.600 child are treated the same in the eyes of the law the plan b versus the murdering of the child

01:16:29.440 no because i would say that even among born people based on the level of indifference that

01:16:34.320 required the level of knowledge that a person has even if you look at among born victims of violence

01:16:40.800 would you read that among born victims of violence the punishment that is given it's not it's going

01:16:46.320 to be different based on i think all of these are i think it's a equivocation here um i i think that

01:16:52.240 very clearly if we like if somebody says do you think that the penalty for murdering a 10-year-old

01:16:56.640 and a five-year-old and a 25-year-old should be the same i would say yeah it's murder of course

01:17:00.480 they should be treated the same now they're going to be aggravating or mitigating factors in

01:17:03.600 any murder of course but substantially i wouldn't change the difference between the murder of a

01:17:08.240 five-year-old 15 year old 25 year old and you would agree but it would be 25 year old 15 year

01:17:12.160 old five-year-old and five cell organism for you it would all be treated the exact same do you think

01:17:16.480 a woman who gives birth at prom prom baby birth and throws in the dumpster uh should she get the same

01:17:26.000 punishment as someone who is someone who deliberately kills their 25 year old uh husband to get his

01:17:34.240 insurance policy or something like that you so you added a lot in there okay fine fine i agree

01:17:38.480 no no because there's aggravating factors deliberately kill somebody for an insurance

01:17:41.920 policy versus mitigating factors of like delivers during a um during a prom or whatever right there

01:17:47.520 can be aggravating or mitigating factors that influence how we view a particular crime same

01:17:51.040 as the killing of two of the same five-year-olds but i'm saying like a plan b plan b is the same as

01:17:56.000 going to the store buying a thing of bleach going home force feeding it to your kid and then watching

01:18:00.480 we don't we don't know that exactly because plan b has multiple ways of acting it could stop

01:18:05.600 the egg from ovulating it could prevent stop implantation it could yeah i would say that'd be

01:18:10.320 more like um grave indifference uh like if you chuck a rock off a freeway overpass or something like

01:18:16.240 that so but well no hold on when you take plan b it's not the hopes that potentially maybe like

01:18:21.440 you're very specifically trying to effect a certain outcome am i much the same that it would be like

01:18:26.960 throwing a rock of it overpass at a kid no the outcome could be just preventing yourself from

01:18:30.480 ovulating it could be yeah it's just to not become pregnant but that the chance of that could also be

01:18:37.680 the preventing of the implantation so the the fertilized egg just goes out right in some yeah but i

01:18:43.760 don't think i feel like we're working these kinds of questions i feel like work backwards so it's like

01:18:49.200 is this individual a person like there's two questions is this individual a person and

01:18:56.160 what should the punishments be for harming this person i feel like we don't answer the first we

01:19:01.200 don't answer the punishment we don't get the answer of the person question by answering the punishment one

01:19:07.360 first we answer is this a person or not first and then we figure out everything else otherwise we're

01:19:13.520 working backwards with our intuitions um i kind of agree but i i would argue that you were working

01:19:18.560 backwards from intuitions as well when you presuppose a human body that exists um when you presuppose a

01:19:24.160 human body that exists without like parts of its brain which i would argue is not even necessarily

01:19:29.120 a human that you can probably remove enough parts of a person and you ship a thesis them into another

01:19:33.440 type of organism so if you want to work backwards from that then obviously i'm going to ask you

01:19:37.520 similar questions and work backwards from um intuition around like our ability to harm people

01:19:42.960 right because i think it because i actually think even though it sounds strange and it sounds like it's

01:19:46.400 working backwards i actually think it's hitting at the core of the issue when we think of harming

01:19:51.040 we think of a conscious experience that's being um harmed that's being hurt right if i harm a person

01:19:56.720 i'm not thinking of like poking a person um that is a corpse right but people could have massively

01:20:02.880 incorrect intuitions i remember a scene from the adventures of huckleberry finn where huck i think

01:20:07.440 it's aunt polly he tells her in the book oh there was a steamship that exploded uh and uh she said oh did

01:20:15.520 did anyone die he said no just a few uh negroes well that's you know that's not exactly what you

01:20:20.080 have you get the point and aunt polly says oh good i'm glad nobody got hurt so people can have

01:20:26.720 massively incorrect intuitions i don't think they can in your world though because you told me that

01:20:31.120 you're a moral realist who relies on people's intuitions and you're saying that any two people's

01:20:35.200 intuition should be sufficiently similar enough to upgrade an objective moral fact no that would be on

01:20:39.520 basic intuitions like so now there's different types of yeah tell me the different types

01:20:43.360 sure there are like just to say that we ought to do good and not evil that's the most basic

01:20:50.240 intuition of them all that there's just that's not begging the question the things we ought to do

01:20:54.240 are by definition good a good thing is the thing you ought to do it's like saying murder is unjustified

01:20:58.480 when murder is defined as the unjust killing of somebody right there are things you ought to do

01:21:02.720 irrespective of the consequences to you for example uh even if you end up suffering a great deal in some

01:21:10.240 cases there's things you ought to do or refrain from because it just is good you know things like

01:21:14.320 that but then like for example you ought not directly kill an innocent human being like that's

01:21:20.880 just a general intuition everybody shares but can you kill human beings in war for example because

01:21:27.920 you don't mean to but you're trying to destroy an enemy base there's going to be it's going to be a

01:21:32.320 little bit more difficult in the applied cases but we have the most basic intuition so for me if the

01:21:37.360 basic intuition is that we don't kill infants all right we don't kill adults we don't kill disabled

01:21:44.320 humans we do kill pigs and cows and other non-human animals uh why is that to me the only explanation

01:21:55.360 it cannot be rooted in consciousness because what is the relevant difference between those non-human

01:22:02.080 animals and the human beings i know you say human consciousness but there's a difference between

01:22:08.320 human consciousness and a human who is conscious right yeah i just think that the some of these

01:22:16.240 intuitions that you're hitting hitting at um for taking such a solid i guess realist position on

01:22:20.960 morality it feels like we can find even fundamentally somebody could argue for instance um in the animal

01:22:26.240 world if um i think i saw a video of a cheetah where when the babies are born they lick them they try to

01:22:31.040 get them to kind of like move and sometimes the baby can't move so the cheetah will just abandon

01:22:34.560 the baby and walk away right so who's to say if a person says well i think intuitively if a kid can't

01:22:39.520 walk then the kid isn't entitled to anything like if you have to retreat from an area if you need to go

01:22:44.160 hunt and gather um if a child can't walk then you leave them what if somebody comes at you with an

01:22:48.480 intuition like that say there's a tribe where those intuitions exist how do you figure out whose

01:22:52.320 intuition is correct well we look at how we've come to understand human beings and there might be really

01:22:59.200 rare cases where you only have enough food to feed certain people that's not what i'm talking about

01:23:06.080 i'm just saying are you are you saying they're killing the they just leave them there yeah they

01:23:09.600 abandon the child why did they abandon the child because they're not able to care for the child um

01:23:13.600 because the child can't move so they feel like until the child can move and like acquire resources

01:23:17.440 for itself the child's not really worthy of participating in the social contract participating

01:23:21.760 in that tribe yeah up until the child can move they're wrong we would call that barbaric

01:23:25.680 okay but why under what objective ground objective ground that all human beings have

01:23:30.160 dignity no matter and in fact that was the difference in ancient rome 2000 years ago the

01:23:34.960 romans did place disabled children in the wilderness for them to be eaten by animals and christians went

01:23:42.000 and rescued them because they recognized all human beings have this dignity regardless of what they can

01:23:47.280 do yep but i'm asking you how do you resolve that difference that disagreement and intuition

01:23:52.160 i don't think you can when you can say it's wrong or barbaric but that's the same thing you could

01:23:56.640 have somebody who says look i think that marriage just means you have 24 7 access to your wife

01:24:01.840 so we don't need another analogy just on that example somebody says if it's a disabled child

01:24:05.760 if they can't walk on their own i should be able to just leave it and carry on because the

01:24:08.560 child's never going to be able to walk or whatever why why are they wrong that's their intuition

01:24:12.480 intuition points there they were the reason why i'm highlighting this because you told me earlier

01:24:15.600 that you made it seem like then we could use reasoning we could say look when you as an adult when you

01:24:19.280 get injured we try to help you out we don't abandon you so then there's an example where we might

01:24:24.800 apply moral reasoning to help them see they're being incoherent for example why wouldn't you apply

01:24:29.040 this to someone who's just a younger version of you for example but but they'll say i can walk again

01:24:33.840 what about for disabled children you said the romans did this they left a disabled child right and the

01:24:37.920 person and then you what if you say to the person well you know you wouldn't want this to happen if

01:24:41.120 you were disabled they're like yeah that's part of the agreement actually if i was disabled i would

01:24:44.080 expect to be left yeah i would agree and that's and like i said there's going to be cases where people

01:24:47.920 have a consistent horrifying morality they're going to end horrifying is absolutely begging

01:24:54.000 the question i want to ask yeah i think it's horrifying to leave children just just because

01:24:58.720 you can't stand the side of their disability and you think they're not worthy because that might be

01:25:02.560 the case but they might argue that it's horrifying that maybe they come to america and they say

01:25:06.880 they say they can kiss my ass that's fine but they say you've got a society where there are people that

01:25:11.040 are able-bodied that are capable of helping in society you don't have the medical resources for them

01:25:14.720 but you're in spending billions of dollars on disabled children they're going to die before they

01:25:18.400 hit nine years old yeah why do you have homeless people on the street but you're spending money

01:25:22.000 on disabled children that are going to die in a few years anyway they might be horrified about

01:25:24.960 that then my question goes back to you because you told me earlier that intuition is how we

01:25:29.120 determine moral fact and what i'm saying is morality is the only qualia i guess that exists

01:25:35.200 where we can only reconcile it with arguments i don't have to argue with you about gravity i don't have to

01:25:40.800 argue with you about the color of something i don't have to argue with you about how loud something is

01:25:45.760 but for moral fact this is why i believe it's subjective and not objective you can never

01:25:49.760 reconcile disagreements between two parties that's different intuition people do this all the time

01:25:54.000 though uh c.s lewis the christian author gave lots of examples of this that when people have a

01:25:59.760 disagreement they'll appeal to universal norms they'll say i was sitting in that seat first it's not fair for

01:26:06.160 you to take it um i i helped you with this you ought to help me with that when people have moral

01:26:12.160 disagreements they don't just uh they don't just resort to their mere opinions about the matter or

01:26:18.160 what they like or dislike most people appeal to some kind of universal norm to apply and they assume

01:26:22.880 it to be true for everybody yeah but you people would appeal to those same universal norms in a time

01:26:27.360 period where women couldn't vote and black people were slaves so what does it say about the appeal to

01:26:31.360 that universal norm it's not doesn't seem to be a universal norm they're appealing to here it seems

01:26:35.120 to be it's actually if anything i would argue it's the non-cognitivist position where they pretend

01:26:38.480 to appeal to a universal norm but really it's what do i prefer because i bet somebody's used that

01:26:42.160 phrase of like you can't take my seat that's not fair but they would say somebody like rosa

01:26:46.000 park should always be in the back of the bus right and then that's where you have people like

01:26:49.360 abraham lincoln who made great arguments to say if you think a black person can be enslaved

01:26:54.080 because they have a darker skin than you you are now going to be a slave to the person whose skin

01:26:58.480 is lighter than you and apply the moral reasoning but let me the about the objectivity do you think

01:27:03.120 in the past 2000 years human beings have gotten better at mathematics and our mathematical knowledge

01:27:08.720 has grown yes okay so our knowledge of mathematics has grown we've gotten better at mathematics and

01:27:15.200 math is objective right when you say objective what can you what do you mean by that we don't determine

01:27:22.160 mathematical truths by a social contract we just math is all built on systems of logics right it's built

01:27:28.160 on tautologies right one equals one one plus one equals two and then from those tautologies we build

01:27:33.200 out systems of mathematics but it's a lot it's a thing constructed with logics i think a priori we

01:27:37.520 all have logics in our head things like non-contradiction but it's all it's all object it's objectively

01:27:42.080 true even if it's built on these axioms objective with respect to systems of logics yes yeah but we

01:27:46.800 don't create the systems of logic we discover them i mean there i mean people smarter than me will argue

01:27:53.200 anti-realism versus mathematical realism i don't know if there's like an objectively correct answer there well

01:27:56.880 there's a difference between whether the mathematical objects exist or not that's i mean

01:28:02.320 my understanding is mathematics is built on tautologies that we label something as something

01:28:06.160 else and then we build it using logics that a priori we're all gifted with all humans have some basic

01:28:10.320 logics of identity non-contradiction excluded middle there's like very basic like we can't

01:28:15.120 fathom something that it has contradictory properties or we can't fathom one thing being another thing

01:28:19.440 right um and based on those basic logical faculty we build let's get let's get back to brass tacks okay

01:28:24.880 whose view on abortion leads to more unusual cases of killing or exploiting beings because i asked you

01:28:34.240 a bunch of questions about and you admitted that you can create unconscious human beings harvest their

01:28:41.280 organs make them sex dolls kill newborns who have never been conscious you're not sure about one-year-olds

01:28:47.680 who've lost their memories uh you there's no obligation to give medical care to an anencephalic

01:28:54.400 child if we discovered it i think your view leads to a lot of counter-intuitive views that lead to a

01:29:02.400 lot of killing and exploitation people would disagree with would you agree that there's more of that in

01:29:07.200 your view than my view no okay can you give examples of where my view leads to weird cases of killing or

01:29:13.120 exploiting um killing or exploiting i would argue that the exploitation is forcing women to gestate

01:29:19.680 and give birth to things that aren't even persons yet so basically mandating that women as soon as

01:29:24.800 they think they might even possibly be pregnant that they have now a moral obligation to find out if they

01:29:29.120 are pregnant and if they are that they're forced to carry that thing to term regardless of how many

01:29:33.280 precautions they took to prevent getting pregnant um i also think we're placing a very high burden on our

01:29:37.520 medical system where we now have an obligation to care for every single zygote up to the moment

01:29:42.000 metabolism terminates so if a woman feels like she might be having a miscarriage that woman can't go

01:29:46.560 to the bathroom and miscarry she needs to go to a hospital immediately even if it's six weeks old

01:29:50.480 even if it's 10 weeks old that miscarriage needs to be dealt with the same way that you would operate

01:29:54.400 on any living human being you need to extract it you need to put it in a dish and you need to feed

01:29:58.320 that and keep it alive for as long as the metabolic functions will carry on well why can't i just say

01:30:02.240 hospitals are required to give a woman progesterone to help her child we don't have the technology yet to

01:30:06.400 extract and you were asking me to give you the potential harms in your world now you want to reframe

01:30:10.160 it in the best possible light but i'm just saying in your world there's hospitals and hospitals and

01:30:13.760 hospitals dedicated to keeping alive potentially these 64 128 cell organisms that may never even

01:30:19.280 develop into people so you're saying that the weirdest thing about my view is that we might

01:30:24.080 care about human beings too much the weirdest thing in well that's one way to phrase it but i would

01:30:29.040 argue that you're not caring about the women human beings you're caring about the the 12 cell organisms

01:30:33.600 that now need to be indefinitely cared for in hospitals in petri dishes well under my view what about

01:30:37.680 those women who want those children to live shouldn't they be able to go to the hospital and get help

01:30:41.120 in my view they can go to the hospital get help and i i agree that's what makes it really so nothing

01:30:45.600 about what you just said is no way because your view isn't actually applied most people in in the

01:30:51.680 world outside there don't hold your view they have a schizophrenic view they give respect and care and

01:30:57.280 legal protection to unborn humans that are wanted and then create justification to kill the unwanted

01:31:02.960 ones that's great i mean you can ask them about their schizophrenic views but i think i'm pretty

01:31:05.920 consistent through and through for all right and i agree that's why people both of our views i think

01:31:10.000 people should abandon their schizophrenic view and pick one of our consistent views and i think mine is

01:31:14.160 more humane sure and i don't like the one where a woman that has an abortion of a whatever that was

01:31:19.520 or takes plan b might be charged with first-degree murder fine charge or something else but it would

01:31:24.160 be first-degree murder why not we we live in like because i think that if a woman pre if she determines

01:31:29.200 that she wants to go and murder her one-year-old i think she should be charged with first-degree

01:31:32.400 murder after i don't think they should be the same penalty sure after the civil war all the

01:31:35.680 confederate soldiers could have been thrown in prison for treason or hung they're talking about

01:31:39.680 after the civil war very easy we don't even an analogy it's a very basic lots of the analogy

01:31:43.120 be lots we don't there's a super it's a simple it's a simple thing it's not simple because it's so

01:31:47.040 simple it's simple in your view if a person has an abortion they're murdering that's a really simple

01:31:51.440 thing but we have a widespread we live in a society that has a widespread disagreement about that and so to

01:31:57.680 come to a national consensus about how we treat the unborn we're going to have to do that in

01:32:04.240 compromised legal ways just like america had to do in reconstruction after the civil war when there

01:32:09.840 were massive disagreements in our country i think we're at a we're at a similar crossroad that's fine

01:32:14.080 we can argue that but that's a that's like a sophisticated political legal argument i agree

01:32:19.120 your moral argument your ideal political legal world is one in which a woman who has an abortion uh

01:32:25.120 twins at 14 weeks is charged with double homicide double first-degree murder we can both do the

01:32:30.560 intuition pumping thing that because here's the problem both you could say like oh yeah like there's

01:32:35.600 the the two-cell embryo that's crazy to charge out a murder well under your view killing this thing is

01:32:40.320 not murder whereas that's going to really mess with a lot of people's intuitions when they see that

01:32:46.160 so i think less people's intuitions than those that would say that having a miscarriage so for

01:32:51.040 instance here's another thing you would agree that every single miscarriage should probably demand

01:32:55.840 an investigation for a potential homicide correct no dude we don't do that even for born children a

01:33:00.160 lot of absolutely do if a if a born child dies you don't think cps or investigators are automatically

01:33:06.080 involved in that not necessarily almost every a one-year-old child dies in a house right of course

01:33:12.080 well you're going to here's the problem here we have um when it when a child dies we have the

01:33:18.480 technology to take a newborn and do an autopsy to determine what happened to that human being

01:33:25.440 okay uh when it comes to a first trimester miscarriage we don't do those investigations

01:33:31.760 because we don't have the technology you absolutely can do those investigations how a woman comes into

01:33:37.040 the hospital and she miscarries right you mean she has she is miscarrying she has she's miscarrying

01:33:42.480 in the process of miscarrying right she has intense stomach pain she goes to the hospital sure she goes

01:33:45.920 there wants progesterone we should yeah save the baby first thing we should do is we should pull

01:33:49.680 some tubes of blood we need to check for blood alcohol content right make sure she's not drinking

01:33:53.360 at all could probably send somebody to the house to check for i don't know any type of things she

01:33:58.160 might have there um any sort of evidence of foul play it could be hangers it could be you know

01:34:02.320 whatever else she might be using but this is an investigation that needs to be done every single

01:34:05.840 time somebody is miscarrying so you would subject every single woman that's having a miscarriage to a

01:34:10.240 full-on police investigation the same way we would for what you mentioned that well for a one-year-old

01:34:14.400 child we get an autopsy and autopsy is an investigation we're having an investigation

01:34:17.920 to figure out cause of death i think that would be a harm that would exist in your world that i

01:34:21.280 think it would be a harm that we but here's the thing prior when abortion was illegal and even now

01:34:27.280 in cases where it is illegal we we don't do those things it's most most people don't share that

01:34:33.440 intuition that we need to do that in order to protect unborn human beings but you would want

01:34:37.360 that for you should want that though shouldn't you yeah i think that's fine but you can't determine

01:34:41.120 no no no not fine you're weaseling out of that it's not that it would be fine if somebody said

01:34:45.440 do you think we should investigate when two-year-old children are killed or when two-year-old two-year-old

01:34:49.120 children are dead my answer and i don't think your answer would be yeah that'd be fine you would say

01:34:52.560 absolutely i wouldn't want that to happen right yeah but your moral standard needs to be the exact same

01:34:58.560 for the six-week fetus but here's the other problem we would have to make sure that in our zeal to look

01:35:06.080 for crime we don't um over uh prosecute parents so for example when prosecutors will investigate

01:35:15.520 sids uh sudden infant death syndrome or shaken baby syndrome uh a lot of times they'll get those

01:35:21.440 things wrong for example so we would have to put the burden very high so as to not falsely accuse

01:35:27.680 people of manslaughter because you're familiar yeah but nothing you just said preclude you should

01:35:31.040 still investigate i agree but we don't have that we do not have the tech maybe as a future

01:35:36.720 hypothetical yeah sure fine but we don't have that now we we have the body of everything i just said

01:35:42.800 you can totally do right now if a woman go if a woman is miscarrying goes to the hospital you pull

01:35:46.960 a tube of blood to see check her blood alcohol content if she's intoxicated that doesn't prove

01:35:50.880 that caused the miscarriage though many people are intoxicated and they give birth to babies and many

01:35:54.800 people miscarry who are not intoxicated so that doesn't prove anything sure but you could look at it as

01:35:58.800 i wouldn't pass in a court of law where you need beyond a reasonable doubt

01:36:04.160 um if you have a child at home and you're neglecting the child it might be hard to say

01:36:08.640 for one way or another what caused the death of the child but at the very least you can start getting

01:36:12.320 up to like manslaughter charges if you've neglected it but how do you tell what what exactly what part

01:36:16.880 of neglect actually killed them was it the lack of water the lack of medical care well you can just

01:36:20.640 say you have a you know you have a seven-year-old that weighs 28 pounds uh and you then get

01:36:26.560 testimony why do they weigh 28 pounds well because we feed them once every four days there you have

01:36:31.200 your evidence you don't have anything similar for the wanton destruction of of human embryos or things

01:36:37.760 like that but once again i'm going to go back to the main we have to get back to the basement here

01:36:42.880 whose view of personhood makes more sense or not like there's nothing improbable about my my view like

01:36:51.760 i would say my view makes the most sense even if you do talk about the the future like ours or the

01:36:57.200 person view um that the re and once again i you i don't think you can answer this question really

01:37:03.680 which one i feel like i answered all your you didn't answer anyway but i answered i have answered

01:37:07.520 i answered your questions you didn't like my answers well because you didn't really answer but

01:37:10.400 go ahead but i'll answer any hard question give me yeah yeah a baby born missing which part now

01:37:15.280 no it's it's going back to your grounding it in consciousness uh but only for humans who are

01:37:21.440 conscious because the human conscious experience yes i think a human conscious what what is a human

01:37:26.400 can you describe what a human conscious experience is like probably not i don't think anybody can but

01:37:31.200 there seems to be a conscious experience that we have that all humans share why do human conscious

01:37:35.040 experiences matter than other conscious experiences because we have a more sophisticated form of sapience

01:37:40.080 that is different than the kind of experience that every other animal on the planet has how do you

01:37:44.080 know that well what how can you describe what they're like that you how do you know that how

01:37:49.360 do i know that because i have a sophisticated because we can do cognitive testing we can test for

01:37:54.240 um types of socialization we utilize language in ways that animals don't we utilize tools we have

01:37:59.760 abstract concepts that we can acknowledge we can acknowledge things yeah there's like a million

01:38:03.520 different ways your consciousness matters more than the consciousness of a pig because you can do

01:38:08.320 things pigs can't do well i'm a kind of thing a human yeah that is different that my conscious

01:38:13.440 experience that kind of conscious experience is a lot different and kind to a pig or a horse or

01:38:17.040 a dog or even a seal or a dolphin or an ape yeah so yours rises to the level of deserving legal

01:38:24.560 protection theirs don't yes the human experience does over the pig or the horse of the dark yes but

01:38:30.400 i mean it i just think it would be obvious to anyone who's around animals or infants that this 26

01:38:36.240 week old fetus uh does not have a level of conscious experience that rises anywhere to the

01:38:43.040 level of a pig or a seal or a dog but it is a human conscious experience is it not it is a human

01:38:49.200 who is having a conscious experience do you think that is a lizard experience is a lizard and do you

01:38:54.720 think that's having a lizard's experience or what how would you describe their conscious experience it's

01:38:58.560 it's having a it's probably diminished it's it's aware of heat light cold familiar sound unfamiliar

01:39:05.840 sound pressure uh i think a lot of those come from like the brain stem like you can get a lot of

01:39:12.080 awareness of like heat and cold and even basic sensory movements well but this is prefrontal cortex

01:39:16.800 development what do you think that 26 week old fetus's conscious experience is then closer to that of a

01:39:22.560 human than a dog or a lizard in what way in that it it all you're asking me to define like the

01:39:29.360 subjective human country is difficult i don't think anybody can it's the hard problem of consciousness

01:39:33.920 i don't think i can fully encapsulate what it means to be a human but it seems to be the case that the

01:39:38.560 conscious experience that we have is markedly different from every other animal on the planet

01:39:43.120 you seem to be claiming that a baby's conscious experience is so diminished that it resembles that of a

01:39:47.680 reptile or maybe like a baby dog i don't think that we go from lizard to dog to ape to human

01:39:53.520 i think we might have a diminished human conscious experience but it's like growing the neurons and

01:39:57.760 the synapses you start developing and as we grow and develop that it becomes more apparent but it's

01:40:01.840 there just we start would you agree we have primitive conscious experiences and they become more advanced

01:40:07.520 over time sure but it's all a all under the umbrella of the human conscious experience none of it is

01:40:13.520 the experience of a dog but i feel like you're using the word human there here's my problem with

01:40:18.080 your argument you use human in order to get rid of the animals you here's the thing here's what i think

01:40:26.000 you're doing when you use human conscious experience as a criteria you use the word human to get rid of

01:40:33.280 animals that are very conscious and aware can do tricks have memories they don't have a sapient conscious

01:40:39.440 experience like a human does none of them do not even remotely close if you i'll to shortcut all

01:40:44.400 this if you really if you came with this argument you wanted to fight really hard and you actually

01:40:48.400 just dominated and thrashed this part of the argument the only thing you would do is you

01:40:52.240 would get me to move the abortion age later and later later it would become a daniel dennett

01:40:55.840 aboard at two years or it'd be peter it would be yeah peter singer i'm sorry yeah that's exactly

01:41:00.800 that's exactly what i'm doing sure and if you want to push it further out i'm not compelled by any

01:41:04.640 of the argument you can but it's not getting me to a point to where the 12 cell

01:41:08.000 thing needs to be kept alive in a petri dish or women needs to be charged with double homicide

01:41:12.080 if they have an abortion at 12 weeks and it's here's because i think most people will find it

01:41:15.920 arbitrary that you so let me finish what i was saying and then i'll i'll go back to you you use

01:41:21.760 human conscious experience you use conscious experience to disqualify fetuses and you use human

01:41:28.560 to disqualify the animals even though the human i think most people listening would say

01:41:34.240 the the time in our development when we have conscious experiences that are richer and more

01:41:40.320 complex than a chimp or a dog is long after birth that's why i believe peter singer is consistent when

01:41:46.720 he would say what matters is that you have rationality you have abilities non-human animals

01:41:51.680 don't have so he says infanticide is fine however most people have an unbreakable intuition that

01:41:58.320 infanticide is wrong and so in order to keep that intuition if you're going to protect human infants

01:42:04.400 because they will have rational abilities in the future even though they don't have them now

01:42:09.200 you'd have to apply that to fetuses and embryos as well okay i completely disagree but we can

01:42:14.560 loop back on this if you want no why what's wrong with this argument what we value

01:42:19.680 are rational abilities beyond what non-human animals can do that does not develop in humans

01:42:25.360 until sometime after birth therefore infanticide is permissible what's wrong with that argument

01:42:30.800 the what because what i've said before is there is a kind of human conscious experience that kind

01:42:35.920 of experience starts about 20 weeks it might be in some diminished capacity as you said but that

01:42:39.840 experience has begun that at some point you as a person were that experience at 20 weeks that that

01:42:45.920 same conscious experience it starts there that's the thing that we protect up until the point where you

01:42:49.520 can no longer deploy and you think that let's say a newborn who's stuck at the newborn level forever

01:42:54.160 when you say newborn newborn newly born human being yes it would that would be a protected experience

01:42:59.200 yeah and so even if so that's where i can't understand it a newborn stuck at that level

01:43:04.560 forever newborn infant disabled person deserves legal protection okay because it's all under that

01:43:11.360 bucket of human conscious experience yes because it is a human no your argument seems to be because

01:43:16.560 it is a human who is conscious i think humans that are conscious are always having a human conscious

01:43:23.600 experience correct if you want to give me an analogy you take a human you implant a dog brain into it

01:43:27.840 then maybe we're having a different conversation but when a human speaks do they always utter human

01:43:33.280 speech that we're it's we're getting definitionally but when a human speaks it's always a human speaking

01:43:42.080 right you're what the argument you're making is a bit circular here what makes human speech unique

01:43:48.400 would be grammar syntax uh abstract concepts idea language or that kind of human speech a human

01:43:56.240 could utter all different kinds of sounds or but it's always going to be a human speaking right but

01:44:01.840 what someone would say is why does it matter that why does a newborn the fact that you would say look a

01:44:09.600 human and someone who's stuck at the newborn level okay they are a human who is conscious even minute

01:44:16.160 they are a human who is minimally conscious therefore they deserve legal protection

01:44:22.000 for which for what the newborn someone stuck at a newborn they are a human who is minimally conscious

01:44:28.800 but an animal who is more conscious does not have rights because i don't i don't yeah i reject that

01:44:36.080 comparison that like an animal is more conscious they're having an animal conscious experience it

01:44:40.880 doesn't resemble a human conscious experience well what you say you reject it but then you can't tell

01:44:47.120 me like what is that newborn infant's experience so that you know that they a fully formed conscious

01:44:52.640 experience of any animal doesn't reach the level of sapience or sophistication of of a human conscious

01:44:57.920 experience like you of a human conscious experience like you or i are having correct but a newborn

01:45:02.560 what kind of experiences do they have i i don't know if you take a newborn and stick it there and

01:45:07.200 then train it for a while i imagine that even their subjective conscious experience can be closer to

01:45:10.880 ours than a lizard or a monkey so you think that a human newborn is more intelligent let's say like

01:45:18.880 a chimpanzee intelligent is not the right more or more aware of the world more having a human conscious

01:45:24.400 experience than yes than the all you're saying is it's more of a genetic human being that's true but so

01:45:30.480 what if that's what makes it if that's what makes you valuable then all genetic human beings need to

01:45:36.400 be valuable you're a human conscious experience doing all the work in your argument well of course

01:45:41.120 because i value humans and human life yeah so it's doing a lot for both of our arguments and genetics

01:45:46.080 is our definition of human is a certain genetic code so of course the human conscious experience is

01:45:50.720 necessarily going to be deployed by a genetic human right right it's uh humans will have various levels

01:45:57.200 of conscious experience through their lives they'll start very minimally it'll grow and they might

01:46:02.320 lose it and maybe even temporarily lose it or permanently lose it and i do think your position

01:46:07.920 is going to be inconsistent here if someone temporarily loses it and has to regrow parts of

01:46:14.000 their brain to get it back because at that point they're no longer a person anymore but most of us would

01:46:18.080 give them medicine and care to help them um yeah probably but then here's a question let's let's

01:46:26.000 look at that analogy from another angle because i i don't think that analogy is doing as much work

01:46:28.960 as you wanted to be let's say that there's a person who gets their head chopped off but we can keep

01:46:32.640 their body alive would you say that the person is still alive if the body is still alive but the head

01:46:36.960 is chopped off i would say that as an organism so their their head is probably decomposing now right

01:46:42.880 yep and then tossed in the trash it's dead yeah yeah i would say that them as an organism uh

01:46:50.960 they have died or uh we are keeping them we are keeping the organism alive through artificial life

01:46:58.560 support like a heart lung machine when you say the organism so my head steven's head gets cut off

01:47:02.640 but my body you're dead yeah okay you're dead what if there was a surgery where we had developed we

01:47:08.320 could create new human heads and then put it back on with like a new brain and everything

01:47:12.880 would you say that you have an obligation to keep the body alive so that you can reattach a

01:47:16.240 new head in the future the obligation to keep a headless trunk alive to put a because that's the

01:47:22.560 equivalent to you talking about the child being born without the brain but you can give it a drug

01:47:26.000 i would say that if you cut off somebody's head and you have their trunk there uh the organism may be

01:47:32.320 alive i would say the organism probably isn't alive you're keeping all of the organs alive like if you

01:47:37.200 keep someone who's brain dead on a heart lung machine they're not going to stay alive indefinitely they're

01:47:42.080 only going to stay alive maybe for two to five days uh in order to harvest organs they're still

01:47:46.160 going to decompose you can feed them right no not if somebody is as long as the brain stem isn't true

01:47:51.680 but persistent vegetative state can be fed with a tube indefinitely that's different someone with

01:47:55.680 a persistent vegetative state is a disabled human being uh so there are they are uh there's brain

01:48:01.840 activity yeah there's brain stem activity they're they're wakeful they can digest food they well i don't

01:48:08.160 believe so i think they need um they need to be fed a tube and everything they can digest it oh okay

01:48:13.360 sure a brain dead a brain dead person cannot do that it's just going to sit in the gullet and they're

01:48:18.080 going to decompose okay but they're a person still okay they're i'll be it they're a disabled person

01:48:24.080 do you think that people in persistent vegetative states assuming you know they're never going to

01:48:27.200 wake up should they be kept alive indefinitely as well i think they should be i think that they should be

01:48:31.440 given food uh water um they should be given comfort care uh so they should be alive indefinitely no not

01:48:40.320 necessarily kept alive indefinitely because there might be interventions that um aren't as aren't as

01:48:46.480 helpful for them i think there's a difference between i think that we should never dehydrate

01:48:51.440 anyone to death sure so a person i was 22 years old persistent vegetative state they could live to 75

01:48:56.560 they're always going to be in bed should that person be cared for for the remainder of their life

01:48:59.600 well we we don't know that they'll live to 75 the prognosis we could that's why it's a hypothetical

01:49:03.280 well no you shut down a lot of my hypotheticals i did and i answered every single hypothetical

01:49:06.480 no you complained about a lot i did complain no no i complained because they're intuition pumps but

01:49:10.400 tell me one of those i didn't answer no you wait no no tell me one of those you complained about you

01:49:15.040 i watched you put a check mark next to every single one i answered i saw you do it so i know i answered

01:49:19.040 you complained about a toddler for example i did complain but i answered it so you can complain about

01:49:22.880 mine but you have to answer it a 20 year old can be kept alive until 75 yeah do we have a moral obligation to

01:49:27.840 keep feeding them for for 55 years in a hospital bed i think you can complain about it but you

01:49:31.600 should answer the question there's two ways that i could respond to this okay one would be my view

01:49:35.680 and two would be another pro-life view i want to know your view because i'm talking to you that's

01:49:39.760 well someone could defend a position might say you know what i don't care about someone i want

01:49:43.440 trends answer no because i want people to be pro-life even if they don't agree with everything i

01:49:46.800 believe okay but i'm asking you right that's fine okay i think i think we should never stop i

01:49:50.960 think we should not starve somebody to death i think that in some cases food will not help someone

01:49:55.760 because they can't digest we're not talking about those cases i'm just saying we could keep

01:49:59.120 somebody alive from 25 to 75 50 years in a bed if we feed them and water them yeah i i i don't think

01:50:04.240 we should starve disabled people to death that's my answer to that okay but number two if you don't

01:50:08.000 agree with that intuition you could just have the view that i laid out earlier which is that

01:50:11.920 you are no longer a person if it is impossible for you to be conscious in the future so that means

01:50:17.360 you are a person whenever it is possible for you to be conscious in the future and that would apply

01:50:22.480 for nearly all unborn human beings from fertilization onward so even if someone didn't agree with me

01:50:26.640 about pvs they could still agree with you about withholding care for pvs but it's different

01:50:32.960 because there's a difference between someone who will never again be conscious and someone who will

01:50:38.640 be conscious at some point there's a difference there true but i mean like a sperm given the right

01:50:44.640 conditions like being an environment with an egg will also at some point exhibit consciousness the same

01:50:48.400 way that a single cell organism connected to a mother because a single cell organism will never

01:50:51.920 develop on its own sperm never becomes conscious in order it is a single cell thing it has to be

01:50:56.400 connected to a mom and on its own never the organism that was once one cell does become conscious

01:51:03.040 because there's continuity there the sperm and a there's no continuity between a sperm and a zyko

01:51:08.160 were you were you ever once a newborn yeah well how could let me ask this like if you took a car

01:51:15.760 and replaced 90 of its parts or added 90 new parts is it the same car i don't know it's a ship of

01:51:21.600 theseus question i'm not sure right but you might have 90 new parts from being a newborn

01:51:26.080 but you're still the same newborn you're still that same person sure why though that's a really

01:51:30.800 interesting question it is it's probably because of the continuity of the conscious experience i

01:51:34.720 would say it's because you're the same organism no yeah no it's the it's the continuity of the

01:51:39.040 conscious experience do you remember being a newborn nope not a lot of continuity there because

01:51:43.600 i don't remember there's no continuity it's am i not a person when i'm blackout drunk

01:51:48.480 well you might you might not remember things but it seems like but you are you're lacking uh

01:51:55.600 some of these elements it seems very very weak that that's the continuity and also people with

01:52:00.000 alzheimer's are no longer people or no i believe that they they are persons they're the they are the

01:52:04.800 same living being my problem is if you're going to want to say oh well having the same psychological

01:52:09.920 experiences that's what makes you the same person over time well then you get really like you

01:52:15.760 wanted to cut off heads and put them on other bodies well what if we take your brain and split

01:52:20.480 it in two and then put it into two corpses and they both have your psychological connections are

01:52:27.040 they both you it's a really tough one maybe you split into two you's but that seems like a

01:52:33.040 contradiction that you could do two contradictory things at the same time they can't both be you you

01:52:38.400 can't be identical to more than one thing well if you want to if you want to fight there we're not

01:52:42.400 fighting over human conscious experience now we're getting into the nitty-gritty of human identity

01:52:46.160 what you are is a conscious experience might not even be one coherent conscious space there might

01:52:50.320 be 10 or 15 different things running under the hood if you take enough drugs you can visit all

01:52:53.760 of those parts let me ask you but that doesn't get us any farther or closer to like is it possible

01:52:58.240 is it possible for the brain to have more than one person in it more than one conscious experience

01:53:02.800 um it seems like there's some research exploring that maybe it's possible but i don't think we perceive it

01:53:06.960 that way right because there are a split brain or what's it called like the corpse um corpus

01:53:12.000 colosum corpus colosum that once if that's divided or split for some reason you could do a split brain

01:53:16.000 experiment with different halves of your brain seem to be aware of different things so potentially it

01:53:19.520 could be we're just not aware of it i guess right so i was going back to the beginning here i'm rejecting

01:53:24.320 your view that sperm and egg are us uh those are things that became us and there's an explanation for

01:53:31.200 that my explanation relies on the fact that you are the same living organism that that organisms

01:53:37.680 maintain their identity over time in spite of many changes you are the same biological human being was

01:53:44.160 born of your mother decades ago even though you have radically different parts and abilities now

01:53:50.080 because you're that same living being but i would say that you were that also that same living being

01:53:54.400 existed nine months prior to the birth as well and sure and i understand what you're saying i'm just

01:53:58.240 saying that ontologically what what your position demands is that you believe that a single cell

01:54:03.200 organism is of a kind that is similar to a 99 year old human being and that those things belong to the

01:54:08.480 same category but the single cell organism is entirely different from a sperm or are they both human

01:54:13.280 are is the is the m is the zygote and the 99 year old are they both human organisms definitionally so

01:54:20.960 so they are the same but i mean a corpse is also a human organism they are that no that's not true it is

01:54:25.040 of course it is what do you mean what is a human organism i don't know we can bring up the dictionary

01:54:28.480 we want but and i would say an organism is it is a collection of parts that work together for the

01:54:34.720 good of the whole a corpse no longer has that property okay but i mean neither does a single

01:54:39.360 cell organism it can't work to do anything absent how does how does it grow in the womb by getting

01:54:43.520 nutrients from the mother the mother's body is probably doing more at that point that's the same

01:54:46.640 as you and i when we go when we go to in and out and we eat food we we got to do that to keep

01:54:50.720 growing and develop it doesn't have to be in and out but we need nutrients and environment to continue

01:54:55.040 helping also yeah but i think there's a bit of a difference when i eat a cheeseburger my body

01:54:58.560 doesn't become a cheeseburger but a single cell organism is literally one single cell the nutrients

01:55:02.800 coming in from the mother more than even the sum of everything it doesn't turn into sugar or glucose it

01:55:07.120 creates new cells and it creates new elements of its organs out of the nutrients that are coming in but

01:55:12.560 there's more for a single cell organism there's more nutrients being pumped into it than there even is

01:55:16.840 an organism right it's pretty amazing but that doesn't mean that it's not a biological human being

01:55:22.480 and it doesn't mean that it has less value than you or i have just because it goes has much more

01:55:28.160 developing it needs to do sure i just don't think that a single cell organism is more different than

01:55:33.040 a sperm or an egg than it is similar to a 50 year old developed person and i think we both agree

01:55:38.720 it at least scientifically they're very different it belongs to a different biological category than

01:55:43.760 sperm or egg sperm and egg our body parts they're gametes an embryo is a human organism and so when we

01:55:50.080 talk about whether persons or rights need to be given we don't even talk about whether tissue has

01:55:56.720 human rights we only talk about whether human organisms do i guess using your definition of

01:56:03.920 organism but i still think we talk because even if you're talking about rights if we look at people

01:56:07.680 that are brain dead or people in persistent vegetative states legally they're afforded different rights

01:56:11.920 than people who are fully cognizant conscious of their surroundings right well it would never be legal to

01:56:17.200 kill a person or deprive a person of food that's like a normal thinking ordinary conscious human

01:56:22.080 being but it would be for people in pbs or people who are brain well no people people debate about

01:56:27.600 whether uh whether food that is given to someone in a persistent vegetative state is medicine or whether

01:56:34.800 it's food uh people i think that people will try to define being uh permanently unconscious as death

01:56:44.000 instead of disability and honestly many people who are disabled notice this in trying to redefine

01:56:49.920 disability so we don't have to care for those who are disabled okay i think that's a fundamentally

01:56:55.360 different argument but no because there is a dispute many people will care for those who are in persistent

01:57:00.800 vegetative states and also the question that they'll never come out of it is i'm willing to entertain

01:57:05.520 the hypothetical but it is that it's a hypothetical you have people like martin pastorius for example you

01:57:11.040 ever heard of him nope he was 12 years old south african he ended up in a persistent vegetative

01:57:16.960 state is a great story you should read it's very inspiring he has a book called ghost boy he was

01:57:22.000 in a persistent vegetative state maybe from meningitis and they're like what do we do with

01:57:26.160 him so they fed him took him to a home where he was cared for by the time he was about 15 he became

01:57:30.960 conscious again but he was locked in couldn't communicate with anybody so they didn't care about

01:57:35.840 him at the group home so they just sat him in front of the tv and he watched reruns of barney every day

01:57:40.000 and he thought he was going to go mad uh but he decided you know what i'm not going to do this i'm

01:57:43.760 going to will to to do something to get attention to myself and eventually he restored some motor skills

01:57:50.160 came out of his persistent vegetative state and now he races wheelchairs he's a web developer

01:57:55.520 and he's married so part of the thing when it comes to caring for those in persistent vegetative states

01:58:01.760 while yeah some people never come out of it some do and the prognosis maybe is like two to five years

01:58:07.760 years someone lasting more than a decade is very very rare so we care for these people because

01:58:12.800 we're not sure what's going to happen to them it's completely different from a brain dead yeah but i

01:58:16.240 agree with everything you just said but i think that last sentence just illustrated my point completely

01:58:20.400 what do you mean we care for those people because we don't know what's going to happen with them

01:58:23.840 the question is whether or not they're going to wake up it's whether or not i should have rephrased

01:58:28.080 that okay because we don't care about them in their current state it's only based on if they're

01:58:32.320 going to become awake again in that future state no because my view would be even if they didn't ever

01:58:38.320 return from that state i would say that there is a difference there that they are not um

01:58:45.280 foregone like a brain dead individual who is now decomposing we don't give them medical care

01:58:51.600 anymore we might keep their body alive to harvest their organs sure i'm just saying there's a reason

01:58:55.360 why you gave me the story of a boy that woke up and not the inspiring story of somebody that lived in

01:58:58.800 a persistent vegetative state for 30 years and then died well so it could be inspiring that you

01:59:02.720 care for this individual and that you that you don't want to you don't want to starve them to

01:59:07.600 death you don't want to actively kill them it could be but we were leaning on intuitions pretty heavily

01:59:11.360 and it's pretty telling that those stories don't typically exist usually we like the people that wake

01:59:15.440 up but we have to be careful because i feel like the intuition here is oh uh i wouldn't want to live in

01:59:21.200 that state or we think that that life is not worth living in a persistent vegetative state we could

01:59:25.920 easily reach that intuition for locked in for quadriplegics a lot of people make those similar

01:59:31.360 intuitions and i would be very ret reticent to move that into saying oh well we only care for

01:59:38.320 disabled people if we think their lives are worth living that's a dangerous road to go down no it's

01:59:42.480 not we do studies even people with locked in syndrome generally report decent quality of life

01:59:46.320 like we can do empirical analysis on these people we can do studies case studies broad longitudinal

01:59:50.400 studies people tend to adjust to their level and have like a decent quality of life some people do

01:59:54.160 want to die right and if you want to die you should probably have that option but there's

01:59:57.040 the difference between somebody wanting to die versus saying we ought to kill everybody with this

01:59:59.760 type of do we have but do we do this some people who want to die we say that's not a good enough

02:00:04.320 reason i know your girlfriend left you but that's not a good enough reason oh you are you have a bone

02:00:10.640 cancer or something like that or even you're locked in and you don't want to live fine we make judgments

02:00:16.400 there about you're giving me a good reason and you're not i think that's a dangerous road to go down to

02:00:20.720 decide whose reason is good enough to help them out of suicide and whose reason is good enough to

02:00:25.760 help them into it okay i would disagree i would say it's a really dangerous road to compel people

02:00:30.480 to live for the happiness of others around them i don't and i don't believe that i don't believe we

02:00:33.920 should compel people i think that's what you're saying it's compelling somebody to live if you're

02:00:37.360 saying that you're not allowed to take your life you're depriving them of arguably one of the

02:00:40.560 most fundamental negative i'm saying doctors shouldn't kill people i'm saying doctors shouldn't

02:00:44.320 be killers sure should a person be allowed to kill themselves they should be allowed to refuse

02:00:48.640 disproportionate care for they be allowed to jump off a building or a bridge no so they shouldn't

02:00:52.960 be allowed to kill themselves no they shouldn't be around you know they should not do you think they

02:00:56.320 should be do you think people should be allowed to kill themselves yeah i think depending on the

02:00:59.840 circumstances yes for should they be allowed to kill themselves for any reason for any reason

02:01:05.680 probably they don't want to live probably not why because i think that oftentimes the desire to kill

02:01:11.360 yourself without a good stated reason is probably more evidence of some sort of mental problem that

02:01:15.760 should probably be alleviated before the person can make that decision so it would be an issue of

02:01:19.440 we would argue from an informed consent perspective that you're not capable of making this decision

02:01:23.120 because you're in a mentally compromised state but if you take somebody who's 75 they've got stage 4

02:01:27.600 lung cancer they've got 6 to 12 months ahead of them they know it's going to be an excruciating

02:01:30.560 experience and they don't have a desire to live anymore do you think that person should be

02:01:33.120 deprived of the right to kill themselves jump off a building jump off a bridge because that's in your

02:01:36.640 world they would have to do that because the doctors i don't i don't make judgments that oh yeah you have

02:01:40.800 a good reason to kill yourself because then what about the quadriplegic who says you're

02:01:44.880 a 75 year old with cancer what about the 20 year old who will never move their arms and legs again

02:01:50.000 and says i can't live like this for my whole life should they just be allowed to roll themselves into

02:01:54.560 the pool i think that there is plenty of research that shows that people that are even quadriplegics

02:01:59.600 live healthy what if they say screw your research i don't want to live this way if they um then there's

02:02:05.200 i think it's more likely that there's something unhealthy with them so they shouldn't be allowed to why

02:02:08.800 can't we say that for the 75 year old you know what i think that for 75 year olds we do know the

02:02:12.480 prognosis with stage four lung cancer at certain stages and we can say it is going to be bad and

02:02:15.920 you are going to die with six to 12 months right but if anything so you're saying that i'm saying

02:02:21.600 that a person who's 75 someone should be someone should be allowed to kill themselves so they don't

02:02:25.280 have to go through six months of agony yep but a quadriplegic who might go through 60 years of agony

02:02:31.040 no go because it's because at the end of the day i'm making an empirical reference i can say if we

02:02:35.520 look at the pool of people that are quadriplegic at this age 99 of them live and have decently happy

02:02:40.960 fulfilling lives so you're saying people don't really have a right to make autonomous medical

02:02:44.960 choices they only have the right to do what you think the research says no they have the right to

02:02:48.960 make a decision but whether or not the decision is informed or not is important just like we would

02:02:52.320 say a 12 year old doesn't have the right to make certain decisions because we don't think their

02:02:55.760 consent is informed right we would say the same for a 20 year old that wants to kill themselves

02:02:59.200 because they might be disabled probably isn't the same as a 75 year old who does have all the

02:03:02.880 information who wants to make that same decision right but in your world you're saying a 75 year

02:03:06.800 old with stage 4 cancer is not allowed to kill them i am saying that i don't make distinctions

02:03:12.160 about who has a good enough reason to kill themselves and who doesn't i help anyone who

02:03:18.480 is suicidal to not be suicidal now if you have an 85 year old who's why they get 10 years older does

02:03:24.720 75 find a 75 year old who is experiencing organ failure and they don't want to do dialysis because it

02:03:32.000 might give them a few more months and it's expensive and painful no they might not do dialysis or

02:03:36.800 you have someone who is very very elderly and says you know what if i go into cardiac arrest don't

02:03:41.440 give me cpr that i think that could be hold on all of your examples are very easy ways out

02:03:47.200 sometimes people are going to die in ways that aren't going to be quick it's going to be six months

02:03:51.360 right so for a person that's going to die in six months are you saying you're compelled to suffer

02:03:54.800 for that entire six months or i it's fine to well we're getting away from the topic no no hold on

02:04:00.480 you keep saying that okay i'm gonna force you to answer this question i'll answer it but you're not

02:04:04.080 answering it though you keep you add aggravating mitigating circumstances and then you try to

02:04:07.600 change something else i will answer the question but you'll agree euthanasia is a different topic

02:04:11.360 than abortion well yeah of course let's have i'll answer i just want to answer this question yeah

02:04:16.560 the answer is i don't think doctors should kill people especially when that is an option for doctors to do it

02:04:23.200 becomes tempting for that to be the prescribed course of treatment instead of more expensive

02:04:29.120 things to keep somebody alive however i do think that you could administer medication and pain

02:04:34.400 medication to ease someone's suffering even if it has a secondary effect of shortening their lifespan

02:04:41.040 okay so you would say a 75 year old who has the prognosis is six months of suffering he's not

02:04:45.840 allowed to terminate his life i don't think we should kill people who are suicidal why can't you just

02:04:50.080 i don't know why you can't answer that question because it's it's a i'm not talking about people

02:04:54.000 that are suicidal i'm saying he doesn't want to live because his prognosis is six months of suffering

02:04:59.920 so people with a prognosis of six months of suffering and then dying they're not allowed to

02:05:02.800 terminate their life early you would deprive them of that right i believe i would like to answer the

02:05:08.160 question and it will sufficiently answer what you're asking me in the way that i am most comfortable

02:05:12.480 okay if someone wants to commit suicide they don't want to live because life is has too much suffering for

02:05:19.360 them okay this person wants to die they want to kill themselves because of too much suffering correct

02:05:24.960 yeah okay i am not in the business of saying who has a not too much suffering or not enough

02:05:31.600 suffering in many cases those who would kill themselves it's not because of physical pain

02:05:35.280 it's because of loss of it's a loss of dignity another that's fine so my point is okay because then

02:05:39.680 there's no stopping point six months 12 months five years ten years there's no principal place to stop

02:05:44.880 again but you also you can't say that i'm not in the business of because you are you're in the business

02:05:48.560 of saying none of you can make that decision right i treat i want to treat all humans equally so

02:05:52.800 anyone who is suicidal their life has value i'm going to help them out of a destructive decision well

02:05:57.440 when you say their life has value yes but not they're not the ones who decide when it has value

02:06:02.160 or not that's you're deciding that for them no i say every human being has intrinsic value yeah

02:06:07.040 but if they're saying part of the value of my life is i should get to decide when i want to go i

02:06:11.120 want to leave on my terms but you're saying no no no i'm going to decide for you you can't do that you

02:06:14.560 don't have that right i'm going to say we both do that because you're doing that with your research

02:06:18.640 gambit to say no no no you with your reason that's if it's anything that's not six months left to live

02:06:24.240 of a terminal illness it turns out you don't have the research shows you don't have a good enough

02:06:28.400 reason both of us are doing that i'm just applying it to every single human being you're trying to apply

02:06:34.320 it to just a few and there's no way you're able to really do that um with i think i can if you want

02:06:39.440 we can dive into that i can give you a super clear criteria but let's uh do a couple chats

02:06:43.360 here so we have bender the offender hey thank you man for the super chat on the topic topic of

02:06:47.920 consciousness it is important to remember that it is still not fully understood past its basic

02:06:53.440 definition of awareness of internal and external existence consciousness is still very complex as we

02:07:00.240 have a uh motorcycle going by thank you bender the offender and uh i don't know if any of you guys

02:07:05.920 have a response to that but uh yeah i mean obviously just a statement i think the brain

02:07:09.920 is still like the most complicated un-understood misunderstood or lack of understood organism

02:07:15.760 or thing in the universe so far except for maybe black holes we have richie constitution here hey

02:07:21.920 thank you for the super chat appreciate it destiny why do you keep saying for some other to carry the

02:07:26.240 baby when she knows the consequences of having sex could be having a baby and she knows that

02:07:30.880 contraception is not foolproof is she not responsible for her actions um i mean i could

02:07:37.520 counter and say hypothetically there could be a rape but i mean that's kind of a boring counter

02:07:41.920 um i mean it's begging the question like the consequence of having a baby is delivering the

02:07:47.280 baby i mean it doesn't have to be the consequence could be you can get an abortion that's what we're

02:07:51.200 that's the the matter of what we're debating is what is what you should be allowed to do well

02:07:55.040 both of us are forcing someone to carry a baby to term destiny would force them after 20 weeks

02:08:00.080 yeah of course so i would just say so both of us i would phrase it this way we're both

02:08:03.760 forcing uh a pregnant woman to not allow someone else to kill or dismember her child

02:08:12.000 but the difference is i'm forcing somebody to care about that 20 week picture and you're

02:08:15.280 forcing them to care about the two cell picture yeah and i'm saying that human value does not depend

02:08:20.160 on what we look like there's ai that looks just like us that doesn't have value there are disfigured

02:08:25.040 people who don't look like us we evolved the problem is that we evolved to

02:08:29.840 care about people that look like us that's why humans have a problem with racism you know we we

02:08:34.080 evolved an ability to trust the members of our tribe if you don't look like me maybe you're a danger

02:08:38.320 so we have an evolutionary predisposition to not trust people who don't look like us or we think

02:08:44.480 people who are in the uncanny valley like weird robots i think that's due to the fact that we stay

02:08:49.280 away from sick people they might get us infected so we have an evolutionary predisposition to not care

02:08:54.000 for people who look dramatically different and i don't think that should guide our decision about

02:08:58.480 whether early human embryos have value okay um i have a question for you trent uh there's there's

02:09:07.280 something that often comes up uh no no uterus no opinion so we do have two men here debating the

02:09:14.960 abortion topic so trent what would you say to someone who says that yeah people who are pro-life

02:09:20.160 uh it's men wanting to control women or control women's bodies what what do you say to that well

02:09:27.680 i had two women here last time and i don't know i i'm having fun with our conversation we're having

02:09:31.600 now i think it's going well and we can discuss this i i would say that that there's a kernel of truth

02:09:38.560 here that for example i am not in a i and anyone else who has never been pregnant which would include

02:09:44.960 some women are not in a position to say oh pregnancy is easy pregnancy is hard if you haven't done it

02:09:50.160 you're not in that position even people who have been pregnant you don't know what it's like for

02:09:52.720 other people to go through pregnancies it might be harder or easier for them so on the one hand

02:09:57.760 like if you've never been pregnant you can't really say oh it's hard oh it's easy you know you haven't

02:10:02.400 gone through it but you can say for example that child abuse or child labor making your kids work in

02:10:08.800 a mine or abusing kids that's wrong even if you never have children you know or like a white person

02:10:15.680 can say racism is wrong even if they've never been a victim of racism just because you are not

02:10:20.560 personally affected by an issue it doesn't follow you can't have a valid perspective on it this

02:10:25.600 argument if it goes to its logical conclusion transgender women can't have an opinion on abortion

02:10:30.640 because they don't have uteruses uteri uh women who are post-menopausal hillary clinton ruth

02:10:36.480 bader ginsburg can't have opinions because they can't get pregnant anymore but it's like i can't

02:10:41.440 get pregnant they can't get pregnant in the future i can't get pregnant in the future so i think that

02:10:45.120 the argument that if you are a rational being and you can assess moral reasoning you can have an

02:10:50.400 opinion on important stuff got it and i want to throw this in here and i've brought this up before and

02:10:55.440 i know it's kind of uh certainly must be decades or even longer away from even being a possibility

02:11:01.680 any thoughts on a middle ground compromise between the pro choice side and the pro life side

02:11:10.320 being an artificial womb and assuming said artificial womb if you were able to transplant

02:11:18.720 uh the fetus or embryo not for his position maybe for others but if you were able to put it into an

02:11:24.720 artificial womb and that artificial womb was advanced enough to you know it would be as healthy

02:11:31.600 as a baby that was that would have otherwise been born to uh normally um do you think that that's uh

02:11:38.800 could be a compromise or well it's weird we basically have artificial wombs from that can handle an

02:11:44.320 embryo up to a few days old or a fetus from like 20 weeks on so it's like we can take care of an unborn

02:11:51.120 child like going from each end meeting back in the middle but we can't really do it well we can't

02:11:56.960 really do anything from you know week or two until like 18 weeks we might have some liquids that are

02:12:03.760 oxygenated the problem is at 20 weeks the fetus's lungs aren't really developed enough to breathe

02:12:08.240 that's the problem oxygenated liquid maybe we could do that we'll push it back more uh what i would say

02:12:13.600 is that it would only be a middle it would only be a compromise if your position on abortion were this

02:12:19.120 yes it is a human person but it has no right to the mother's body if the are if you're only arguing

02:12:25.200 women have a right not to abortion but the right to not be pregnant then the artificial womb can play

02:12:30.480 in because you wouldn't have a right to necessarily kill the fetus the only right you have is i don't

02:12:35.520 want to be pregnant anymore fine move the fetus to this then you wouldn't you'd really lose the

02:12:41.520 argument that i also want the fetus to be dead because i don't want to deal with that child out there

02:12:47.840 if your argument is just you have a right to not be pregnant you can't really get to that

02:12:52.000 but if you say that the fetus is not a person anyways well if you can kill them when they're

02:12:57.120 if you can permit make them unconscious if you can if you can do all sorts if you can do anything to

02:13:01.680 them before 20 weeks which is basically destiny's position you can't be compelled to put him in an

02:13:05.680 artificial womb any thoughts on no i don't know why you i don't know how that would change anything

02:13:11.040 yeah well so let's say uh a mother who doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy she could

02:13:19.120 she could get an abortion however the fetus baby whatever uh would not be killed it would just be

02:13:26.720 transferred to an artificial womb you know my position would be that the mother weeks or after

02:13:30.640 i guess if you want to do they could but prior to 20 weeks you wouldn't there'd be no compulsion to

02:13:34.240 transfer it to anything well the compromise would be at any point assuming we could develop an

02:13:39.680 artificial womb that even from i don't know how tip how quickly it typically gets discovered six

02:13:46.560 weeks or four weeks five weeks six in any case from pretty much any point in the pregnancy even

02:13:51.920 very early on it could be transferred to an artificial womb okay um if a woman wanted to

02:13:58.560 not go through with a pregnancy she would be she'd have to go to a say hospital it'd be transferred to

02:14:03.600 an artificial womb it i suppose the uh once the child was born it would be

02:14:07.440 become a ward of the state or if she was so inclined maybe she didn't want to actually go

02:14:11.840 through with the pregnancy but she she may be prepared to actually mother the child because i

02:14:18.240 think some women's concern when it comes to abortion is it's plausible that some women who get abortions

02:14:24.240 might actually be willing to take care of the child once it's born but perhaps they don't want to

02:14:29.440 one of the reasons maybe they don't actually want to go through well that's why a lot of like

02:14:33.600 celebrities hire surrogates now right gestational circuits exactly yeah well what is hard is also

02:14:39.600 um if that were out there i think that would be better than the child being aborted but i still

02:14:45.520 think that a child who comes into existence if they're a person they have the right to reside in

02:14:50.000 their mother's womb the the place that is safe and natural for them to live sure but i mean of course

02:14:55.600 this is assuming that you know there's certain arguments about well what about certain uh

02:15:00.000 uh uh i'm trying to think uh there's a specific term that's evading me but uh

02:15:07.760 what what what was it with uh it's it slipped my mind but um assuming that you could in an artificial

02:15:15.840 womb you could bring the child to term right just as healthily with as in the mother's womb i don't

02:15:20.880 know if that's even possible um but let's say it is um i suppose my only concern with the artificial womb

02:15:28.720 you know just looking at it from this one narrow lens of abortion is what are the sort of other

02:15:35.280 ramifications well here's a ramification if you could deliver at 18 weeks right now the earliest

02:15:40.240 is like 20 but we could get there where you can keep an 18 week old fetus alive in an incubator so it

02:15:48.880 could be sitting there in an incubator and for the next two weeks the parents would have under destiny's

02:15:53.520 view a free decision whether or not they want to kill that fetus in that hospital incubator right

02:15:59.520 in front of them correct yep okay so i think many people would find that pretty disturbing sure and

02:16:06.880 certainly i mean there's there's other concerns with artificial wombs like people actually not it

02:16:12.320 wouldn't be used strictly in situations where perhaps a woman wanted to have an abortion or perhaps a woman

02:16:17.520 uh well and couldn't couldn't uh have a healthy pregnancy and or well i think i think if i would

02:16:25.440 be very worried about like farming humans type well if you if destiny's view is correct and you cannot

02:16:30.960 harm a fetus before 20 weeks there's nothing stopping you from using ivf embryos abandoned embryos

02:16:37.920 there's thousands of abandoned embryos and cryotanks you could just put them into these artificial wombs

02:16:44.080 do something to their brains so they never become conscious sure and you've got organ harvesting

02:16:48.400 you've got sex dolls you've got or even just making them just unconscious use them as use them as

02:16:54.000 cadavers for med students to work with i think many people would find that to be really really um

02:17:02.000 awful um and counterintuitive that we should we ought not treat those human beings that way and if they

02:17:07.120 are persons that best explains that that intuition sure that's true but i would also i would just kind of

02:17:12.240 with the thing that trent said earlier that sometimes we can have incorrect incorrect intuitions

02:17:16.000 i would say yeah all right we have a super chat here from richie constitution uh destiny do you want

02:17:23.840 to read this one our biggest fan destiny why do you keep saying force a mother to carry the baby when

02:17:28.400 she knows wait wait did we already do this one oh did we do yeah we did this one yeah oh my apologies we

02:17:33.440 do have this one which i was actually gonna ask this anyways but may as well uh nerd for trent and

02:17:38.160 destiny can you in a couple sentences steel man each other's position and explain what is most

02:17:43.120 powerful about each other's position yeah and and just one thing the way i would i was gonna ask this

02:17:51.680 maybe not necessarily each other's position but if you were to steel man the pro-choice side and destiny

02:17:59.280 if you were to steel man the pro-life side uh trent would you like to say i would say destiny's position

02:18:06.560 is that we value the thing that we value is um human conscious experience uh that is something

02:18:15.200 that is unique in the world that we value and so we should provide legal protections only to beings that

02:18:22.320 have human conscious experiences and his position is that this covers beings from 20 weeks until they

02:18:30.000 permanently lose that ability like if they're in persistent vegetative state if i were to steel man his

02:18:35.120 position i would just turn it into peter singer's position on abortion which is because i would say

02:18:41.440 that what makes the human conscious experience unique is not merely that a human is conscious and is aware

02:18:48.240 of light heat pressure cold uh sour uh familiar noise unfamiliar noise but that they can reason they can do

02:18:57.840 things more than what animals can do so we value the human conscious experience that is unique

02:19:04.560 to human beings no other animal has and we only find that like from nine months after birth

02:19:10.560 until traumatic injury so i would just say that the for me the only way to steel man destiny's position

02:19:16.240 would be to include um infanticide based um i think uh transposition is essentially a teleological

02:19:24.560 argument there is a telos there is like a design and function and purpose of a zygote from the moment of

02:19:30.000 conception up to the moment of death we have one consistent organism with its own genetic code

02:19:34.400 and the most consistent boundary to draw around the protection of that life is from the moment of

02:19:38.000 its inception the time that that unique organism is created which is at the moment of conception

02:19:42.240 until the time of its death which is when essentially metabolic function has ceased because

02:19:46.000 the telos or the design of or the ordinary function of that particular egg is to gestate in the womb

02:19:51.520 be born into a person grow develop and then eventually die as a human being

02:19:58.000 that was the steel man of the other side i think so yeah okay all right we have a chat here from

02:20:04.000 kyle whittington thank you man appreciate the soup chat what do each of you see as this okay we

02:20:09.840 what do each of you see as the strongest argument from the other i think we we kind of just we kind of

02:20:14.800 just uh got that how about this though let kyle why don't i do this since we kind of just answered

02:20:20.000 that what is the weakest argument you hear from the other side uh let's the weakest argument from

02:20:28.560 the pro-choice position would just be abortion ought to be legal because born people will suffer if it's

02:20:36.000 illegal i think that is an extremely common argument if you brought in a bunch of people who haven't

02:20:41.840 destiny's thought about this a lot i've thought about it a lot if you brought in regular people

02:20:45.280 from off the street out here to defend their pro-choice view that probably the first argument

02:20:49.920 what about women who are raped what about poverty what about all these issues overpopulation whatever

02:20:55.840 the worst argument is we need to have a legal abortion because born people would suffer without

02:20:59.760 it of course it's a terrible argument because it ignores well what are the unborn if you're saying

02:21:04.720 that you can kill a human being in the first nine months of their life because if not doing that

02:21:10.160 you're going to suffer well you could think of cases of killing born children you know children

02:21:15.600 who are in foster care for example like oh they're they're going to be drug addicts and prostitutes

02:21:21.360 uh maybe we should just kill them so they don't have a terrible life well if we don't do that to

02:21:25.680 toddlers then we shouldn't do that to unborn humans if they're both equally human have the same value

02:21:32.000 so i would say that those pragmatic arguments are the worst arguments destiny what do you think

02:21:36.720 i think the two worst ones are one is the picture argument i don't like the if you show a picture

02:21:40.960 and it's like is this right or wrong um i feel like the best illustration of that was i don't remember

02:21:45.680 who what his name was but there's a guy that went on charlie kirk's show and he held up like a picture

02:21:48.960 of like uh like a 24 week embryo and he's like is this a human and charlie was like absolutely and

02:21:54.080 the guy's like this is a pig embryo and charlie's like oh and then he got into a fight over that

02:21:57.200 yeah i think the second i i the most morally reprehensible argument is i don't like a donor kind of did

02:22:02.560 it i don't like the argument from responsibility because they almost make it sound like a child

02:22:06.560 is like a negative consequence or a punishment from sex i think that that one gets really loaded

02:22:10.720 because it starts to feel like they're using a child as a form of punishment to attack a woman

02:22:14.960 which is a really poor way to deal with the woman and it's a really sad way to deal with the existence

02:22:18.640 of a child like the idea that children are consequences negative of actions you take so i

02:22:23.200 think those two things are but you you're not a fan of bodily rights arguments for abortion that say

02:22:28.400 even if it is a person you still have the right to have an abortion you're i mean you you're you

02:22:33.520 don't think those arguments work no wouldn't the basis of that be if the unborn human being is a

02:22:40.640 you can't abort them because you have moral duties towards them yeah but i think the moral duties if

02:22:47.600 somebody wants to talk about a form of like moral duties to other people or the de facto guardianship

02:22:51.200 that you inherit over a child because you only can provide care that's one argument but the way that

02:22:54.960 it's often times like don't you think a woman should have consequences i agree with you it can

02:22:59.040 be put very crass and sexist there is like a more eloquent way to make that argument we talk about

02:23:03.120 moral duties and responsibilities that i that i've probably made actually i did against a dilla

02:23:06.320 hunting when i argued against that um so yeah i would agree that but oftentimes it's just phrased

02:23:10.240 in a really negative way that makes it well it's like you had sex you should own up to it when it's

02:23:15.200 only levied at women for example and not men that they should support her and the child and then it's

02:23:21.200 done in a sexist way so yeah yeah all right and then we have uh one sec here especially because

02:23:27.440 those same people will oftentimes make arguments for men being able to financially abort their

02:23:30.880 responsibility too so even though it takes two to create a baby more often than not yeah i i say they

02:23:36.640 both have different responsibilities but equally they are responsible got it sorry guys trying to get

02:23:43.120 this triggered once more not that kind of triggered the uh stream labs one we had um by the way destiny i

02:23:50.720 see you're not wearing a wedding ring but you are married where i'm playing with i always play

02:23:55.840 with my okay it's silicone oh uh kirby one third of rats have the conscious ability to hear see smell

02:24:01.520 to a great extent more so than the newborn human in these ways their consciousness is greater yet they're

02:24:06.480 not persons destiny appealed to human conscious experience as if the fact that a dot dot dot dot i guess he

02:24:12.880 didn't have enough time to uh yeah i just i don't agree that a diminished human experience is like

02:24:17.760 similar to like a rat or a pig or a lizard i've never seen any evidence or any description

02:24:22.960 academically of that but i mean again if somebody were to like compellingly argue that then they would

02:24:28.160 just be pushing me closer and closer to peter singer's position which i think is like abortion

02:24:32.320 up to two years old i think it's his position he says 28 days nine months people give different

02:24:37.360 time frames but it's sometime after birth so yeah all right and uh i had another question here um and i

02:24:49.360 know i don't know if you if you were able to fully give an answer trent but um so legislatively speaking

02:24:58.080 you i don't know if you fully answered so

02:25:00.320 would you you would like to make abortion illegal is that correct yeah to perform to to get an

02:25:08.400 abortion yeah i would say that the laws that i i think would be most um helpful to pass given i

02:25:16.400 would just go with the laws that are being passed now uh in states that are making abortion illegal

02:25:21.280 where it is illegal to perform an abortion uh so that wouldn't reflect on those who seek out the

02:25:28.240 procedure it's on medical doctors who should know better so those i would say that that procedure

02:25:34.640 should be outlawed uh and so in doing that i don't think that's inconsistent because you can craft laws

02:25:42.400 let's say for example you see prostitution as a public health threat so much so that it ought to be

02:25:47.360 illegal it's not inconsistent to simply say well to take into account the circumstances of women who are

02:25:53.200 involved we're going to make it illegal to to buy sex but not to sell sex and so we we we charge the

02:25:59.200 johns and the and the pimps and all these other people uh so i think that you can have something

02:26:04.240 similar but i do think that yeah i do think that unborn children should be protected from harm in the

02:26:09.040 womb whether they're wanted or unwanted and we do have the uh two-thirds and uh the other two chats

02:26:15.680 here from kirby hold on let me get these pulled back up uh tooth i think this he's just okay two

02:26:22.480 two out two two out excuse me two out of three of his messages newborn with less conscious ability

02:26:28.720 than a rat is a person because of their humanity not their extent of conscious if less consciousness

02:26:34.800 than the pig but you're human makes a newborn or a 20-week fetus a person then this shows the extent

02:26:42.400 and then let oops hold on of consciousness is not the person making factor you must therefore either

02:26:48.880 appeal to a future greater extent of consciousness or appeal to humanity in itself either appeal prevents

02:26:57.040 you from advocating for pre-20-week abortions do you guys have a thought on this it's the same thing

02:27:02.800 that they're saying that i'm setting a bar that's either too low that animals could jump through it or too

02:27:08.400 high such that a 20-week-old or a nine-month-old fetus couldn't jump through it but again i would

02:27:12.960 argue that a human conscious experience is a kind of conscious experience that's unique from the

02:27:16.560 moment of conception that is a sapient human experience not from the moment of conception

02:27:19.520 from the moment of the conception of the conscious experience so from the 20-week period 20 to 28 weeks

02:27:23.680 that once that conscious experience starts that is a unique sapient human conscious experience it might

02:27:27.680 be diminished it might be developing but it's something unique from any other type of animal experience

02:27:31.120 and i would say that just begs the question dogs have unique conscious experiences uh birds have

02:27:35.760 unique conscious experiences so just because you have a unique experience it doesn't follow that

02:27:41.520 it deserves legal protection nobody human unique one does why well i don't know why does god exist i

02:27:48.800 mean that's a fundamental there are rights i believe that we afford each other and one of those is the

02:27:52.560 right to not be killed right and to me i think when the human part of the equation is pressed into service

02:27:58.480 to save one from becoming a radical vegan i think that more slides into defending the pro-life view that all

02:28:04.480 humans are valuable regardless of whether they currently have conscious experiences or they

02:28:09.440 will eventually have them okay and i don't think that we should hold women you know on trial for

02:28:14.480 murder because they abort something that hasn't even woken up yet but you do think they should be on

02:28:18.240 trial for murder for something that has the most minimal consciousness it can have as a human being

02:28:23.200 absolutely okay but they have the opportunity to abort first i don't think a woman that takes plan b

02:28:27.040 should be investigated for homicide if they euthanize their dogs correct you can euthanize your dog yeah but i

02:28:33.280 i don't think people that take plan b demand murder investigations okay we have a chat here

02:28:38.240 from gohan bento thank you for the super chat should a mother be compelled to carry a baby to term

02:28:44.880 if at two weeks it's determined that the future child absolutely will carry destiny out of diamond four

02:28:51.920 saving his league of legends career absolutely because there's a future person being saved there and

02:28:57.280 that's me it's about saving a life okay there you go it's not yeah i would say that it's not a

02:29:01.920 potential person it is a person with great potential to help destiny of extraordinary capabilities

02:29:09.040 got it and uh this one's kind of random related to time travel so destiny why not why not destiny if

02:29:18.800 your mom in this wanted to abort you at say seven weeks ten weeks whatever let's say you you could time

02:29:28.480 travel back in time would you advocate for or against your abortion i think that our i think

02:29:37.760 that everything starts with fundamental basic human logics some people call these properly basic beliefs

02:29:45.680 so i've heard other very simple things but everything starts from these um from here we

02:29:50.560 have an understanding of something called causality that event leads to event that leads to event if you

02:29:54.720 want to break a chain of causality and then ask me a question past that i can't give you any kind of

02:29:59.360 consistent or coherent answer um if you go back into the past to do other things then there's like

02:30:05.120 para consistent logics and all sorts of weird things that open up that i can't give any meaningful

02:30:09.600 answer for i don't i don't know the i don't know the answer to that okay fair enough i don't know if you had

02:30:14.800 anything on that i'm pretty time travel is fun in movies it's a nightmare in philosophy sure one probably should

02:30:22.080 avoid it okay um and then let's see we have i had a question here for trent so what would you say to

02:30:31.360 someone who says that it's hard to take conservatives seriously on the abortion issue considering perhaps

02:30:40.880 not all conservatives but some or who knows who knows the percentage breakdown considering their social

02:30:46.960 darwinism on many other issues well i would say that a person can be correct and still be inconsistent

02:30:57.520 so 150 years ago there were white people who were saying that black people should not be slaves but

02:31:04.080 also that black people shouldn't be allowed to marry white people they shouldn't be allowed to vote so

02:31:08.000 they were correct about um the wrongness of slavery even though they're wrong about some of the other

02:31:13.440 rights that they should have so you could be right about abortion and then you're incorrect about

02:31:18.000 other stuff you're not applying your world view consistently i also think though that the argument

02:31:24.080 is incredibly loaded in that regard i i think saying that conservatives on social darwinism is like

02:31:29.920 saying liberals want the gulags you know it's uh uh that it's a caricature of one's position it

02:31:35.760 ultimately comes down to i support this social program you don't want to spend as much as me on it so

02:31:41.440 you're a social darwinist we're going to disagree about well is this the best way to solve this

02:31:45.440 problem or there are going to be solutions where we're not sure what the right answer is

02:31:50.400 but i think that there are there should be solutions where we're clear what the wrong answer

02:31:54.960 is like we may not know exactly what to do with immigration we shouldn't shoot immigrants who are

02:31:59.360 coming over the border uh people are going to disagree how do we treat unborn children if they're

02:32:04.880 persons well at the very least we shouldn't dismember them uh we you know we shouldn't um uh directly kill

02:32:10.640 them in the womb uh so i and i could by the way the hypocrisy thing goes back to liberals too

02:32:15.280 they claim to be all approach like what is it reason or somebody else did a video about this

02:32:20.480 where they went to the democratic national convention and said are you pro-choice like

02:32:23.520 absolutely okay do you believe in the choice to own a gun do you believe in the choice uh school

02:32:28.080 choice or charter schools you leave in the choice to you know to do this or that oh no no you can't do

02:32:33.120 that so it cuts both ways okay got it got it then i had let me see what else we had here uh

02:32:43.120 question here for destiny so if it became absolutely clear to you that the unborn child

02:32:49.360 before is it 23 weeks 20 weeks 20 weeks uh before that period if it became absolutely clear that it's

02:32:56.960 a living human being would you then favor uh outlawing abortion before 20 weeks yeah okay

02:33:05.600 but that's not your position but if without my position has nothing to do with the timeline

02:33:09.280 it has to do the deployment of the conscious experience okay gotcha we have another super

02:33:13.440 chat here from the joshua project hey thank you man appreciate it should husbands be required to take

02:33:18.800 a paternity paternity test prior to signing a birth certificate and if he and if he found not to be the

02:33:25.200 father should the mother be charged with fraud and should taxpayers he be forced to pay for unwed

02:33:33.760 mother's children well i would say the children didn't do anything wrong so it's like we should still

02:33:39.360 provide care for them it's not their fault they're in a not not ideal situation so but i would say

02:33:45.680 what's interesting here is this touches on something called the presumption of paternity

02:33:49.360 so throughout most of human history up until very recently when a child is born it's

02:33:55.040 really easy to figure out who the mom is right because she's right there yeah but when a child

02:33:59.440 but it hasn't always been easy to figure out who dad is so that's why throughout most marriage and

02:34:05.680 common law the presumption of paternity is that if a woman gives birth the the husband is the man

02:34:11.520 she is married to and he is the only one who can challenge that and so he might challenge paternity

02:34:17.520 if you know hey i was i was way at war for a year and you got pregnant and had a kid what's going on

02:34:22.000 here but otherwise that would be up to him uh the challenge and yeah if there's an issue there i think

02:34:28.640 the child should just be taken care of even if the marriage is a bit of a mess sure any thoughts on this

02:34:34.720 destiny um treated as fraud you'd have to prove it's fraudulent there could legitimately be a mistake

02:34:40.800 where a woman is uh dating or casually having sex with a couple people and then has a more formal

02:34:45.920 relationship and then she got pregnant early and i didn't realize it like i don't know if it would count

02:34:50.400 as fraud if that was the case well i think though that's why also to have a strong familial structure

02:34:56.320 the best thing for families though would be something that's that's monogamous to prevent

02:35:01.280 these kinds of things from happening sure but i'm just saying the crime of fraud requires men's

02:35:05.440 raise the intent to fraud i don't think you can defraud somebody accidentally right like if i

02:35:09.600 legitimately think careless yeah yeah so i don't think i i don't think all forms of mispaternity or or

02:35:15.280 incorrect paternity are necessarily fraudulent you'd have to prove the willful fraudulent behavior of the

02:35:19.920 mother i mean but would it be fraudulent if there was around the time period where uh she there was

02:35:27.120 she got pregnant there was infidelity that was at no point ever disclosed to the husband

02:35:33.680 and like she could be estranged from him get you know get pregnant well i guess it would be hard for

02:35:39.680 her to timeline wise well also because you could argue there's a due diligence that's necessary

02:35:44.640 oh oh flan life thank you for the uh membership thank you you can argue there's like a necessary

02:35:50.080 due diligence there for from the mother's perspective sure okay um but you're saying

02:35:56.320 let's assume that you could prove it's fraud like she knew it's not the baby

02:36:02.960 should there be should there be civil penalties criminal penalties i mean whatever the normal

02:36:08.960 thing is for scamming the state or another person i guess whatever it ordinarily is well i don't think

02:36:14.720 you can regardless of who the father is i don't know i i think that'd be more of like it's more of a

02:36:20.480 it's more of a civil matter now to deal with family court about how do we support this child and who is

02:36:26.160 related to that i still think that husbands have duties to their wives even if these things happen

02:36:30.880 that this is infidelity doesn't break the marriage this is a it's this is like a red pill fantasy

02:36:35.040 question of like that all women are trying to defraud fathers with like fake child support it's

02:36:39.200 essentially that's what the question is so i would say well can't should wives be able to have civil

02:36:43.760 liability towards their husbands if they knock up another girl like why should why why is anyone

02:36:48.400 asking about that oh no true they're not asking about that you know so true that's because they're red

02:36:53.840 pillars yeah but i think perhaps it's it's a greater perhaps it's a greater wrong because uh

02:37:05.760 actually i don't know where i'm going i'm going with that one but but as far as the paternity

02:37:09.920 testing i think i my personal stance is i would actually be in favor of when the child's born there's

02:37:17.440 just automatic paternity test that way there's absolutely no questions i feel i yeah i i would just

02:37:22.960 to me i would say that this it's rare that that happens and that's why my preferred option would

02:37:29.440 just be well now you might i think people could have the option to ask for that as if they're not

02:37:35.200 married but that's why that's why my ideal would be that's the reason we bring children into existence

02:37:41.040 in marriage it's not just some romantic option like when a when a child is conceived you've got a

02:37:45.920 helpless human being and whose duty is towards that child really it's the mother and father they're

02:37:51.760 if they die we can come up with a decent substitute but the mother and father are really irreplaceable

02:37:55.840 to that child they can never be truly replaced it's always almost there so we have an institution

02:38:01.520 to make them irreplaceable to each other which would be a lifelong permanent monogamous bond that's

02:38:06.720 socially recognized and that's why marriage is so important to society in that regard do we know the

02:38:12.400 percentage breakdown of uh the the incidence rate of paternity fraud so basically or or in other words

02:38:20.160 it's like one to two percent of like all i've i've heard up to ten percent that's a total

02:38:24.720 fucking lie whoever told it you should never trust a single thing that tell you about any data

02:38:28.480 well i think we ought to google probably like absolutely like women and that's where he gets

02:38:32.320 all of his stats from is that www.fuckwomen.com whoever told you that wait who told you that

02:38:37.120 that paternity fraud is upwards of ten percent yeah who told you that you know what the stat you

02:38:41.680 know what you know what i'm i just divined the god just fucking direct revelation i just got

02:38:46.080 special revelation god i just figured out what he said this fucking moron probably read something

02:38:49.600 that said in the case where paternity is challenged ten percent of them are fraudulent i could maybe

02:38:55.200 believe that number well if you're making the same of the ten percent of all paternity is like that

02:38:59.920 ten that'd be like one out of every ten kids oh it's not it's not really their kid yeah that's

02:39:04.800 insane that's i agree with you that it may it may be the case that when when it's challenged i mean i

02:39:10.400 look but most paternity is not exactly so it's probably only challenged in cases of suspected infidelity

02:39:15.840 in which case i can see google it i'll google it uh incidents of paternity fraud maybe that's the

02:39:22.560 appropriate prompt prompt for this uh okay so it does look like there's some challenge to this

02:39:29.760 ten percent number that would just be an insane number well for all yeah for sure that would be

02:39:34.720 insane according to wikipedia which is not you know uh it says that in studies that solely looked at

02:39:44.080 couples who obtained paternity testing because paternity was being disputed you can you can bring it back

02:39:51.600 there are there are higher levels an incidence of 17 17 to 33 in instances where it the paternity is

02:40:00.000 being disputed we need the mori clip right now you are not the father yeah but so that's in a very

02:40:05.680 that's probably in if i had to guess less than five percent of births probably less than that of

02:40:11.040 paternities are challenged and then of that less than that percent 17 to 33 of those might come back as

02:40:16.960 being yeah let's see i'm trying to find another thing here and well in any case uh i would be in

02:40:24.240 favor of paternity testing upon birth why you know just what if that what if there's a false positive of

02:40:32.240 one out of a thousand yeah i don't i don't believe i don't believe in mandatory medical intervention

02:40:37.440 unless it's to prevent neglect or violence towards another human being so just for this like no that's why we

02:40:43.760 have the presumption the only person if they're worried the dad can make that call otherwise

02:40:47.840 there's no need okay fair enough uh let's see did we get another chat in nick or

02:40:55.520 no i don't i don't think we did um do you guys have anything else i might have one more one or two

02:41:00.480 more questions but did you guys have any other topics you wanted to touch on or i think people see

02:41:05.840 our positions and um can see which one makes the most sense of everything they believe about the world so

02:41:10.720 true yeah okay all right so i had another question here let's see three hours not bad

02:41:18.640 uh one sec guys

02:41:23.600 sorry i lost my uh place in my notes here uh

02:41:31.600 oh if a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered do you believe the criminal should face

02:41:38.640 two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence i suppose i'll open this up to the both of you

02:41:44.720 well i think more people have been killed yeah so it's be more counts of homicide yeah okay and for

02:41:50.320 destinies probably depends on how far along the fetus was it was after 20 weeks yeah would you agree

02:41:54.800 with that uh yeah it depends on how far along it is yeah okay all right one sec here guys my notes

02:42:03.360 are lagging sorry hold on let me play something appropriate for this hold on

02:42:15.360 i'd love to hear your opinion on this at some point you want to you want to just be the neutral or you

02:42:19.040 want to be the neutral moderator i'll i'll just stay neutral that's fine on on this one but uh

02:42:25.280 yeah um okay i think we're that's it do we did we get any uh chats or

02:42:30.880 good on chats nick was there one more that came in

02:42:39.280 are you what are you looking for nick

02:42:42.880 okay cool uh last chance any final thoughts between either of you before we wrap up no it was um

02:42:49.280 i enjoyed chatting with you about this and i think these kind of conversations like these are

02:42:53.760 really this shows at the very least this is an important issue uh you know it's a weighty moral

02:42:59.680 subject and i think conversations like this their goal it's not to no conversation like this can ever

02:43:04.480 like end the issue but i think it can encourage people you should think about this kind of stuff

02:43:09.600 deeply and think about it to have at least a coherent view and test it and refine it so i'm glad at

02:43:16.640 at least this conversation with us if it can get people to think about this then i think it's it's

02:43:20.800 a worthwhile discussion to have yeah i agree okay very cool all right well i think we are uh gonna

02:43:29.920 wrap someone said that i don't know how true this is but someone said that there was a streamlabs

02:43:34.960 question so i'll just check that oh yes let me check there is there is thank you for catching that

02:43:41.680 we have our final chat here from jazz thank you man appreciate it conservatives want to ban abortion

02:43:48.560 but simultaneously oppose social services for children lunches in schools and socialized health

02:43:54.480 care single parent households have the worst outcomes in terms of education and criminality

02:44:00.640 as a physician conservatives are disgusting his words not mine don't shoot the messenger

02:44:06.960 um this sort of almost echoes my question i asked earlier about the social darwinism component but

02:44:13.200 if you'd like the other problem with this stuff is it's such a monolithic binary way of thinking

02:44:17.920 like there are lots of pro-choice republicans there's a lot of like we call them like barry

02:44:22.720 i grew up in arizona we call them barry goldwater republicans like there's a lot of people who are

02:44:26.880 conservative who are actually i would say well it's interesting there's a there's a decent number of pro-choice

02:44:33.120 republicans there are a few pro-life democrats but it's a lot rarer to find a pro-life democrat than

02:44:38.880 it is to find a pro-choice republican sure in my opinion so i do think that that's just

02:44:44.000 it's a stereotypical argument there there are a lot of you can be i would say being pro-life is a very

02:44:51.040 liberal position because the goal of liberalism is to expand the sphere of human equality to as many

02:44:56.880 people um nat henthoff was you know he's an atheist he wrote for the village voice he did the consistent

02:45:02.560 life ethic there's lots of people like that so i would say that it's um you know it's not a strictly

02:45:08.400 political thing but yeah if you're what the thing is like if you're i would say the hypocrisy but goes

02:45:13.760 both ways it's bad if you care you only care about children before they're born and not after but it's

02:45:20.320 also hypocritical to only care about them after and not before and i also think that it's lame to say

02:45:25.760 you don't care about kids because you disagree with my policy well people can disagree about

02:45:30.480 what's the best way to help people so overall i think it's just kind of a lame objection

02:45:36.320 i just they have nothing to do with each other okay like like people will yeah like the conservative

02:45:41.360 answer is we do care about children after they're born we just care about them in different ways

02:45:45.120 because we don't think it's the federal government's responsibility to take care of

02:45:47.120 children i think it's community churches families so it's yes or you could say it is a federal

02:45:51.760 government's responsibility uh but the question is where do we draw the line where they go

02:45:55.680 too far it's too much okay got it and uh you often hear perhaps in uh the other side you'll often

02:46:05.360 hear them say the other side's evil in this discussion uh both sides might say that uh do

02:46:11.680 you do you think the other side is is evil for wanting i think very rarely it's incredibly rare that um

02:46:17.440 anybody's evil uh i do believe that people share 99 um the same kind of like moral intuitions i think

02:46:23.440 there's just a disagreement of fact factual matters sometimes um when it comes to understanding

02:46:28.640 certain positions um now there are going to be some positions at the edges so abortion i think

02:46:33.680 and veganism are two of them where there's room for legitimate disagreement because we're getting

02:46:38.000 at the boundaries of like human knowledge like what is a human life or what is a conscious experience

02:46:42.560 these are like the hardest questions to ask but i think overwhelmingly for most things we all agree

02:46:47.120 like if we could show somebody that if we all do if we if we do this thing all poverty will go away

02:46:52.400 if that thing was eradicating the government and living as an anarchist society like left-leaning

02:46:56.640 people should go okay well if it really gets rid of all poverty fine and then on the flip side if

02:46:59.840 making the most socialized government ever that pays for everybody's stuff and everybody's happy and

02:47:03.200 healthy even a conservative should say okay well if that does fix it then sure i change my position but

02:47:07.600 i think at the same day we all want the same things we just get there in radically different ways

02:47:10.960 yeah it is a um it's a difficult question is the other side evil i mean only people can have the

02:47:19.040 property of being good or evil uh i think that i think that legal abortion is evil i think the act

02:47:25.920 of abortion is evil because it kills an innocent human being was a right to life uh and i think that people

02:47:33.120 who defend legal abortion have different levels of culpability for being immoral

02:47:40.880 for defending this thing some people could be misinformed mistaken they have used their

02:47:45.440 rational powers in a mistaken way to defend um an awful position like i think peter singer defends

02:47:51.200 an evil position uh when he defends infanticide but i also think there's a difference between

02:47:56.400 someone who says you know what i'm for abortion because even if it is a baby i don't care people

02:48:01.840 should be able to do what they want i would say that that is appealing just to evil base instincts

02:48:06.960 and other people are defending this evil with um mistaken rational arguments okay got it uh where

02:48:14.480 can the people find you destiny uh youtube.com such destiny kick.com such destiny and instagram.com

02:48:20.480 such destiny and trent what about you uh yeah people can find me on youtube just search for the council

02:48:25.840 of trent c-o-u-n-s-e-l uh so council of trent on youtube google itunes i'm on twitter trent horn uh if

02:48:33.920 you like to learn more about this subject i actually i just released a second edition of

02:48:37.680 my book i get a book plug at the end uh persuasive pro-life and i talk about our culture's toughest

02:48:41.680 issue the first go to shop.catholic.com to get it it should be in amazon soon to replace the first

02:48:47.920 edition but i wrote a sec i wrote the first one in 2014 but now that roe versus wade is overturned

02:48:53.600 i wrote a follow-up that reworked everything so people can check that out uh but yeah council of trent

02:48:59.360 on um youtube you can check that out you guys you have catholic.com yes or are you affiliated with

02:49:05.680 uh i work for catholic answers uh so i do work for them and back in the 90s carl keating was the guy

02:49:12.480 who founded the thing and so he founded the company back in like 1988 so in like 1992 he got or like in

02:49:18.640 the early 90s he got the staff together and he said listen i've been reading the trade journals and

02:49:23.120 there's this thing coming soon called the internet and it's going to change everything like you're going to

02:49:27.120 be able to order food on it and one of the guys there was like what are you going to like go to

02:49:30.720 your computer and there'll be a camera and you just get the milk out of the fridge through the camera

02:49:34.960 on your computer he says no you'll you'll be able to do all this stuff but everybody will have their

02:49:38.320 own address so we got to make sure that since we're catholic answers we should get catholic.com

02:49:43.920 and so like he got it like in like 1993 like the one thing that like the pope would be like we'd

02:49:48.800 really appreciate if you could give us catholic.com that's sorry that's more mario than the pope but

02:49:53.920 you know he's argentinian he wouldn't say the pope asked for catholic.com would you guys give it up

02:49:58.480 um we could make a deal we could make a deal with him if he could do a few things for us maybe the

02:50:02.800 pope he doesn't have authority to infallly make us do that it doesn't fall under faith and morals

02:50:07.280 web domains don't fall under jurisdiction but yeah so catholic.com is where i'm at would that be like

02:50:13.440 an eminent domain thing but for catholicism like they wait the pope can make you give him stuff or

02:50:18.960 uh well back in the middle back in the middle ages when the pope was aligned with the emperor

02:50:24.800 and he had a lot more civil authority over things maybe nowadays uh not so much okay got it okay guys

02:50:33.040 well uh guys last call please hit the like button on your way out thank you for tuning in tonight uh

02:50:39.440 thank you very much to our thank you brian two guests here thank you guys uh you could have been

02:50:44.160 anywhere in the world but you're here with me i appreciate that to our viewers thank you to everyone who's

02:50:48.480 who chatted donated and supports the show thank you to all our chat mods big thank you to brit who's

02:50:53.680 helping with time stamps um we will be live again with our dating talk sunday at 7 p.m pacific hope you

02:51:01.760 guys enjoyed this uh stream oh sevens in the chat and yeah we will see you guys again sunday 7 p.m pacific

02:51:10.480 hope you guys have a good uh rest of your day and we'll see you soon good night guys bye

Whatever Podcast - July 28, 2023

Abortion Debate ｜ Whatever Podcast #9

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript