All Episodes
Previous Next
June 27, 2023 - Whatever Podcast
04:19:31
Abortion Debate | Whatever Podcast #8

We stream live on youtube.com/whatever

|

Time Text
Can we switch sides?
Welcome to a special debate edition of the whatever podcast.
I'm your host and moderator, Brian Atlas.
I'm joined by my co-host, Kiki.
She's a bit shy.
Guys, a few quick announcements before the show begins.
This podcast is viewer supported, heavy YouTube demonetization.
So please consider donating through Streamlabs instead of super chatting as YouTube takes a 30% cut.
The Stream Labs link is in the description and mods if you can spam it in the chat a couple times.
If you super chat 100, YouTube takes 30.
If you donate 100, Streamlabs only takes 30.
Donations and super chats for this stream will be displayed in the stream overlay.
Donations and super chats, $49,99 and up.
$49.99 and up will be read, answered.
The following are via Streamlabs only.
$199 and up triggers instant TTS text-to-speech.
So if any of you are really wanting to jump into the debate, feel free.
Please see the description for full details.
Also, we have channel memberships.
To become a member, hit that join button.
We have six different tiers of support.
Check out all the perks.
Tier one is just $5 a month.
You can also gift memberships 50 gifted.
Actually, we're not going to do that one for this show.
You can now gift memberships to other viewers on iOS.
Without further ado, I am joined today by Destiny, famous internet personality live streamer and political commentator who will be arguing the pro-choice side.
And we have Kristen Hawkins.
She's the president of Students for Life of America, a nonprofit pro-life organization.
And Lila Rose, she's the founder and president of the pro-life organization Live Action.
And we were going to have someone else on Destiny's side, but unfortunately, they backed out kind of last minute.
So Destiny, this is going to be a 2v1.
I prefer to characterize my position as pro-abortion, not pro-choice.
Okay.
Pro-aboo.
Very on at you.
Very on.
That's the clarification.
Thank you.
Got it.
So I think a good jumping off point, if each of you would like to summarize beyond just being either pro-choice or pro-life, or in your case, pro-abortion or anti-abortion, what is your basic stance on abortion?
My basic stance is we try to figure out what is a person, what makes a person.
Person is granted some positive, some negative rights by governments, and probably morally and ethically separate from governments, we also grant people some type of right.
I don't believe that a person is a collection of cells.
I don't believe that a person is just a body with a brain.
I think that very specifically when we speak about a person, we speak about something that has the capacity to deploy a conscious experience because that tends to be the thing that we're usually talking about when we're figuring out if somebody's alive or dead or whether or not somebody ought to be protected.
When we say a person, when we say who is suffering, we don't say what is suffering.
We're not talking about a body.
We're not talking about a heartbeat.
We're talking about a person having an experience.
So when I try to think of abortion, I try to think of who is being harmed.
I would say that for 20 to 24 weeks, that's about when the scientists say that the brain has all the parts necessary to begin communicating, to have a conscious experience, that about at that point, there is some experience there that we can speak of as a who or as a person.
But prior to that, the first trimester, that really experience is not happening yet.
So if you want to have an abortion, there is no who that's being harmed.
There's just a what, which is whatever the body is up to that point.
So generally, I'm pro-choice at the first abortion, up until that conscious experience has been formed, because I think that's what's worth protecting, because that's when we look to see when somebody's dead.
So that's what we should look to see when somebody's alive.
So are you anti-abortion after 20 or 24 weeks?
Yeah, after 20 to 24 weeks.
And all abortions, anti-all abortions after 20 to 24 weeks.
With the obvious exceptions of like ectopic pregnancies or life of the mother or something like that being threatened.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Easy, yeah, of course.
Okay.
Okay.
And your position.
So I mean, we share a position, but Kristen, I'm sure we'll have her way if she wants to describe it.
I think that all humans have human rights.
By nature of being a human, you are a member of the human family.
And so any member of the human family, and this is actually the preamble of the Declaration on Universal Human Rights by the United Nations.
So for those that think they have any authority, I don't know if you do, Destiny.
They say that all members of the human family deserve to be protected and treated by the law as persons.
And so if you're a member of the human family, you have human rights.
And we know when you become a member of the human family, it's at the moment of fertilization.
It's very clear a single cell embryo comes into existence.
And so I believe human rights for all humans.
And I also want to build a society of love and justice.
And the way to do that is to treat people equally under the law and to protect the most vulnerable, especially children.
Children deserve more protection actually than adults because they are defenseless.
And so we should actually go out of our way to do what we can to protect children and never commit homicide against them.
So that's my pro-life position.
Cool.
Yeah, I share a lot of this position.
I'm against the strong being able to choose whether or not the weak or the vulnerable get to live or die based on someone else's perception of them or their convenience factor to another person.
I think that's a very slippery slope.
And I actually think the position you represented is a very dangerous one because what you're saying is you have to be not only a member of our species in order to be a person with rights, the very basic right to life, but you have to be a person plus.
And it's a very exclusionatory class of what you're doing.
You're excluding a whole group of human beings.
So I guess my question is, are there other human beings you would exclude that you don't view Destiny as persons?
Not for this debate.
No, I'm just kidding.
Here's a question actually.
Let me respond to your question with a question.
You guys say that humans are protected.
Do you agree with that that humans ought to be protected or humans are given?
And more specifically, humans have human rights.
So protection can mean different things.
But humans have human rights.
The fundamental human right is the right to not be killed.
It's the right to be protected against the right to life.
And so that's why I don't have the right to commit homicide against you, Destiny, or against you, Kristen, or against you, Brian.
And certainly not against a pre-born developing child.
And yeah, so, but I have a question for you too, but I know we all question each other, but I'll let you.
Sure, yeah, because I'm going to keep going on this.
I don't believe that you believe in that statement.
That humans have a right to life.
So my next question would be, I show you a human who's been dead for 10 days.
The corpse is still a human.
We agree.
I think to clarify, a right to life meaning a right to not be killed, a right not to be killed.
It's fundamentally different.
Abortion and end-of-life care.
I watched one of your debates this morning when I was on the plane coming here, and I found it interesting because you kept using this end-of-life argument.
You fundamentally have a right not to be killed.
Abortion is an active killing.
It's an active dismember.
It's actually a violent ending for another human being.
So morally, that act of abortion is much different than someone who maybe is brain dead or we're not sure their brain activity that's been in a hospital for three months.
That's a much different position to take because you're not actively killing that person.
You may say, we have to withdraw life support for this reason, or the doctor may say, we have this reason to believe this person is brain dead, but you're not actively killing.
You don't say, well, they're going to die, so I'm going to take a gun and put it through the person's head.
We would not say that.
We would say we might withdraw life support and see if the person can sustain life on his or her own, but we're not going to actively dismember them in the process or violently kill them in the process.
But that's exactly what abortion is.
It's not just easily withdrawing life support.
It's actively going into a womb where there's a developing human being that biologists tells us is a unique, whole, living human being that's never existed before and will never exist again, and it's actively killing them.
Okay, I don't believe that you believe in that argument.
If I were to show you that all abortions could be done by just extracting the baby and then leaving it on the table and not actively killing it, but just removing it from the mother's life support and seeing what happens, would you be okay with that?
That is actively killing it.
That is killing it.
Because the children are actively killing anyone.
Because children, Destiny, you know this.
You're a parent.
Children are dependent on their parents.
A newborn is dependent on his or her parents, and a pre-born child is dependent on his or her mother.
I'm challenging the words we're using here.
Okay, that's fine.
But the dependency of a child doesn't give their parents or anyone else the right to kill that child.
Sure.
I never said as much.
I was just challenging.
Well, you do say as much, I think, because I think your position is if that dependent child before the arbitrary line of 20 to 24 weeks is in any way unwanted, inconvenient, just for whatever reason, abortion is chosen for that child, then you are okay with a parent killing their child.
Depends on what video games the child plays.
No, the only thing I'm trying to figure out right now is I'm trying to...
But are you okay with that?
Because I think that was what you said.
So right now I'm just trying to figure out what your position is.
So we're trying to figure out your position too.
I already get my position with crystal clear.
It wasn't actually clear, Destiny, because when in your...
Hold on, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on.
Just because I got cut off like seven times and I have to respond.
So just to be very clear, to give you an idea of what I'm trying to establish right now, when I have conversations with people that are pro-life, there's a lot of dancing between words that I think deserve distinct definitions.
Human, I think, is distinctly different from person.
I think it's distinctly different from life.
I think it's distinctly different from child.
But all of these things, when we're talking pro-life, tend to just get thrown together, like, oh, we should defend all human people and children are worthy of life.
And a lot of these statements are almost begging the question.
Obviously, anything that you would consider a child deserves rights to life, right?
But that's what's going on.
Pro-lifers believe human beings are persons.
What you're arguing is that some human beings don't deserve personal rights.
Which throughout history, Destiny, has always proved to be a very dangerous position that you're taking.
Yeah, I understand the analogies to slavery we're trying to draw here, but what I'm just trying to figure out is because...
But can you respond to that?
Because I think let's just take it one step at a time.
I think fundamentally there's a difference between saying a fetus hasn't developed the cognitive parts yet to recognize it as living versus saying black people and white people like that.
types of things let's address consciousness for a minute because my understanding is you're saying okay if you want hold on real quick If you want, we can leave the mindset if you want.
I still have no idea what you guys believe, but we can leave for mine if you want.
Well, you can all vary.
I mean, anything slower for you.
What I heard you say is that children should have rights and shouldn't be killed, which I think we all agree.
Human life has the right to not be killed.
Anything else?
Well, yeah, but then you also try to draw it.
When you said not be killed, you try to draw a distinction between active and passively killing.
No, no, you cannot.
Because she said there was a difference between pulling the plug on grandpa versus actively killing.
The intentional destruction of an innocent human life is but I was saying that like unplugging grandpa would be kind of like unplugging a baby.
You're disconnecting both from a life support thing.
No, because a baby belongs, a pre-born baby belongs before development.
He or she's right.
When it belongs in his or her mother's womb.
Sure, I understand.
But that means there's probably ways to fundamentally different.
There's probably ways to passively kill children that we would agree is also wrong.
Just because you're actively versus passively doing something.
I think intention matters too.
Sure, it absolutely can be.
Yeah, I agree.
But that's important to qualify.
We can't just say like passively killing somebody is fundamentally different from actively killing somebody.
Therefore, one is described like moral way than the other isn't.
Because you can start with that's passive, but that's also a problem.
I think there's a few other things you have to get into and what you mean by passive or active.
Sure, I agree.
That's what I'm trying to get into.
But you can ask me a question if you want.
I'll just say that.
I do have a question about consciousness because my understanding is that's your big line.
That if there's suddenly consciousness, then they are a person.
They're not just a human, but they're also a person.
And first, to clarify, you think it's okay for some humans to be the victims of homicide?
Do you think it's okay to commit homicide against a human, just not a person?
I mean, I would take issue with homicide because that's a really loaded term, but I would say that you can end the life of human beings that no longer have the capacity to deploy consciousness.
So if I'm asleep and I'm unconscious, it's okay to kill me.
That's why I said capacity to deploy consciousness.
I can wake you up when you're sleeping.
Like the fetus has capacity.
No, a fetus that doesn't have the necessary brain parts, has no capacity for consciousness.
If you give that child time, that child can't.
Give the child time to change.
You said 20 to 24 weeks.
What about children?
Hold on.
Wait, If you have REM cycles, hold on, wait a minute.
Wait, wait, just what you said there.
Give the child time implies that it's time to wake up.
Do you think that a seed and a tree are the same thing?
You're making a wrong equivalency.
I'm not making a wrong equivalency.
I'm saying that a seed given enough time.
A seed given enough time will grow into a tree.
But when you use the word, this thing will become this thing.
The implication there is you're intuition pumping all the rights that this thing has for saying this will become incorrect.
A child in the womb, a human being, has a capacity for consciousness.
They might not have developed that capacity.
That means they don't have the capacity.
They might not have developed that capacity yet.
Just one luck fun at a time, please.
Just let everyone think.
Sorry, they might not have developed the capacity yet.
Similarly, if someone is in a coma or unconscious, they're not actively, that capacity is not activated yet.
But if you don't interrupt the life of that child, if you don't kill that child, that child will absolutely be conscious and just develop consciousness in just a few weeks.
And that's the difference between the question you were asking me earlier when you tried to trip me up about the time.
I'm not trying to die.
You're not the one trying to trip me up.
I'm trying to take off your question.
I'm trying to clarify.
You have a very murky position because you said between 20 to 24 weeks, I believe a child has rights.
Which one is it if you're the one making the law?
It's a crystal clear position.
My position is the thing we ought to defend is the conscious experience because that's the thing we look for.
When does that conscious experience begin?
About 20 to 24 weeks.
That's a big time period because there's been children who've been born at 21 weeks and five days.
So were those children when they were born prematurely?
So I had an intern a few years ago who was one of the youngest children ever to survive at that age.
She was 21 weeks and six days old.
So she's right in between your 20 to 24 week time range.
So when she and her twin sister were born, do you believe that the hospital, the NICU, did something wrong in giving out care and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in care to sustain her and her sister's life?
Why would I think something wrong was done there?
Well, because you don't think it's a human with consciousness necessarily.
Yeah, it's not a good idea.
I don't think that's typical as a human with consciousness, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with supporting it.
But you're saying it's okay to kill it.
So you're saying my vagina is magical.
So something happened.
First of all, as a child born by C-section, I'm very offended.
That's a position you're taking.
Hold on.
Is it something magical?
Hold on, wait, wait, wait.
The vagina magic guy is not in the room right now.
I didn't give any qualification about birth being the magical time that made somebody a human.
never said that ever so i have no idea what position you're attacking there um to back up very clearly your position that's not clear because you said 20 to 24 weeks And I'm asking you a very direct question about child born at 24 weeks.
Your question was if a child is prematurely born at 16 weeks, the mother and the father have every right to try to find support for that child.
Why would you not?
But why?
What makes that sense of that?
Because it's going to grow into their kid.
Why would they not?
But you're saying it's okay to kill the kid at 16 weeks.
Sure.
And I think that's the difference between this side of the table and that side of the table is a good idea.
Well, obviously, that's because I'm pro-choice and you guys are pro-established.
Abortion and your authority.
Have you ever considered that you could be wrong on this issue?
Yeah, of course.
Absolutely.
Hold on.
Let's be clear.
Only one side of the table here is tied to organizations that are getting money invested in them and have started my argument.
I understand, but you're never changing your position.
I'm still free to change mine.
So in terms of asking me if I consider that I can consider that I'm wrong.
You guys will never change your opinion on this.
I've considered it.
I've had to consider a lot of terms.
But what would it mean if you were wrong on your position on abortion?
Morally, what would it mean?
So I don't know if you believe in God or heaven or whatever.
Well, I haven't aborted any kids yet.
But say you get hit by a bus and you go to heaven and God's like, destiny, you've been completely wrong on abortion your entire life.
You've advocated for abortions between 20, 24 weeks.
No one can really tell because you want to give us a definitive time.
Hold on.
Hold on, wait, wait, wait.
I got to go to this perfect.
What would that mean if you were wrong on abortion?
Hold on, hold on.
For you saying that just because I can't nail an exact solid time when it's not really that big.
It is a big deal.
There's a big deal.
There's a line between homicide and body.
You could literally just say, like, hey, before 20 weeks, abortion is okay, and then draw the cutoff right there if you want.
That's a question for policymakers.
But why do policymakers, why does anyone get to decide whether or not an innocent person lives or dies?
Because that's what policymakers do.
No, they don't have the right to kill an innocent person.
If any policymaker tries to make decisions about mental care and triage and who gets medical treatment first, or if you're making decisions about saving people from the same time.
Wait, wait, Just be clear.
I'm going to start kind of going, wait, I know, but I don't have a chance to answer any question.
And you're like loading so many horribly intuition-pumped question bags in front of me that I don't have time to answer all of the horrible questions in front of me, okay?
I'm just talking about it.
I'm going to keep talking.
We're going to do one at a time.
I will answer a question, but you can't keep stacking dumb questions in front of me.
And they're like, oh, see, like, you want to murder children, okay?
I don't know what I do.
I don't have to answer.
Hold on.
So let me address the very first thing because you keep trying to draw like there's some thing here that you've caught me on.
The idea that I can't give you a concrete time between 20 to 24 weeks.
Okay?
I hate to be the guy that does this in a debate, but there's something called a continuum fallacy or an ironic fallacy.
The idea that just because I can't point exactly at when something begins, that I have to say that all of it is the same, or I can't point to that thing existing at all.
I can't tell you when individual pieces of sand are stacked up and eventually become a pile of sand.
I can't give you the exact numbers of sand that I conceive for that to be, but there is a difference between an individual piece of sand and a pile of consciousness.
It's a false equivalency.
It is.
Hold on.
Hold on.
This is basically.
Because the reality is you are saying that these are persons and these aren't based on a specific characteristic that you've decided on.
You came up with it.
It's not human rights anymore.
It's consciousness rights.
Yes.
You believe in non-community.
You're not afraid of that.
Nobody here at this table.
You're not a consciousness right now.
Hold on.
Why don't you defend?
You need to defend your position, and you're not doing that.
You're kind of weed, you're not blowing smoke a little bit, to be honest.
Why don't you give the same rights to congives?
Why don't you give the same rights to human corpses as you do to legal care?
Because they're dead.
What does that mean when you say they're dead?
So they're already dead.
What does dead mean to you?
I mean, body's no longer working in a coordinated fashion anymore.
Their heart isn't pumping blood.
Their brain is not.
If I put a person on a table and I can keep them alive with machines indefinitely, but they're never going to wake up.
Is that a human life?
There is a difference between withholding extraordinary.
Just to be clear, I'm about to ask that same question after you, whatever you're about to say, because you're not answering.
This is important because it's a bit of obsercation, the direction you're going here, Bob.
Absolutely.
There's a difference between withholding extraordinary medical care, which would be like life support, and withholding ordinary medical care.
So if I, as a parent, or I, as a doctor, I have a patient in the hospital, and let's say they are there being monitored because they're, you know, they have cancer, aggressive cancer, but they're not, they're maybe going to die, but they're not dead yet.
And they're not on life support.
They're just being monitored.
And if I withheld food from this cancer patient and refused to feed, bring food in this cancer patient can eat and refuse to feed that cancer patient, that would be homicide against that cancer patient.
I don't have the right to deal with.
Do you agree with that, right?
Yeah, that's a good question.
Do you agree that that would be homicide?
Would it be wrong to deprive a cancer patient who's going to die?
Well, legally, it would be murder, to not feed.
I'm not going to make a legal argument, but I would agree that would be wrong.
Yes, of course.
So that's the difference between extraordinary medical measures and ordinary measures.
Okay, and for a child in the womb, they deserve the ordinary measure of being able to stay in their natural habitat, their mother's womb, until they're old enough to survive outside the womb.
Similarly, a newborn who you're feeding formula or you're breastfeeding has a right to that food from their mother or caretaker until they're old enough to, and even when they're old enough to physically feed themselves, they still have a right to be given a plateful of food at the dinner table.
You can actually go to jail for child neglect by failing to feed your child.
So, you know, building these analogies that actually don't work with what we're actually talking about by saying, well, removing life support is like abortion, they're not the same.
Because children have a right to care, and children have a right to food, and children have a right to nourishment.
I still think you need to clarify your position because you said 20 to 24 weeks, which I gave you a very, very real-life scenario of a child who was born, a twin who was born at 21 weeks and six days, which in your view could have been aborted because you don't think she would have had the consciousness that you deem worthy of personhood.
True.
But I mean, what biologist do you know that tells you that consciousness is at 24 weeks?
Great question.
Because I researched this before.
I was on the internet.
I was looking at PubMed at NIH's website.
There aren't biological conclusions.
And in fact, they actually support the pro-life side because you look at the pro-life.
Males don't make an argument about pro-life.
12, no?
Well, they do make arguments about when human lame when twins interact.
So there's a very well-known study showing that twins interact in the womb as early as 14 years.
Amoeba interact with each other.
Children can experience pain at 12 and a half years.
Germs react to external surgeries.
So are you saying those things?
Are you saying germs are the same as human lives?
Well, I haven't even gotten to.
Okay, so let me make a couple things.
So, firstly, you said I made a false analogy earlier.
You've compared abortion to cancer patients getting withheld.
No, I wasn't comparing abortion to cancer patients.
Okay, you're talking about the difference between ordinary measures.
I'm not talking about extraordinary measures when it comes to medical.
It's a natural progression versus natural progress.
That is an intentional time to compare.
That's great.
That's a totally great question.
If I could just jump in real quick.
No, quick.
I don't need you to know.
If I could just jump in.
No, no, no, listen, listen, listen.
Wait, wait, wait.
Let me just say: if we can allow maybe the turn the heat down a little bit on the conversation or at least slow it down a little bit.
We're making people at home uncomfortable.
Well, I do want to give it, it does seem to be that Destiny hasn't had as much.
Oh, that's fine.
I'm good.
I'm taking notes.
I'm good.
I'm ready.
We need to have a better guess there.
No, we absolutely don't.
Let me go.
Okay.
You're making bad analogies by comparing any of this to ordinary or extraordinary medical care is a fundamentally separate question, okay?
That's a separate question, a provisioning resource or whatever.
You don't agree because you brought it up as a contrary to the question that I asked.
I would originally ask you this question again, and I'm going to ask you the question again because nothing that you said addressed it.
And my question was, and I'm going to repeat it: a person that is in a coma that will never wake up, should that person be indefinitely kept alive on life machines?
It depends on what are the characteristics of them in that characteristic is the medically induced coma.
Characteristic is the person in a coma.
They're never going to wake up, but their body is not going to be able to do it.
How do you know they're not going to wait?
How do you know they're never going to wake up?
Because the scientist has a magic machine that he pushes a button and the machine says this person is never going to wake up.
I'm going to wake up with a magical scenario that you are designing without providing any context where you're going to be able to do it.
Just to be clear, are you telling me that a person being in a coma is not going to wake up is a magical scenario?
No, I'm telling you that when you're in the middle of the moment, oftentimes I can say that's not a problem.
Guys, guys, guys, please.
One microphone at a time.
Because the refusal to engage with the question demonstrates the weakness of your position.
You can keep doing this, but to be clear, I'm going to ask the same question again.
I still like to get my question answered.
You can't even engage with the hypothesis.
I'm listening, but you're refusing to engage liability because you know that you don't have a rock-solid definition of what type of life should be defended.
The reason why you want to engage a guy is hold on.
You're making a lot of assumptions here.
Order in the podcast studio.
I am noticing perhaps on, I don't know which side is doing it most, but let's try to avoid interrupting.
Let's allow people to speak, finish their thought, and then if we can, if we can.
So, Destiny, do you want to?
One question we need to answer.
Okay, to be clear, I'm willing to, and I have responded to when you asked me about feeding cancer patients, what I said are killing, I said yes.
You said when you withhold food for children, etc.
I'll answer any question you give me.
I have no problem.
It's my question.
Have you ever considered that you may be wrong on this issue?
And if you are wrong on this issue, what does it mean you are spending your time advocating for?
There's literally, there's problems on both sides.
First of all, that's not the greatest question to ask.
You're getting into very weird, like Pascal Blade.
I'm going to finish answering the question, okay?
So just answer the question.
I am answering the question.
Oh, after you insulted me.
What do you mean, how have I assaulted you?
Insulted me.
Wait, how did I insult you?
My question.
You said, well, it's not the greatest question to ask.
I said it's not a good question to ask because theoretically, you run into a bunch of weird areas saying, well, what if I'm wrong?
What if you're wrong by saying that black people and white people do deserve the same rights?
Let's let Destiny answer that question.
Sure, yeah.
So I'm not going to always think of like, well, what if I'm wrong?
I mean, I do consider both ends of things, but the consequences for being wrong on both ends are pretty disastrous.
On one end, you're advocating for, I guess, arguably the genocide of like, of little babies.
That's true.
And on the other end, and on the other end, you're advocating forcing women to give birth to children that they might not want, especially in cases of, say, sexual assault or in cases where they feel like they can't support for the children's business.
What do you think?
What do you think would be worse?
Genocide?
So we had 60-some million abortions in America since Roe versus Wade.
60 million.
More than 1,000 children are killed every day at Planned Parents.
You keep saying children.
You're morally loading yourself.
Children, young humans.
When you saw the ultrasound of your son in the womb, did you say, wow, look at that fetus sucking its thumb?
Or did you say, wow, look at my boy.
He smiled at me.
Yeah, I also get warm feelings when I look at my car.
Like, this isn't proving an argument by saying cars.
I'm not saying cars.
I'm saying that judging the validity or the veracity of your argument by the emotional response that he has to an ultrasound.
I also felt a certain type of way when my ex-girlfriend showed me that she was pregnant.
But that doesn't mean that the urine on the strip is anything special either, right?
Your emotions can match the best.
Just to be clear, I still haven't gotten an answer to my comment question, which is like fundamentally.
What was your question?
So do you consider you're wrong and you said I have considered him wrong, but the problem is that you're not going to be able to do it.
On one end, it would be genocide.
And on the other extreme, if I were wrong, I would have forced women to carry unwanted children or in your word, fetuses or things.
Correct.
What do you think would be worse?
Well, in order to answer that- Genocide of hundreds of millions of children- Innocent babies, yeah.
of hundreds of millions of children worldwide?
Do you think that would be a little worse than inconveniencing a woman for nine months if I were wrong?
Worldwide?
In order to accurately answer the question, you have to assess the risk of being wrong on both ends.
For instance, if I were to say, what would be worse if I've got to choose between 50 people here or 100 people here to protect from some death event, you know, what should I choose?
the 50 people to the 100 people.
Well, it doesn't make sense unless I have a...
What do you mean by death event?
As in, let's say that there's going to be something that has a chance of coming in and killing both people, but I can protect one group of people.
Do I want to protect the 50 or the 100?
That's not the only thing.
But I need to finish the analogy.
Hold on.
If you can't understand any hypothetical, you can't get anywhere in the conversation.
But no.
That's what we're discussing.
Hypothetical.
Perfectly mass on.
What I'm saying is I wouldn't just say that I would protect the 100 people because 100 is greater than 50.
What I would say is, what is the probability of the 100 people dying versus what is the probability of the 50 people dying?
And then from there, you would start to wait the decision after that.
So hundreds of women haven't died.
You ask me.
So when you ask me, so when you ask me, what's the probability or what is the likelihood of being wrong?
Or what would be worse, being wrong here or being wrong here?
What I have to think of is what is the probability of being wrong on both ends.
It's not just a one-to-one, because I'm not going to sit here and pretend that everything is a one-to-one, like there's an equal chance of being right or wrong here.
I feel very strongly about my position about being pro-choice, so I'm not waiting this as a 50% chance of being right here and a 50% chance of being right here.
So the question doesn't make sense.
I'm saying it's a meaningless question.
How do you feel very strongly about being pro-choice when you can't even tell us at what point you think a child has this extra special consciousness that deserves the right to life in the womb?
Why would that prohibit me?
You don't know when consciousness exists, when it actually comes to the body.
You won't even know when the baby has.
I've given you the range of when people, different people develop at different rates.
It's about 20 to 20 years.
So you want to create, so you believe that we should have a sliding scale of what it means to be a human person.
We already have that sliding scale.
We do it at death.
That's why when we go back to the, I'm going to ask again.
No, no, no, no, I'm not answering the question until you ask answers.
If it's okay to kill someone when they're unconscious.
I'm going to.
No, because I said capacity to deploy consciousness.
What do you mean by capacity to deploy consciousness?
As in all of the parts in your brain are functioning and working and can deploy a consciousness.
So an embryo who is developing their brain will absolutely have the capacity.
Will implies it doesn't develop.
Why are you being age discriminatory against that child?
Because I haven't really developed a taught.
No, hold on, wait a minute.
You can't just ramble and ask me.
You asked me a question.
If you're going to ask me, I'm just going to keep talking about it.
When you ask me, will a thing have a right?
I will agree with you that it will.
The pieces for a building are not the same thing as a building itself.
A seed is not the same thing as a tree.
An embryo is not the same thing as a person.
So when you say, don't stop saying that every single hypothesis, when you're having a conversation with somebody, if you're having a conversation with me and they're not willing to engage with a single hypothetical or they claim every hypothetical doesn't map on, unless you can clearly explain why, it's because you know that the hypothetical is testing the limits of your belief in a way that demonstrates the absurdity of what you're saying.
And you're not hardly acknowledged that.
Whether or not pro or anti-life exists has nothing to do with science.
It's not a scientific question.
It's a question of moral philosophy.
Okay?
Number one.
So number two, going all the way back to this original question that I don't think you're going to answer me because I think that this does demonstrate the faultiness of your body.
I already answered you and I'm not going to be able to do an answer.
No, you said that's an absurd proposition.
So imagine a person could be in a coma.
I said you needed to provide more information.
Was it a medically induced coma?
How long was the coma?
These questions matter.
And they're actually going to be a good question.
I can ask a very simple question.
A person is in a bed.
Person is in a bed.
This person is unconscious in a coma.
The doctor has a machine and he pushes the button.
The machine says this person will never wake up again.
But the rest of their body works.
There's no button like that that exists.
That's why it's called a hypothetical.
That is a hypothetical destiny because it doesn't exist in the real world.
You're inventing a false hypothetical that doesn't exist in the real world.
That is based in human life dying.
Yeah, so you're ending the life of an embryo.
You can't adjust this.
Or a human being.
I wouldn't make de facto if you're incapable of dealing with hypothetical, then the conversation is.
We can deal with hypotheticals.
You can't.
You can't.
A hypothetical, by definition, is something that is not happening.
That's why you're saying hypothetical.
Destiny.
So wait, let me ask you, but you love hypotheticals.
Let me ask you.
I love hypotheticals.
So scientists are working on artificial wombs.
Okay.
All right.
Would you agree with me that if they develop this artificial womb that can sustain human life, that there would be no legal reason, there should be no legal justification for abortion?
Because if you could remove a child from a woman's womb who doesn't want to have a child, didn't want to get pregnant, and place that child in an artificial womb where the child will safely grow and develop until he or she's ready to be born.
Would you agree with me then, in that hypothetical situation, that there's no justification for abortion?
No.
Why not?
You're not even, there's 10 unanswered questions right before the test.
I just saw that.
You are making a dialogue-tree argument against an argument for viability.
I have never made that argument in my life.
I've never argued that viability is what determines if a child gets to live or die.
That's an absurd position.
I would never have that.
So I'm saying you are making a viability argument.
Wait, wait, no, wait, because you don't even understand the arguments you're making.
No, hold on.
You are making an argument for viability when you're saying, if I could show you an artificial womb, could you not say, I know I love yelling at women.
Okay.
Could you not say?
I can tell.
Could you not say, thank you.
Could you not say that, like, well, if I can show you that I can transplant this fetus from this womb at one week to an artificial womb, doesn't that give it the right to life?
The implication there being the viability of a fetus to survive outside of a natural life.
I thought we could find common ground on that.
Yeah, the common ground.
I would say that has no.
No, there is no common ground there.
I would say 20 to 24 weeks.
Same as I get before.
Your entire position is based on the development is based on age.
It's basically the development, the maturity.
Age is based on development of the future.
Development is age, Destiny.
It could develop early or later, I guess, right?
Development is age.
Age is a marker of development.
It can be, sure.
So your whole argument is that if the development hasn't happened yet, then therefore they're not a human life worthy of protection.
But a person, yeah.
A person.
Okay.
So are you saying that toddlers, because they're less developed than an adolescent, should have fewer, should not have the same rights as an adolescent?
Yes.
You agree with the same fundamental concerns.
Hold on, to be clear.
There's different human rights.
Okay, now you're delivering more.
But the funny thing is you said in your opening statement, you literally said they have their name even right protect.
They don't have the same rights.
A child can't sign a contract.
A child can't buy a house.
A two-year-old can't go to high school.
Second, do they have the same human rights?
No.
A toddler and an adolescent don't have the same human beings.
Do you believe that?
I would argue that I have the human right to live in a house in the way that I want to.
A three-year-old does not have the human right to live.
Hold on.
Okay, hold on.
Do you not agree there are fundamental human rights?
Maybe that's much more than a matter of time.
There might be some connection.
If you want to get very fundamental in terms of like, do you have a right to not be killed?
Yeah, sure.
Hold on.
That's a very important concept.
But earlier, you stumbled onto something very funny that we all agree on is that based on the level of development, you actually do grant different rights to people.
That is absolutely right.
So you're saying if you're not developed enough, you have the right to be.
You actually, instead of being more protected as a child, you should be less protected as a child, and you have less rights as a child to not be killed, to not be afraid.
A child is generally defined as a human person.
So you're begging the question.
I believe all children should be killed.
He believes in the children.
Are you going to agree that a three-week old vagina or a body?
More than I believe in the magical zygote that becomes a magical human when it's two cells big.
What about the intern I mentioned, the 21-week six-day intern?
What about it?
So when she was born, she and her twin sister were born.
Now that's in your 20, 24 weeks.
Who knows what Destiny really believes about abortion at that point?
I told you, between 20 and 24 weeks, yeah.
You've got to be kind of specific when you're talking about the data.
You think that puberty exists.
Wait, I need to know.
Do you think that answer my question, Destiny?
Remember?
I'm going to ask you this again.
I'm telling you, I'm not in the coma all day long.
You still haven't answered the comic question.
It's a false point.
But what is the answer?
So the answer is if you want to take a look at the body.
Why don't we take care of a baby?
Excuse me.
Excuse me.
You're excited.
God.
At 21 weeks in six days, a child is born and a child is surviving.
A thing, is it?
Yeah, okay.
Is it a thing or is it?
Yeah, it must be something.
Do I have the right after the moments that you have the right to kill it, actually?
Well, that's what I'm trying to find out.
Moments after that child exits my body, be a C-section or vaginal birth, does that child have the right to not be killed?
Because that child is in that 20 to 24 weeks, and we don't know according to your science, we don't know what type of consciousness rights, consciousness this child has.
So is there anything wrong with saying, well, you survived, we're not going to treat you.
We're going to actually actively dismember you or inject a poison to your heart to cause you to do it.
I'm taking my position in good faith.
If I'm saying that consciousness develops around 20 to 24 weeks, you would probably draw, because that's when scientists seem to think that.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm so sorry.
I was interrupting your question with my answer.
But you're going to ask another question.
21 weeks in six days has consciousness.
How do you know?
What's changed?
You don't know.
So that's what I'm saying.
No, no, that's what I was saying.
I was going to answer, but you cut me off.
You cut my answer to your question.
I want to know.
Is it okay?
You don't want to know.
You're just going to run me down a dialogue.
After the child is going to be aware of that.
It's okay to kill a child.
Probably not.
Is it okay?
It's probably never okay to kill a child, right?
So my answer was that if the cutoff seems to be somewhere around 20 to 24 weeks, if you're drawing policy or legislation because we can't determine exactly when they're conscious, you'd probably be safe and say something like only first trimester abortion would probably be like a thing or like before like the 20 week mark would probably be about where you go to.
That'd be my guess.
Okay, but so the child who's born at 21 weeks and six days or the fetus or whatever.
That would be past the policy cutoff.
So you'd probably say at that point.
No, no, no, this is Destiny's hypothetical world.
This is Destiny's hypothetical world.
If you're there at the delivery room, are you saying that that child can be killed because we don't know what that child's consciousness is?
Destiny's hypothetical world, if you've drawn the line at 20 weeks, if the child is born at 21 weeks, you probably say, okay, well, now that it's boring.
So now you've changed your position in this debate.
You went from 20 to 24 weeks and now you're down to 20, right?
Do you understand the difference between a policy position versus like an epistemic statement or like a moral statement?
Yes, I'm not a moron, thank you.
Okay.
Well, how do you ask questions?
I don't know what you're saying.
Do you understand there's a difference between the color blue and the color purple?
I'm not really sure.
I don't know.
I've never talked to a misogynistic man like this before.
Okay.
All right.
I still want to know if you think that you don't want to know anything about it.
I gave an answer.
I said in the very beginning of this.
Yeah, I said in the very beginning of this that the cutoff would be 20 to 24 weeks.
Now you're down to 20.
So we've actually winning.
He's down to 20 now.
Well, I think I was at before.
So wait, just a question.
Yeah, she's just accused you of being misogynistic.
I mean, do you have a response to that?
I am.
I don't think he has one.
Well, no, come on, B. I'm being honest.
You're not a misogynist, Destiny.
I hate women.
The more time I spend around them, the more contemptuous I feel about them.
Well, I mean, I'm controlling, but I've watched so many just pearly things videos.
I just want to say that.
Can we go back to the consciousness stuff with the current?
Can I even have it?
Apparently, my position doesn't even exist right now.
So let me restate for a try.
Your position's good now.
We know where you're at least at.
You're at 20 weeks.
We've got you moved from 24 to 20 weeks, right?
So the question of policy is separate from the factual question of when does a conscious experience happen, right?
What I stated initially was: it seems like there's a conscious experience that starts at around 20 to 24 weeks.
Do you mean the biologist?
Google it.
That's what I told you.
I actually researched this for several hours today on NIH's PubMed website, and I actually found a lot of pro-choice scientists who are saying children can feel pain at 12 and a half years.
Feeling points, not consciousness.
Siblings can interact with each other at 14 weeks.
So just using that data from the NIH's own website would tell you that now your 20-week limit on abortions, which is wrong and probably should be moved down.
So I told this one.
The first thing that came up from scientificamerican.com, I'm not sure what research said, is consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells, its physical substrate, the thalamocortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.
Now, that's, I googled that.
That was the first thing I have, so it's crazy to me that you read all these destinies.
But however, however, I will finish.
24th to 28th, I've also seen stuff that says 20th to 24th week.
So because I don't want to murder babies to be safe to 18, to be safe, to be safe, I would probably say, I would go with the earlier number because I generally don't want to kill children most of the time.
So I would say that the policy position should probably say that on the 20th week, that should probably be the cutoff where we start treating it as a child, and then you give it all the same protections and rights that you would a third trimester pregnancy or a born child.
So that's about what it said.
No position has changed.
I haven't moved at all.
At the very beginning of this debate, I said 20 to 24 weeks is about.
I haven't even clarified.
That was my mistake.
The policy position would probably just stop at 20 weeks.
I have a question for Destiny.
Do you believe in human rights?
What do you mean by that?
Do you believe in universal fundamental human rights that all human beings have?
Yes, I do believe there are some universal rights people should have.
Does that include the right to life?
Does that include the right to not be killed?
Generally speaking, I would say so, yes.
Generally speaking, or yes?
You ask a very difficult question.
If two countries are at war with each other, does somebody have a right to kill an enemy combat?
That's an answer that you can't answer this question.
Does somebody have a right to kill an enemy combatant in a war?
Yeah, so in a way.
I'm asking.
Okay, yeah, yeah.
That's why there's something called, there can be something called just war theory.
There's different theories for what makes a war just or unjust.
Okay.
And yes, you can be tried for war crimes for unjustly killing a civilian.
Okay, I'm just trying to make you understand.
Because they have a right to life as a human being.
I'm just trying to understand that when you ask me a question of like, does everybody have a fundamental right to life?
Depending on what you're asking, that could be a very important thing.
I'll say it again and let me know if this is clear.
Do you as a human being have a right to not be killed?
I would say, generally speaking.
Without due process.
How about we'll add that?
Generally speaking.
Without due process.
Any sort of construction of government, my imagination would be that a fundamental right would be a right to life, to not be killed.
I would agree with that.
In the United States, under the U.S. Constitution, the 14th Amendment says that we have a right to equal protection under the law, and no state has a right to deprive the life of anyone without due process.
You've probably heard this before.
Okay.
So do you think that there is any due process for the human life right now?
Where is the due process for the human life before your consciousness arbitrarily?
I would say that that person isn't protected by the Constitution because they're not a person yet.
Okay, and you're defining personhood based on the ability of having a conscious experience, yes.
So let's talk about that for a minute.
If I'm under anesthetic and I'm unconscious and someone comes up to me and says, Can I kill you?
And I'm unconscious, I can't say don't kill me.
Can they kill me?
No.
Tell me why.
Because you have the capacity to deploy a conscious experience.
Just like the fetus.
No, the fetus can't.
The fetus.
Destiny.
If you don't kill that fetus, the fetus with a matter of time, because I'm under anesthetic, in a matter of time, I will come out from under anesthetic and I will have my consciousness.
For the fetus, if you don't kill that fetus, under a matter of time, the natural human development, you were once a tiny child in the womb, maybe 18 weeks before the consciousness that you say some biologists playing for.
If no one killed you, then you would have your consciousness, just like I coming out of an anesthetic would have my consciousness.
So your position sounds like age discrimination because you're saying that because the child doesn't have their consciousness yet, just like under anesthetic, I don't have my consciousness regained.
Do you think there are any 200 years?
Then you're saying that it's okay to kill them.
Do you think there are any 200-year-old humans that deserve to be protected by all the human rights that we have fundamentally?
Well, I think if someone lived to be 200, then yeah, that would be curious when they're saying that they're actually alive.
What do you mean in my age?
If there was a 200-year-old, I'd say yes.
If they're alive, that would be amazing.
Okay, and if there was a one-week old having a conscious experience, I would say it as well.
But the 200-year-old is asleep and unconscious.
I still don't have the right to kill them, Destiny.
Because if they're asleep in the future, your line of consciousness, you're reasoning.
I'm going to answer this question.
It's not logical.
So you just stated the fundamental flaw of your entire position because you keep saying that.
I'm just going to talk now, okay?
The way that this conversation works is because you two have organizations because you two are brought in.
You can never even remotely consider quality.
I have to, because I haven't gotten the ability to either.
It's not misogynist, okay?
Now I'm in my demon racial.
There's a bunch of people who are because you're both white or white, okay?
But you can't just throw that zinger in there, like, oh, you're only probably because the style of argumentation that you're both engaging in is like a gish gallop of 50 million questions.
Nothing is scientific about this conversation.
It's 50 million questions about me being able to respond to or answer anything.
Well, let's have a scientific medical.
When you're not scientific about the argument, this isn't a question of what I'm saying.
I've got a question, got a question here.
None of my questions have been answered yet.
Yeah, go ahead.
You can go back to your hypothetical, but if you don't answer my clarifying question, Lila, I have a question for you, Lila.
I got a question.
I'm not going to get very far.
I got a question for you, Lila.
Yes.
For everybody here at the table.
Wow, it's very heated.
Okay.
When does life begin?
At the moment of conception, when you have a moment and egg unite when a unique whole living human being that never existed before and will never exist again comes into existence with a unique genetic code.
And 96% of the world is not a problem.
Excuse me.
Hold on, just say that.
96% of biologists in the University of Chicago study, majority of whom were pro-choice and liberal, confirm that fact that there is no other point at your development can you say you became you than at the moment of conception when your DNA, your genetic code, came into existence.
That is a biological fact, and I'm sorry it's inconvenient to raise that, but that is that is the fact.
And to clarify, I would agree with you, Destiny.
If human life began at consciousness, I would say, you know, anything before that, human life beginning at consciousness, I would say it doesn't matter.
It's not a human life yet.
But what's inconvenient for you is that human life doesn't begin at consciousness.
Human life and humans.
None of this is inconvenient.
And humans can be aware of that.
At the end of the day, I'm not going to have a kid.
So it's not inconvenient for me at all.
Wait, so Destiny, I didn't give birth to him.
But it's easier to figure yourself out.
You're saying it's inconvenient to me where it's like, it's not inconvenient to me to recognize that.
You're representing the pro-abortion position here.
Surely you don't believe that consciousness is the line that you're saying.
Sure, but I'm just saying that the idea of that you keep saying like it's inconvenient.
None of these facts are inconvenient.
I'm totally.
Well they are because they dispute your like made-up definition of when personhood begins.
There is no the definition of when personhood begins is literally the subject of our debate.
There's not a scientific answer to that question.
What I said is that at the very beginning is when you human rights are not science.
If you separate when human beings come into the world, it's mechanical engineering.
When you learn humans, when human beings come into existence and personhood and you make it two different lines, it's always bad.
Bad things have always happened throughout human history when we tried to separate human beings from personhood.
It's always a slippery slope and bad things always happen is what we're saying.
So the reason, one more comment.
The reason science is very important for the debate is because and the question of human rights is because human rights are about the humans that have rights that are universal.
So all humans, if you're a member of the human family, you have these rights.
And I think earlier you did, you know, kind of.
I keep saying that, but we don't know.
No, You have more qualifiers.
You did kind of agree.
I think you agreed that we have the right as humans to not be killed, right?
No.
But there has to be more qualifications.
There needs to be more qualifications.
It's not just humans because we agree that corpses, for instance, don't get protection.
There has to be more qualified.
I think, Destiny, I think your position is not human rights.
It's conscious rights.
That you have to be a conscious, you have to have consciousness and not just have consciousness.
You can have it taken away from you and it come back to it, but that is okay.
But if the child hasn't developed yet, then that's okay.
That's your line.
And Destiny.
Do you want to answer the question?
Just when does life begin?
When does life begin or when do they become a person?
When does human life begin, Destiny?
Whatever your sense of the question is.
The personhood thing that I'm looking at.
No, let's talk about science for a second.
When does human life begin?
I answer the question, you answer it.
If you're talking about like when does a unique genetic code happen, it's right at the union, it's right at the moment of conception.
When two parts become a whole.
Correct.
Excellent.
Finally, we agree on something.
Well, human life comes into existence.
Yeah, that's called a scientific fact.
And what we've been saying in this moment.
I understand.
Let me catch you on the side.
Well, there are a lot of probation people who don't understand.
I understand.
Let me catch up to the conversation.
We're not having a scientific discussion on when genomes are formed.
We're having a moral philosophy discussion on when does something get the protections of being a person.
Correct.
And our position is simple.
And Kristen was saying earlier is that throughout human history, there have been many times when groups of humans, excuse me, where groups of humans were considered non-persons.
Am I going to be able to do that?
You're certainly familiar with this, Destiny, and I know Christianity.
I'm going to go back to this.
For example, under the Rwandan genocide or with slavery in our country, the Holocaust, there are groups of people who were seen as who were.
It was Roe v. Wade, KCV Planned Parenthood, and then I think it was apartheid as well.
Just to finish, there were people who were actually think Roe v. Wade came from that.
There were human beings.
Because they were inspired by the Nazis, right?
Just to clarify, there were human beings that were seen as non-persons, and that opened the door to huge injustices.
And similarly, today, we see humans in the womb at this arbitrary line, and you're one among many.
I mean, other people say, well, right before birth is when they become human, or viability is when they become human, or heartbeat is when they become human.
There's a lot of different variations between them.
Those are all really bad arguments.
I agree.
And I think consciousness is a terrible argument, too, because you can't assume the development of a human.
And that's why I'm representing that.
And your opinion's wrong.
And back to the toddler, back to the toddler and the adolescent, because you kind of, you pulled a, you had a clever move there, Destiny.
You were saying, well, you know, an adolescent has rights, like signing a contract that a toddler doesn't have.
So therefore, I think your next conclusion of that was, if you're pre-born in the womb, I could also tell you my conclusion.
You don't have to guess because I'm there.
Okay, I mean, feel free to give up.
But it was an interesting position because what I was trying to get to in that conversation before I got a little bit derailed there is, do you think that your age or your development as a human means you are more or less entitled to equal protection under law for basic human rights, including the right to not be killed?
If that development, when you say including the rights to not be killed, that fundamental right to life.
Let's just talk about only that right, only intuition pumping.
So just, I don't know about intuition pumping.
Let's just talk, isolate it, and just say just the right to not be killed, the right to not be the victim of a homicide.
I don't know, I'm not sure.
It depends on what kind of deaths we're talking about.
So here's a question, for instance.
A lot of women have miscarriages, like without even knowing in the first few weeks of getting pregnant.
Do you think that those embryos should be rushed to the hospital?
Well, if the MRL is dead, no.
I mean, do you think that like any woman, do you think we should start locking every single woman that has sex into some sort of facility to check for early miscarriages like that?
Because if it is true, wouldn't that be the equivalent of a woman leaving a child starving to death on their floor?
No, absolutely not.
How dare you?
Carol, hold on, can you answer that question?
No, no, no, I got to go.
No, no, no.
How dare you?
Because what you're talking about right now is essentially the real genocide of children is all the children being miscarried right now in the first few weeks of miscarriage to not feeding my child.
Why?
It should be the same thing.
No, it's not.
Why is it not?
Well, you obviously not because it's not.
Hold on, you're telling me that.
Every woman in America is a lot of people.
If you want to go all the way to the moment of conception, then that means that a woman who just, whatever, kind of miscarries in the first, second, or third week and doesn't realize it, that is the same as like, oops, somebody dropped their child down the stairs and they died.
No, that is absolutely not the same.
Do you understand science and what happens in a miscarriage?
And an unattended miscarriage?
Unattended.
That's why I'm saying we should lock them up after they have sex.
I don't think your argument doesn't make any sense.
My argument makes perfect sense.
No, exactly.
If you lock a woman up, it's actually very human.
There's nothing more likely to be.
I understand it's really fast.
I know it's a very important thing.
Which is why I don't know what you're saying.
If you believe that the moment of, no, you can't right now.
If you believe that at the moment of conception, you've created a unique human being, then that means that right now you should be in tears because every moment women that are engaged.
In fact, you could probably make the argument that sex without the intention of immediately going to a hospital is probably immoral because you're engaging in some activity that might result in the death of a child because you don't know if you're going to have a miscarriage.
Every ingesting every single time a woman has sex is going to be rushed to a hospital immediately after just to make sure that whatever fetus might be there is absolutely let me add your question.
Now that is misogyny because what you're saying is women cannot gestate human beings in the womb and be productive citizens of our society.
They shouldn't.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
So Destiny, I don't know.
I know exactly what's going on.
Hold on, let's let Lila.
Okay, I don't know.
I think your question might betray perhaps a little ignorance about how pregnancy works.
Okay, inform yourself.
Because if a woman gets pregnant, rushing her to the hospital is not going to magically prevent a miscarriage that she may or may not have.
Miscarriages happen for a lot of different reasons.
And I would argue, especially for imprisonment, as an example, imprisoning a woman who's pregnant, which I'm opposed to, by the way, that additional stress could add to the miscarriage.
So if you grabbed a woman after she had sex and might be pregnant and dragged her off to a hospital, that might actually induce stress in her and her.
Yeah, but there's also potentially things a woman could be engaging that would increase the risk of miscarriage, especially if she doesn't know she's pregnant, right?
Maybe a woman drinks.
Say that one more time.
There might be behaviors that a woman could engage in if she is pregnant that would increase the risk of what she's doing.
However, that means that you could have sex with a condom and with birth control, and you might actually get pregnant.
So if a woman is having sex and she starts drinking whatever, she's actually murdering a child right then and there.
Destiny, let me answer that.
That's why we have recommendations from the FDA that women who are pregnant should not drink alcohol.
No, no, no.
You don't even know if you're pregnant.
That way, that's different.
That's the difference between direct and indirect actions, though, right?
It doesn't get much more direct than doing dicks.
No, if a woman is pregnant and does not know she's pregnant, say she just conceived and she goes and celebrates her 20th birthday at a bar, 21st birthday at a bar, and she drinks a whole bunch and she miscarriages.
No one would say you murdered your child.
No one would say that.
That was not the intent.
It doesn't matter what the intent is.
I think the kid cares what the intent is.
Abortion, what is abortion?
Abortion is the direct, intentional killing of an innocent person.
From the perspective of the fetus, do you think it carries if it was an accident or intentional that it was...
That is a direct action.
We're arguing about the morality of abortion, which you've informed me like five times because you don't want to talk about science.
Sure.
But what I'm saying is that if you think that for the moment of the world, I will say, I'll give you this, Destiny.
If you're having sex, and this actually goes to a related conversation to the abortion conversation, that's very important.
I think you guys answer any of my other questions.
I have a question, actually.
And I think your question kind of gets into the sexual ethics world, which I think is important.
So we could go there.
If you're having a heterosexual sex, am I allowed to ask my questions?
Because none of them got to answer.
Well, I would like to reiterate them.
Sure, I have like three really basic questions.
Can I answer his little hypothetical?
Okay.
Sure.
About the mass genocide of the city.
Well, no, it was more about, you know, if you're having sex, should you be heavily drinking afterwards, I think was where you're going with that.
And I would say, no, you shouldn't, actually.
I don't think, I don't think, and this is part of our society's problem today, post-sexual revolution, is we have separated sex from procreation and from relationship.
And because of that, we have the abortion rate of 2,500 children killed every day by abortion.
Because of that, we have mass unhappiness.
We have breakdown among male-female relationships.
People actually are having less sex in many ways than before.
Pornography use is spiking.
And it's all because we've forgotten what sex is designed for, which is intimacy and new life.
So I would be against a culture, and I am against acts where people are just being promiscuous, having sex, not really.
Literally, none of that has anything to do with what I said, because everything that I described happened could literally happen within a marriage where a woman gets pregnant, doesn't realize it, has some alcohol.
Well, then I'll answer for that too.
Actually, let me answer that too, because I'm saying that nothing but I gave had anything to do with those.
Okay, well, thank you for the clarification.
You know, I can relate to your question.
I'm married.
We hope to have another baby.
And yes, when I know if it's, I might be fertile, I might be getting pregnant soon.
Yeah, I'm not going to be drinking gin and tonics because I might be getting pregnant and I want to have my body be as hospitable as possible for that baby.
And I think that would be the prudent thing to do.
And that's another reason if as a woman and you're having sex.
I'm talking about it.
If it was prudent or not, we were talking about moral rights or wrongs.
Well, I think it would be morally irresponsible, yes, to be getting drunk when you may be getting pregnant, yes.
Because on the same level as like murdering a child, right?
Treating a new human being is a bit of a heterosexual sex.
And so that's what Lila is saying, is that if you're engaging in heterosexual sex, you have to be aware that one of the very biological outcomes of that behavior, of that choice you've made, is creating a unique whole living human life.
So therefore, you have consented to the fact that a unique whole living life may come into existence by engaging in that act knowingly.
Gotcha.
Okay.
Destiny, did you have more?
I said that very slowly.
Very, very, very similar questions.
Do we agree that is puberty a real thing?
Absolutely.
Puberty is a real thing.
Okay, when does it happen?
It's a range.
Hold on, hold on.
I know where you are.
I know where he's going.
I know he's going to.
Can I just make a comment here?
But that's fundamentally different between.
Hold on.
Let me just say that.
There's an absolutely.
Lila, like, I love you, but you don't let me answer any questions.
Yeah, Lila.
Jesus.
So you're being misogynistic.
I mean, I think it's been pretty.
I've been trying to be misogynistic.
I think they're both misogynistic, okay?
So, no, I understand where the question was.
You brought this up earlier about puberty.
Yes, absolutely.
Puberty is a real thing.
I have two preteens right now.
I'm reminded every day that puberty is a real thing.
And absolutely, it onsets at different ages based on the environment, based on a child's experiences or stress that the child may be going through or the genetic conditions that a child may have.
But that's not an equivalent for saying, well, we all know when human life begins, when we know it actually begins, or we've already proven as a scientific fact, begins at the moment of conception.
Therefore, we can kill a human being.
Okay, so all I'm trying to illustrate to you is that you believe in- Yes, Lila, go ahead and then we'll have you come in.
We'll have you come in.
Go ahead, Lila.
So I would just say, yes, there is a sliding time frame from when someone might go undergo puberty.
But if you are basing a decision about whether or not you can kill an innocent, prepubescent, or pubescent child, then I would say your standard of puberty shouldn't matter.
Similarly to your standard, your unjust standard of consciousness to demand that a baby that's not fully developed yet has to be developed in order to be protected.
And I think that's age discrimination.
Gotcha.
Okay, so all I'm trying to point out is- Do you agree you are age discriminatory, by the way?
Do you agree with that?
Do you think, are you age discriminatory?
So you're age discriminatory about when human beings should have a right discretion.
I'm discriminatory about a lot of different things.
So you believe that you are age discriminatory about typically developmental discrimination is for the protection of the less developed person.
It's not the protection of a mother that doesn't want to have a pregnancy.
There is another person in the equation here.
Manipulation or harm of the mother who's being forced to be a breeding factory for a child.
Do you know what I mean?
I can morally load this.
That's just the other way if you want.
If you want to play that game, I can do that.
See you, I think your argument actually isn't consciousness.
I think you are making a bodily autonomy argument.
No, I'm not.
That's the dumbest.
You absolutely are because you said the mother has a pregnancy.
No, the mother.
No, I'm just trying to show you that if you want to morally load things like murder of a child, well, then I'm going to say, well, forcing a motherfucker.
Well, you didn't agree with me about my analogy about artificial wombs.
But I didn't agree.
I rejected it because I said it was dumb because viability has no impact whatsoever on my feelings on whether or not a fetus is endowed with rights or human life or not.
Kristen is correct in that you are sort of talking out of both sides of your mouth a little bit here.
Absolutely not.
Right now I'm starting to talk out of one side of my mouth.
Well, on the one hand, Destiny, you're saying that it shouldn't matter whether or not the mother wants the baby or doesn't want the baby if the baby is conscious.
And on the other hand, you're saying actually the mother's desire to have or not have that baby being forced to birth that baby actually does matter.
So that's a little bit of a contradiction.
So it's not a contradiction at all.
Whether or not somebody wants to have a child or not is not the same as when does the child get moral protections.
Those are two funny areas.
You're saying you should be forced to give me a forced to give birth.
You're using that language.
No, well, because you're using the language of like killing a child.
No, you're ending the life of an innocent human being that is a child.
I'm actually illustrating my point.
Yes.
Yes.
Why are you so offended?
Why are you so offended by the word child?
I'm not offended.
Because it's triggering.
It's not that it's triggering me.
It's absolutely triggering you because you've said it like six times.
Because you're begging the question.
Are you triggered, Destiny?
Confirm or deny.
Are you triggered?
I actually, you know what?
The problem is that right now, the point of our debate, it's kind of like going to a self-defense trial and having the people that you kill being called victims.
Well, hold on.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
You're the one who's advocating for the positive right to kill a child in the womb.
You're the one advocating for that.
We're advocating to say you can't kill a child.
So, you know, that's.
I'm just trying to explain why calling it a child is a child.
But why does that bother you?
That's a ton of time.
It bothers me because the subject of the debate is whether or not it is a child.
So if you call it a child, you're already presupposing the most difficult part of the conversation.
It's both begging to be aware of it.
It's both.
But I think, but that's a contradiction to Destiny.
It's not a contradiction.
It is because you just said because you said that you become a person at consciousness.
This arbitrary line that you've drawn is not even, it's not even clear.
No, it's very clear.
But you never were talked about when childhood begins.
So let's actually talk about that.
When is it when?
Doesn't childhood begin at a different time than when personhood begins?
Childhood is whatever you want.
Some childhood begins when you see your first Sesame Street episode.
I don't know.
What does childhood mean?
Okay, when does a child become a child?
When is it okay to call a preborn life a child?
I don't know.
That's a semantic question.
I'm not really sure.
So why are you upset about us using the word if you don't really know?
Because we're not just having semantic disagreements.
We're having very discrete disagreements on morality over when somebody is.
I don't know what you're saying.
When do you think that's a good idea?
My disagreement is I don't think that it becomes a person at conception that's endowed with a child.
But you don't like us using the word child.
When does the life become a matter of time?
You know, because now you're just asking me about childhood, and now you're asking child.
The reason why we're arguing over.
When you start having your childhood, when you start becoming a child, let me know when you fully answer the question, okay?
Please tell me.
Okay.
We're having a conversation right now about when something is endowed with moral consideration.
Are you a liar?
I'm just asking.
I asked you to.
If I could finish, you said I could, and now you let me off.
Let's let you lie to me.
Let me finish the question.
Don't lie because you'll lose moral consideration, okay?
All right, no.
If the subject of the debate is when does a fetus become a person, okay?
Child is another word for person.
So when you say, when you say, do you think it's okay to kill a child, obviously the answer is no.
I don't think it's okay to kill a child.
But that's not the conversation we're having.
The conversation we're having is when is something considered a child?
So that's why I'm obviously going to push when you say, you're saying we should kill children.
I don't know, a fetus, whatever you want to call it.
But do you know what Latin, the Latin word fetus means?
I don't care.
I'm not Latin.
It means young one.
It's another word for child.
That's great.
There are young ones that are puppies.
That doesn't have any bearing on it.
You're not going to etymologically win the debate against me.
So just think puppies get consciousness at a certain point?
Not human consciousness.
We're only allowed to call human life a child at destiny's arbitrary line of consciousness.
What I'm saying is that.
Because you're very offended when we use this term.
So I'm trying to understand when it is in your book correct to use.
If anybody is triggered in this room, it is not me.
So it's funny that you keep using the offended line.
I'm using it.
Okay, you disagree strongly.
No, I don't disagree.
You're just presupposing the argument.
That's the issue.
It's pissing you off when we use the word child.
Confirm or deny.
Are you pissed off, Destiny?
No.
Yeah.
Okay.
You know what I'm saying?
No, hold on.
It's the same thing as you guys, because I know you guys, and I guess maybe this is just like in your brain, it's how you purchase conversations.
But I know you guys get frustrated when people argue with you and you're like, you just want to take rights away from the mom.
Oh, so you're trying to make moms slaves?
Oh, you're training moms in baby factories?
That would be, if I wanted to engage in the same style of conversation you're engaging in, I would just say that over and over again.
Why do you want to make moms baby factories?
Why do you want to make moms slaves?
You know what is really problematic is when we take away rights from certain groups of people and we force them to do things with their bodies that they don't want to.
A lot of eugenics was done that way.
A lot of the Nazi concentration camps done that way.
In Japan, Unit 343 did a lot of weird things like that or whatever the fuck.
Except for the case is that.
If you're going to make the argument that, like, oh, well, viewing people as people sometimes are not as really problematic, then I'll say, okay, well, restricting rights from people, especially women, has also been really problematic historically.
Welcome to women's suffrage.
Welcome to women being able to own property.
Welcome to women having access to birth control.
Welcome to women's explaining women's rights.
No problem.
I'll do it just so you guys have the problem with the understanding.
So, yeah, so, but I'm saying I'm not doing that because that's boring to me.
Because obviously, if you guys thought that a fetus wasn't a human life, then you would obviously agree with me.
And if I agree that a fetus was a human life, I would obviously agree with you.
You normatively loaded terms.
When you use normatively loaded terms like murder a child or commit homicide, then all you're doing is you're begging the question because obviously nobody at this table and nobody in this room believes in killing children or committing homicide against children.
Except the question of the question is when does it become a child?
That's what I'm saying.
I have a question for you, though, because you just said when the fetus becomes a human being, when does the fetus become a human being, Destiny?
The human, the personhood comes when the conscious experience starts, which is about wait.
Biology says moment of conception, life becomes a problem.
Biology does not tell you stop!
Excuse me.
Biology does not start talking to you like I talked to my four boys.
Excuse me.
Can we talk about that?
Hold on, Kristen.
Kristen, one second.
Kristen, one second, one sec.
If we can, and you know, there's been some comments about this.
I would like everybody here at the table to have an opportunity to speak.
So if we can try to, including Kiki, yes.
So if we can try to limit the interruptions, let people finish their thought, and then go on.
I'd like Destiny to have time to speak.
I'd like Lila have time to speak.
Kristen, you as well.
Go ahead, Kristen.
Fetus.
When does the fetus become a human being?
Because biology says, biologists confirm, 96% confirm that the moment of conception, you became a human being.
You became a member of our species, but you kept saying the word, it's not a human being.
So when does the child or entity or whatever term you want to use that doesn't trigger you in the womb become a human being?
20 to 24 weeks.
So you're actually, wait a minute, this is very important because you didn't say this at the beginning of the debate.
Beginning of the debate, you were making a moral argument, but you weren't saying that it wasn't.
Changing position from person to human being.
This is what Lila and I were exactly, this is what I pointed out like 15 minutes ago.
That you are using an argument saying that it's consciousness, that consciousness gives that human being these special personhood rights not to be killed.
But I have made the argument a while back that you aren't really making that argument because when I presented a couple other scenarios to you, you wouldn't agree with me.
But the argument what you just said.
The argument you just said was it wasn't a human being.
You just said for everybody here that it becomes it becomes a human being at 20 to 24 weeks.
That is scientifically unsound because what we've already proven to you is that the moment of conception, a unique human being comes into existence.
Do you agree with me that a human being is present in a mother's womb at the moment of conception?
If you want to define human being as unique genetic code that appears, then we can call that a human being.
But the conversation that we're having right now is not about what a human being is.
The conversation we're having is when does something get granted rights or moral consideration?
So I think you can be careful with your terms then.
Because you kept saying that.
You're the one that's mixing everything up.
I've been pretty clear, and I'll continue to be clear because you're trying to ask me, yes, when does it become a human being?
And if you're defining human beings, I think that gets rights, then I'll say it 20 to 24 weeks.
The thing that I've said over and over again, and if you want, I can write this word down.
What I am talking about, and I've used this term before, is person or personhood.
And I think that a person, a person is not a collection of cells.
A person is not some body parts.
A person is not something that responds to pain or heart-pumping blood.
When we think of people or persons, we think of people that are having subjective conscious experiences like we have now.
So I have a point of view.
When we think of when somebody dies, we think of that subjective conscious experience ending.
That's why earlier the question that I asked that I will never get an answer to, and I understand why you want to answer it.
I asked you, if a person is going to be in a coma for the rest of their life, will never wake up, can you kill them?
The answer is obviously yes, but the reason why you won't say that that's okay is because a comatose person possesses every single person.
I will answer the question for you.
Pre-conscious fetus.
Let me answer the question.
So you can kill that comatose person.
You can probably kill preconsciousness.
You're not killing the problem.
I think it's wrong to take a gun and kill the person in a coma.
I think it would be wrong to take sofa clamp and dismember that person limb from limb who's in a coma.
I think it's wrong to take a needle and insert digoxin into that person's heart who's in a coma and cause a cardiac rest.
All things that happen during abortion, by the way.
We would never argue that a person who's in a coma, whether we know they're brain dead or they're not brain dead, we don't know because we don't have an actual scenario we're talking about here.
But we would never say you actively kill a person who's in a coma.
What Lila said, what I agree with, I agree.
And you can actually remove care.
You can remove the reading apparatus.
You don't agree with this argument.
This is not an argument that you agree.
No, you just said we didn't answer the argument, your question, but we did.
Well, what happened was there was a bit of filibustering where I was going to say, well, we can very clearly get a bottom of this or we can ramble on to irrelevant things.
Do you want to go on this?
You don't like our answer.
So you say we did a lot of things.
So what you're doing is you're pointing out a difference.
So sometimes in moral philosophy, people want to point the difference between doing and allowing harm.
And there might be a fundamental moral difference between doing harm to somebody versus allowing harm to somebody.
It depends what you mean by those actions.
Sure.
You're trying to draw some difference here between doing and allowing harm.
However, none of us here believe that that matters in this case, right?
Because if you look at a child, none of us here would say that one is morally okay to allow harm versus one is morally okay to do harm.
For instance, if you had a child that was connected to an insulin tube or a feeding pump because they had issues with digestion or feeding, you wouldn't say that like, okay, actively killing the child is wrong.
But if you just disconnected their insulin pump, that would be okay because you're passively killing the child.
We would say no.
They have a fundamental right to survive and be alive.
And you would say the same thing to a person connected to a machine.
Because if a person was in a coma or not in a coma, let's say they were just unconscious, okay, and we knew they were going to wake up in two weeks or there was a high likelihood of it, we would say it's probably unethical to unattach that person to the machine, even if all they did was sit there and starve to death.
So this weird description that you're trying to, or this weird dichotomy you're trying to make between doing versus allowing harm doesn't apply here when we talk about moral consideration.
Absolutely.
I think don't say false analogies.
I think there's an oversimplification here when you're talking about moral philosophy because a lot of it goes into who has the responsibility, what my responsibilities and duties are to you.
So if I am a doctor and my responsibility and duty is to my patient and I have a child who's getting an insulin treatment, yes, it would be homicidal of me to rip the treatment away from the child.
If I am a parent and my duty and responsibility as a parent is to provide nourishment for my child and I rip that nourishment away from my child, then yes, that would be potentially a homicidal act.
It could lead to death and it certainly would be a case of neglect and perhaps abuse.
So similarly, if I, as a parent, have these responsibilities to my children, then I have to, it would be morally wrong for me to not live out those responsibilities.
And every child is dependent on his or her mother.
I do not suddenly become a child or a person at consciousness.
We don't even have a clear line of when that is.
We haven't been able to nail that down.
You still can't tell.
And in addition, consciousness, you can go in and out of consciousness.
Sure.
And in addition, a child before developing consciousness only needs time to develop that.
So here's the most important question.
One thing, one thing.
One thing.
I'll let you make your point, but after you make your point, allow me to just come in.
And I have a couple questions.
Most important question then.
Can you respond to what I said, though?
I'm curious your thoughts on what I just said.
Do you disagree with what I said?
I don't think there's anything to respond to.
There's something.
Do you agree with it?
Disagree?
When you start saying things like you should take care of children, you can't pull away carefully from children.
Obviously, I agree.
But that's all begging the question.
We all agree on that.
The question is, when do they become children?
So there's nothing to do with that.
No, but what do you think about the distinction of I have the potential, I have the capacity for consciousness, I only need time for that to be realized.
Similarly, I'm under an anesthetic, I can have the capacity for consciousness, it's not realized because I'm under anesthetic.
In both cases, it's still wrong to kill.
There's a difference.
You're not developing the consciousness.
Why is that difference matter, Destiny?
Because there's a difference between a thing and a human being.
I know there's a difference, but why is the difference between them?
Let them finish.
Oh, I am getting triggered.
You're right.
I'm getting triggered.
We all know Destiny.
The argument is yours.
Because she knows her argument is bad, and that's why she won't let me finish on her.
It's triggering the fuck out of me, okay?
Well, let's just let Destiny respond.
Go ahead, Destiny.
Go ahead.
Yeah.
Okay.
So the key money question that I'm going to ask is: if you have a person connected at end-of-life care, when does it become ethical to disconnect them?
You didn't answer.
I'll answer that Lila's question.
But why does your difference matter?
Why does what difference matter?
The difference of the child.
You're not even going to let me finish, but I'll tell you the difference.
The difference is, there's a difference between a thing and a thing that something will become.
Those are two fundamentally different things.
So when you say, what's there between a fetus that hasn't developed the parts to have consciousness yet versus what's there between me versus what's between currently unconscious and will become conscious later after anesthesia will wake up?
The difference is, is you're not developing the capacity to have consciousness.
There's a continuation of a prior conscious experience.
All the parts are there to create a conscious experience.
They're just temporary, temporarily alleviated.
No, it's not because the fetus has never been conscious and doesn't have the parts to deploy the conscious experience.
So there's fundamentally a difference.
Was that two or three interruptions that I said were going to happen, right?
There's fundamentally a difference between a thing that doesn't even have the capability to have a conscious experience versus somebody else is just temporarily abated by a drug.
That is the difference.
Thank you for that answer.
Why does the continuation of consciousness matter?
The continuation matters because the thing I'm valuing is the underlying machinery that has the capacity to deploy a conscious experience.
Why?
Because in all the intuition of when we talk about other people and things, it seems like, well, ultimately, that's kind of where our morals come from, don't they?
Right?
And at the end of the day, at the end of the day, the thing that we seem to be valuing in other people seems to be the subjective experience that we're all having with each other.
Okay.
That seems to be the case.
Under your logic, Destiny.
Yes, tell me.
A newborn child whose consciousness, their memories, they won't even have memories as a newborn.
Because your consciousness as a newborn child and even your consciousness as a one-year-old is very different than your consciousness as a destiny, however old you are.
Okay.
Are you less of a human, less of a person, excuse me, because that's the word you're using here?
Are you less of a person because you have less consciousness?
Yeah, you might be.
Okay, interesting.
That's it.
Just because you're less of a person doesn't necessarily mean that you have not that fundamental right to be protected as a wife.
If you are less of a person.
Just like a person who's prepubescent is less of a person in terms of being endowed with all the rights of society.
But they still have the right to life to not be murdered.
So let's walk this forward.
Then if you're a one-year-old and you're a little bit less of a person than a 20-year-old, say, should you have less, are your human rights less as a one-year-old than your human rights as a 20-year-old?
Where does that disclose?
Your human rights are less as a one-year-old, yes.
But in terms of right to be killed?
Wait, wait, human rights are universal and inalienable.
They're for everyone.
We're not talking about rights when you turn 18 to vote.
We're talking about your universal inalienable rights.
The idea of a human right is we all share them and they can't be taken away from us.
Because we're human.
Meaning that you're not going to be able to do that.
You recognize that there's a fundamentally different set of rights for children than there are for us.
Well, I think.
Now, if you want to talk about right to not be killed, that's why I keep clarifying.
I was like, right to not be killed.
Yeah, I think you have that right to not be killed.
Yeah, that is a human right.
So just to clarify, the amount of how much of a person you are, is what you just said, does not change your human rights.
Because my human rights as a one-year-old, even though I'm less of a person because I'm less conscious, than a 20-year-old, I still share the same human rights, no?
If you want, yeah, sure.
Okay.
Why would you deprive a child in the womb weeks before developing this uncertain amount of consciousness that's still very limited compared to even the consciousness of a newborn?
Why would you deprive them the right to life?
Because they haven't become a person yet because they haven't developed that.
But that's a circular argument.
You just want to be able to do that.
Absolutely not.
You went back to the same womb.
You're trying to say that, let's say that a person is one year.
You're saying consciousness.
You're saying, let's say a person is 50% a person at one year old and 100% a person at five years old.
And let's say you're saying that a second trimester baby is 20% a person.
Well, what about somebody that's 0% a person?
Well, I would say that's not a person yet.
That's very clear, very easy, very obvious.
But you're not, you're basing that off of, though, development.
Yeah, the developing of a conscious experience.
Just like death is based on the development of the lack of a conscious experience.
So that's age discrimination.
It's maturity discrimination.
If you want to call it age discrimination, you can call it what you want.
You're trying to dress it up to intuition.
You still didn't answer my question.
Well, you're using intuition for your experience.
Hold on, no, no, no.
When I say you're intuition pumping, what I mean is you're trying to draw on all of the negative things of age discrimination.
But you're not addressing the fundamental point I'm making, which is that the conscious experience seems to be.
And I'll go back to my one question: is when can we decide to fill the plug on somebody who's in the hospital?
What is the defining factor for tell me more about this person in the hospital?
Sure, they're in a coma, they're in a hospital.
Okay, are they under on the are they on life support?
True.
I'm going to guess.
And they're not medically induced coma.
Correct.
Okay, so I would talk to, I would want to better understand, or did they just have a car accident?
Talk to me.
Yeah, they had a car accident.
Okay, and are they brain dead?
They might be.
Should we test for that?
Do you think that's important?
Yeah, that's very important.
When you say brain dead, what do you mean by brain dead?
I mean, there can't detect any brain waves on the person.
Are they flatlining?
Is there any heart?
So are we going to go by detection of brain waves?
Is what we choose is what?
Because if what you're getting to, it is ethical, I believe, to remove life support when there's no more hope for the person.
Do you think it's ethical to dismember the person when you remove the life support?
I mean, like, would you do anything wrong if you said, I'm a sadistic person who wants to dismember?
People have the difference, though, is life support.
Let him answer the question.
It's not a proper analogy, is the problem.
It's such a good analogy.
You enjoy it, I know, but it's not a proper animal.
No, no, no, no, it's important because you're asking the very human questions I would expect you to ask, which are the questions everybody asks, is is there brain activity?
Well, they're the ethical questions to ask when you're a medical person making a decision about whether or not to remove life.
And we don't go by heartbeat.
We don't go by response to external stimuli.
We don't go by.
Those are often, yes, those are evaluated when you're determining making life and death decisions in a hospital.
Brain death is usually what we're looking at.
Yes, that is absolutely defining aspect of the brain support.
I understand.
So hold on.
Can I just ask one question then?
You are making an equivalence between a person on life support and a child in the womb as if the child in the womb is on some form of life support.
That is not correct, though.
That's not correct because when I'm a child in the womb, you when you're in a child of the womb, you're not on an extraordinary medical measure to support to keep you alive.
You're in your last set of support.
Yeah, because let me just say one last thing, and I'd love to get in.
And the only thing that's going to kill you when you're in the womb, if not a miscarriage, would be an abortion.
Okay.
So it doesn't match.
You still haven't answered the question about the 21-week and six-day-old human beings.
I said it's fine.
You can do.
Yeah, they would be past my 20-week cutoff, so they'd probably be treated like a child.
Probably.
Assuming that's the law, it would be treated like a child, yes.
So you're saying that the law is 20 weeks, and that is exactly where you're at.
Yes.
Okay.
What about the child who's 18 weeks in the womb, who has spine a bifida, and the doctor's kystetic to correct spine bifida to put the child back in the womb?
Oh, in the womb if the parents want to, that's their choice.
That's another question.
This is my question before you made your farting noise.
Does that child at 18 weeks or the fetus or the thing that you want to call it?
Yeah.
Does that child have any rights?
No.
At all?
Nope.
But see, what's interesting is you're conflating parts with holes.
No, I'm not.
No, yeah, you were.
Because you keep saying that earlier, and we can rewind the tapes or whatever.
Okay.
That the child doesn't have the capacity for consciousness.
But the child actually does actually have the capacity to have consciousness.
At the moment of conception, at the moment of conception.
I told you I'm going to start treating you like a child.
At the moment of conception, all of the parts are there, right?
The genetic code is there.
That's not the parts.
A blueprint is not a part.
Wait, can we?
Wait, let me finish my question.
Let me finish my question.
Yes, ma'am.
So what part gets added in the womb at between zero days and 20 weeks?
No, no, no.
Excuse me.
Where does that part come from, Destiny?
From the blueprints.
Do you think blueprints to a car are the same thing as a car?
But you just said it doesn't matter.
I said the child.
The blueprint isn't going to magic hat in the car.
but a one-celled thing is not a thing with many cells.
You're acting as if.
Can you sit up?
Oh my gosh.
Let me hear.
You're going to treat me like a kid.
I'm going to act like a kid.
Destiny, please sit up and have good manners.
Treat me like an adult.
No.
Let's go back to the coma.
Let's go back to the coma.
I think I've got a question about the parts and the holes because I think this is really interesting.
No, because it's a bird's body.
You just said that the child at 20 weeks has the right to life, but the child at 18 weeks has zero rights.
That is correct.
That was my comment.
Absolutely all.
But what you were saying in your arguments with Lila earlier is that the child doesn't have the capacity for consciousness.
And I said that's absolutely incorrect because at the moment of conception, all the genetic material needed for that child to obtain consciousness is there.
And what Lila had already said very articulately, all the child needs is time to grow and time to develop.
It's not as if a child in my womb at 12 weeks, I take a needle and insert this little part into my womb and say, bam, fetus, now you have the capacity for consciousness.
No, all the parts are already there.
Sure.
Let's say that I walk by.
Would you agree with me on that fact that all the parts are there?
Just one thing, one thing.
Destiny, you respond.
You respond.
Okay.
And then I do have to jump in.
So Destiny, go, and then I'll go ahead.
If I walked outside and there was 100 steel beams and there was a ton of nails and all this shit laying on the ground and it was organized and I walk over and I push over the steel beams, nobody would say, oh my God, you just destroyed a building.
All the parts for the building are there.
The blueprint might be vandalism.
Yeah, but it's not a building.
And I argue that killing a fetus is killing a fetus, but it's not killing a human.
If I'm a whole lot of people.
The argument here is not whether or not a thing is being terminated.
We agree.
It's whether or not that thing is the thing you're claiming it is.
It's part of the thing.
And I'm claiming that a thing has a blueprint or can develop the parts in the future.
Hold on, let me finish.
Let's start with that.
That argument right there betrays your whole point because you're conceding that it is not the thing itself.
If I walk by a construction site and I start knocking stuff over, I haven't destroyed a building.
The pieces of a thing are not the thing itself.
I think that when does the fetus get the future?
I'll just answer that really quick.
If you go in and start burning the building before it's built, yeah, that would be a problem and it would be vandalism and it would hurt the fetus.
It would be vandalism and it would hurt a thing.
But it hasn't destroyed a building, has it?
It definitely destroyed what you were building first.
Yes, but it didn't destroy a building, right?
Yeah, but the difference here is.
No, this is the whole subject of the base.
If you've destroyed all the materials we're building, have you destroyed a building?
A building is a thing.
A human being is a thing.
I think it doesn't match to what our conversation is on our life because an embryo is a whole unique individual.
Let's come back to that.
Can we go to the coma back really quick?
Because I actually want to address that question.
Well, let's come back to that in a little bit.
We do have a couple chats to get through here.
We're going to read through a couple of these chats.
If you want, give a quick response, please, and then we'll continue on with the conversation.
We have about, I think, 10 or so different chats.
Gret Neck, thank you for the 50.
Appreciate it.
I'm pro-life.
First of all, woman.
Let the man speak.
Damn it.
Second, Destiny, a hypothetical is something that is a scientific.
You guys should probably spell check these before sending them.
Things that are unrealistic, like a button saying not going to wake up, is unrealistic and impossible.
Gretneck, thank you there for the donation.
We have Stir the Sauce 09.
Thank you, man.
H.R. 1074, if the perpetrator commits the predicate offense with the intent to kill the unborn child, the punishment for that offense is the same as the punishment provided under federal law for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
Explain.
By the way, if you want, you can read them on the screen here.
Can we go to the coma?
Let's do a few more.
We got a few more.
Did anybody want to respond to stir the sauces?
He's saying that he's trying to make an argument from legality, but it's a dumb argument because nobody here believes in that.
Because if the law right now said that killing a fetus incurred no penalty, obviously they would disagree with the law.
If the law says that killing a fetus incurs a penalty of homicide, I would probably disagree with that law.
But I mean, like, it's just none of us here are arguing for what's legal or not.
All right, next chat, we have Mickey.
Hey, thank you for the $69 donation.
Thank you.
Take turns talking.
It's the woman couple choice.
Why is it anyone's business who is not going to raise and finance the child have a say?
All that is needed to do is provide a safe space for them in order to prevent unnecessary casualty due to self-abortion.
Can anybody parse that?
That's a stupid argument.
People that say that it's just a decision between the man and a woman is dumb because what's being debated here is the life of a child.
If you believe it's a child, then it's not just two people that have a say over it.
The life of the child ought to be provided some personal negative rights as well.
All right, we have Alvin Sam here.
If abortion is murder, should the woman be charged with that and go to jail credit to roll it for this?
Lila or Kristen, do you have a response to Alvin's chat here?
I believe that those who commit murder, so the abortionists, those who would be assisting in the abortion, could be tried with a crime.
And actually, we've written laws at Students for Life Action that do make committing abortion a criminal offense.
We do not believe that a woman should go to jail for abortion because sadly, for 50 years in our country, we have told women that it's not murder and it's not killing.
It's simply removal of meaningless blobs of tissue that don't have any consciousness yet, which we know is false.
And so we actually see her very much as a second victim of the abortion industry that tells her that she can't, that she isn't capable enough, as the argument that Destiny was making earlier that women somehow aren't capable enough of walking around this earth pregnant without being locked up or whatever to her potential miscarriage.
We believe that she absolutely has the capacity to achieve her career goals and her educational goals.
But sadly, Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion vendor and the abortion lobby, has told her something different for the past 50 years.
Hold on, real quick.
That's the worst answer ever.
If you believe that abortion is murder, then a woman should be held morally responsible for a conspiracy to commit murder if she goes to an abortion clinic.
Full stop, end of discussion.
If you think abortion is murder, a woman going to get an abortion would be the same as a woman going to get her one-year-old child killed.
Abortion is murder.
It's murder for everybody involved, including the woman.
And I'm more of that position, which is that there's obviously when it comes to homicide, there's a lot of potentially mitigating factors, full intent, full knowledge, coercion.
But I think, yes, if you're willfully and intentionally taking the life of your child, there should be criminal penalties.
Got it.
All right, we have Rams here with the Canadian 69.
Thank you, man.
Appreciate it.
Maybe we should take policy back to the age-old normal.
Oh, to the age-old normal equals babies coming from marriage in society is the norm, and therefore out-of-marriage births will be the exception, and overall less births to consider for the mystery of when a fetus is a human.
Okay, Rams, thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Did anyone have a response to that?
David Cena, can you each describe what happens during an abortion starting with destiny?
I think it depends on where the development of the fetus is, but I think normally don't they start putting in tools, cutting it up, sucking it out?
I think it depends on how far along the development is.
Would you like to go in detail?
Because if you are advocating for abortion, I think you should be able to tell us what abortion really is.
My understanding is prior to whatever.
Yeah.
So I think generally there's this whole slew of, I would call them like gore porn films, like sawn stuff that they have doctors watching beforehand.
So that when they go in, I think the goal is to inflict the maximum amount of gore and pain on the fetus before they take it out.
So the first thing you do is you open the vagina up as much as possible, dilate the cervex.
Give us a serious goal is I think they start with little razors.
It depends on how sensitive the baby is to pain, and they start to flay it alive in the womb, and then they pump like oxygen so the baby can start crying and everything.
Why don't you give a serious answer to that?
So because the argument of like what happens on some emotional level, you're totally conceding any logical point.
It absolutely is.
You're conceding because you're trying to win on some like emotionally driven point.
If you want to morally grandstand on it, it's fine, but I'm not here to mince words over like, oh, well, this is what happens to you, boy.
Well, if you support abortion, I think you should have the ball.
I support cremation as well.
And cremation would be pretty bad if I thought that a corpse was a living person.
I also support embalming, too, and that would also be really brutal.
It's not a living human being.
Yeah, and I don't agree that a fetus is a living human.
Welcome to my argument.
And this goes back to the argument that we keep on.
Wait, hold on.
You keep saying it's consciousness, but you just said it's not a living human being.
Are they dead?
That's fetus.
It's not a person.
It's not a living.
Is a fetus in a womb dead.
Or is it alive?
It's not a person.
Is it?
Wait, you just said it wasn't a living human being.
So answering the question.
In the sense that it's not a person.
You can try to trap me on semantics, but everybody in the audience knows what I'm saying.
Your heart is living, but it's not a person.
A fetus is living, but it's not a person.
Well, yeah, of course it's something.
Yeah, of course.
But you are saying abortion.
Psychosis occurs.
There's metabolism happening.
It's getting extrateral nutrient.
Just to clarify, just to make sure I'm understanding.
You are saying that abortion isn't gory the way, or it doesn't matter that abortion is gory the way embalming or cremation might be because it's not taking the life of a living person something.
Okay, you said human being, but then you change it to person because you realize that was bad to say human being because you already agreed that humans start at fertilization.
So, but abortion does end the life of something, no?
Yeah.
It does end up.
It terminates some process, metabolistic fatality.
Okay, so it ends life.
Yeah.
So if you consider it, yeah, it's a living thing.
So is abortion killing?
A thing, something, yeah.
What does abortion kill?
A fetus.
What is a fetus?
However you want to define it.
So the fetus is a bad thing.
Probably on the total development of like a human.
You start as a zygote, you begin mitosis, and you develop into a fetus and there's different fetal segments.
A fetus is a human.
Aren't you considered a fetus all the way up to like delivery?
Technically?
Yes.
Like an apostate.
So fetus is a human.
Sure, it could be.
So it's correct, not emotionally, but it's correct.
You're not literally telling me that.
Is it correct literally To say then that abortion kills a human?
No, because you're intuition pumping.
Because when you say human beings, why is she incorrect or not though?
The ultimate example of somebody not being confident in their position is to try to win the debate through etymology.
You're not going to win this debate by trying to redefine words in a clever manner.
You literally just agree to.
If you want to pretend that, that's fine, but you're not making any actual arguments here.
What you're trying to say is, well, do you consider a fetus a human?
Sure.
Do you consider a baby a human?
Yeah.
Oh, so you want to protect some humans but not others?
I guess.
What about white women's and black humans?
I'm trying to understand.
My point has been crystal clear the entire time.
I'll restate it for like the fifth time.
My point is: is the conscious experience, whatever you want to call that, if you want to call that when it becomes a human before that is just a fetus, if you're going to call that a person or give a person whatever, 20 to 24 weeks, at that 20-week mark is when you get the protections that you're endowed with as a human person under the Constitution of the United States at 20 weeks.
If you want to call the thing before a fetus or a human fetus or a human thing or whatever you want to call it, you can call it whatever you want.
But my position is crystal clear.
I've elucidated it multiple times.
So just if you guys want to respond, go ahead and then I'm going to get some more checks.
Does abortion kill a human being?
A human being?
I probably wouldn't agree to those terms.
No.
But if you want me to say yes to you, I'm a better job.
You're like all over the map.
I'm not all over the map.
I'm crystal clear about you're trying to semantically win on a point instead of having the actual argument.
However, I'll say this: I can shortcut that whole question.
The question is stupid, and their point of like saying, well, look at all blighted actually is stupid because I can ask you this question and I don't know how to answer.
If there was a way to do an abortion on a fetus that was 100% humane, that was 100% pain-free, they just went in and sucked out and instantly deleted it, would you think that that's okay?
No, no.
Absolutely.
It doesn't change argument at all.
So why bring up no gory or whatever?
There's no bearing on your argument whatsoever.
I'm answering your question.
Still an innocent human being.
Sure.
I know, I agree.
I agree with that, but I'm just saying that, like, so the method, the process of the abortion has nothing to do with the veracity of the argument.
So the only reason you bring it up is to win emotional points.
That was the whole point of my initial point.
It's actually very important to the abortion argument because as someone who's talked to women who've gone into abortion facilities or who've been considering abortion, they are actually not fully consented as to what an abortion actually entails.
And one of the big challenges that we face in the pro-life movement is actually educating Americans about what an abortion procedure really is.
Is it simply a removal of a couple of cells?
Is it like removing your appendix or a tooth?
Or is it actively ending a human life that has unique genetic, unique genetic code?
So that's a lot.
This is where it kind of falls apart, Destiny, in my view.
And tell me where I'm wrong here.
Help me understand this.
Tell me, follow me.
We were talking about consciousness, and you were saying that consciousness, the reason that the development of consciousness matters for personhood, and you referenced moral intuition, okay?
But you're very uncomfortable with the moral intuition that might also arise when you consider that abortion is the direct killing, dismemberment, poisoning, of a pre-born life human.
And so why are you uncomfortable with the moral intuition against killing an innocent pre-born life pre-consciousness, but you're comfortable with the moral intuition around consciousness?
Okay, just to clarify, it is innocent, right?
Because you said it like three times.
Hasn't committed any crimes for me?
Okay, just making sure.
Okay.
I'm not uncomfortable with any intuitions.
That's why I've answered every question, every hypothetical.
Except what happens during abortion.
You didn't answer that.
You can talk about that if you want.
I gave myself a question.
I said you answered every question, but you wouldn't actually answer the question.
I don't know the exact procedure.
I described as much as I know about abortion.
I'm sure you know every single gory detail.
So I would simply give you a question.
I would like to really hear about what happens during abortion.
Well, we were going down a path where you said that abortion is killing, and yes, it's a human.
But then I said, so you're okay with abortion, an act that kills a human, and you didn't like that.
I think your moral intuition told you that doesn't sound right.
That doesn't sound right.
That you would support an act that kills and human.
That's what I'm saying.
Yeah, obviously.
Yeah, but that's what an abortion is, Destiny.
That's what an abortion is.
We're talking about anger.
But your cognitive discipline is raging right now, Destiny.
It's raging.
It's raging.
Position has been crystal clear the entire time.
There's my win every hypothetical answer to every question and why you guys are running like crazy for my very simple questions.
Well, let's do a couple more chats.
Let's do the chats and then we will come back to that.
We have Juggernaut here.
Just a heads up, Juggernaut.
Thank you for the super chat.
It's a little iffy, so unfortunately, we're not going to read it.
Wait, what is it about?
He's being a bit insulting.
He's being a bit rude.
To who?
To the misogyny.
Tell him, thanks for the 50 bucks, though, loser.
I'm not going to say that.
Thanks for the 50 bucks, fucking losing.
Juggernaut, we will read your other super chat, though, so thank you.
Scott Servini, hey, thank you for the 50 super chat.
Thank you so much, man.
This is a seriously heavy topic for a dating podcast.
Didn't know what I was getting into tonight.
I'm going to stay tuned, though.
Can't turn away.
Hey, Scott, thank you so much for the super chat, and thank you for tuning in.
Yeah, it's a little different than what we normally do, but I suppose.
It's important when you talk about dating.
Well, I suppose abortion is somewhat related to dating.
And the red pill space?
I don't think it's that relevant a topic.
It doesn't matter.
It's like 90% of the audience are virgins.
Well, I mean, I'm just kidding.
Well, just related to dating, I think it's related, seeing as people have sex, and then the consequences of sex can be pregnancy.
Sometimes.
Scott, thank you.
Jonathan D., thank you for the Canadian 50.
Appreciate it.
Molar pregnancy occurs after fertilization when replication of cells becomes abnormal.
The embryo becomes a trophoblastic tumor, which is cancer.
It is an embryo before it becomes cancer is alive per Kristen.
I'm a doctor.
This is fact.
Please explain.
I'm not sure what Jonathan is saying.
That definitely supports my argument.
He's talking about a genetic circumstance where something's happened that's gone wrong at the moment of conception and the child doesn't actually fully become a child.
It's like a, that's what I call it.
I keep trying to describe it.
It's a molar pregnancy.
It's a pregnancy, but it's not a human being.
Is that like a stillbirth?
Wait, that's a pregnancy, but it's not a human being.
Wait, but doesn't it have unique genetic code?
It leads to a miscarriage.
It's a miscarriage.
Yeah, but it is a human being, right?
Like children can have, but children can have genetic abnormalities that lead to them.
Yeah, and a lot of when we talked about miscarriages earlier, when you kind of callously made it out like it was nothing, miscarriages happen because of a genetic abnormality.
Sure, but to be clear, those are children.
Destiny, I think we can find agreement on your coma question.
Oh my God.
Yeah, we have.
Oh, we'll get there.
Oh, I got tired of that one.
Stay tuned for the agreement on the coma.
We have Nobunaga here.
Hey, thank you, man.
Good to see you back in the chat.
Definition of a child, a young human being below the age of puberty or below the age of majority.
If human life begins at conception, like Destiny agreed with, then factually Destiny is wrong.
Your response, Destiny.
I didn't consider checkdictionary.com before I do any moral philosophy.
Fuck me.
Thank you.
Nobunaga.
Gretnak, hey, thank you.
Thank you, genius.
I'll read this one while it's up.
Gretnak, hey, thank you for the 50.
Sorry for the bad text.
What I get from this is Destiny agrees with you on that.
It is killing, deleting after conception, but the right to life begins with personhood at 20 weeks.
And before that, and before that, it doesn't matter to him.
By the way, love your podcast, Brian.
thank you um destiny do you have a response to yeah that's probably what i read You're killing something, right?
All right.
Okay, and then we have here, I think we had Nobunaga's, I think.
Oh, wait.
Hold on.
Oh, this is the second one.
Nobunaga.
Hey, thank you.
Can I read this one?
Sure, go.
Okay.
Definition of a person, quote, a human being regarded as an individual, end quote.
Since Destiny agreed that the unique human DNA begins at conception, then he is also wrong again.
Words have meaning, and Destiny is looking like a fool by trying to move the goalpost.
Thank you for the $49.99.
Okay, Nobunaga, thank you.
Do you have a response to him, or is that sufficient?
If he's going to bring out Merriam-Webster, who am I to contradict him?
Okay.
There you go, Nobunaga.
Oh, here's another.
Did you want to read this one too?
Destiny is wrong again on consciousness.
Alzheimer's is a thing.
There are cases of people who get concussions, go into a coma, and don't remember, or suffer from memory loss.
His arguments are a bunch of BS.
And I bet he doesn't mean Bachelor of Science.
Probably not.
No, I don't think that's not.
Okay.
I didn't know that Alzheimer's patients didn't have consciousness.
That's what we're doing.
They lose their consciousness.
Yeah.
That's crazy.
Okay.
But they're just as much a person.
There was Terry Schivo or the Protestants.
Because consciousness does not give you your humanity or your personhood.
But it seems like that's when we decide it's gone, right?
What does that mean?
With sugar.
Thank you for the big 200 super chat.
Wow.
Uh-oh.
Was who's Terry Shaivo?
Terry Shaivo is a woman who they're not sure how she had the accident, but she ended up in a severely disabled state.
Some called her a vegetable, but her family said she's not a vegetable.
She's interacting with us and she's a human being.
Human beings aren't vegetables.
And her husband, in a very famous court case, well, he had a mistress and he was actively separated from Terry because he was her guardian, euthanized her, chose to kill her in the state of Florida.
And actually starved.
It was in the 90s.
And the way he euthanized her was that they refused food and water.
She died of dehydration.
She didn't die her condition.
She died of dehydration.
That's back to the tell me when we can do COVID.
Yeah, yeah, almost.
We're about halfway through some of these chats.
All right.
We have Henry Ann.
Pleasure is never as pleasant as we expected it to be, and pain is always more painful.
The pain in the world always outweighs the pleasure.
If you don't believe it, compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is eating the other.
Hey, Henry Ann, thanks for the super chat.
Appreciate it.
We have Christopher Fisher here.
Thank you for the super chat.
According to the NIH, several conditions may mimic brain death, locked-in syndrome, hypothermia, drug intoxication, how do you pronounce that?
Going back?
Gillian Barr syndrome, delayed paralytic clearance, all mimic brain death, but all have recoverable with due time.
Okay, Christopher Fisher, thank you for the super chat.
Appreciate it.
We have Dr. Ocho.
Thank you.
Destiny, you need to start asking them to restate your position back to you.
It's becoming exceedingly obvious that they are either not listening or responding in bad faith.
Lila seems like she's kind of trying, though.
So shout out to Lila.
Dr. Ocho, thank you.
I'll try to do better.
I'm truly.
And then we have Jonathan D. here, Mercy Bucu for the Canadian 50.
Molar pregnancy.
Oh, did we?
Did we read this one or is this a different?
Molar pregnancy does not result in miscarriage.
Google invasive molar pregnancy.
It can, in fact, spread the abnormality.
It's miscarriage in the sense that the child is no longer alive.
So there's no child.
That's what's going on.
But yes, it may need.
This is a quicker figure.
I just Googled molar pregnancy for everyone who's confused.
Sure.
A tumor that develops in the uterus as a result of a non-biable pregnancy.
There may or may not be an embryo or placental tissue in some cases of molar pregnancy.
There is an embryo.
It's not properly formed and it cannot survive.
It's very rare, fewer than 20,000 cases a year in the United States.
And a routine blood test can, just for anyone who's concerned, routine blood tests can determine whether or not you are having a molar pregnancy.
Okay.
Also, just to clarify earlier, because these guys wildly misrepresented the Terry Schibo case, and I just wanted to look at the facts real quick before I corrected them.
One is Terry Schibo had made several statements to family members that if she were to ever be alive in some persistent vegetative state, she would not want to be kept alive indefinitely.
She says she wanted to be a family.
Number one, she had said that to multiple, she had said that to multiple family members.
These are in court records.
And secondly, she was absolutely in a persistent vegetative state that autopsies afterwards confirmed she was likely never to wake up from.
That's true.
Her brain literally was half the weight of where it was supposed to be for somebody else.
That's actually not true.
That's fine if you disagree with that, but now you're disagreeing with.
Now we're not arguing normative beliefs.
Now we're arguing scientific fact.
The autopsy reports and the people that analyzed her brain agreed just as much.
Her brain was in a worse state than another woman prior to her who had been unplugged because of similar issues.
She was disabled, but being disabled.
She was not disabled.
Let me finish.
She had a severe intellectual disability due to the accident, but that doesn't justify starving her.
Do you think that doesn't justify me?
Wildly out of parking.
No, I'll cut you off this.
That doesn't justify.
She's a distant vegetative state to somebody with severe intellectual disabilities is a wild statement.
She was not severely intellectually disabled.
She was a vegetable.
She was a brain dead.
And did not respond to external stimuli, and the autopsy confirmed justice.
There have been people who doctors have said are in persistent vegetative state.
That's what we're talking about here.
This is what we're talking about here because there are people who doctors have said are in persistent vegetative state who went on to fully wake up and recover.
Did you know that?
That's fine.
So it is all the way to denial.
They concluded from the medical records and consultations with medical experts that the scope and weight of the medical information within the file concerning Terry Shivo consists of competent, well-documented information that she is in a persistent vegetative state with no likelihood.
Her husband wanted her to be a person.
And that the neurological and speech pathology evidence in the file support the contention that she cannot take oral nutrition or hydration and cannot consciously interact with her environment.
She was super brain dead.
I don't care what the husband said.
The statements that were used to verify whether she could be unplugged were stamped starving.
She had made statements to her family saying, I don't want to be kept alive in a city.
I want to be starved.
She said, I don't want to be kept alive forever on machines.
Sorry, those were her statements.
That was what is legally entered.
And scientifically, the evidence does not exist that she was ever going to wake up for that person's house.
The part you're not referencing is that the doctors that looked at her were paid for by her husband who wanted her dead.
Okay.
All the reports disagree with you, and all the autopsies disagree with you.
Well, I think her family would then fully disagree with you as well, Bobby Schindler, and her father.
I don't care.
I'm not here to ask the questions of the family.
What I'm asking is what's entered on the why would I care what a family member has to say?
Because they were the ones interacting with her.
Yeah, but do you think they're going to be the least biased interpreters of what's happening medically in some event?
Do you think that their experience and their interactions with her, their conscious experiences with her, didn't matter?
Yes, I don't think they mattered.
Well, one question for Lila, or I mean, you two, I guess.
Is this Terry Shiva thing?
Does it come up?
It was a huge portion of you.
It does not.
Not frequently, but it was a big case of the same thing.
Okay.
Are they like the same age?
It was particularly tragic.
The name is remote.
It was maybe because I live in a Republican household.
It was a really big deal because of all the I've heard their arguments a million times, where the argument that people present is that she was.
She was there and she was communicating with family members in the hospital and her evil, horrible husband, who was fucking a mistress on the side, just wanted to terminate her life to get away from everything.
That's usually the arguments provided and they dehydrated.
It took her 10 days to die.
You look at all of the medical evidence in that case, overwhelming.
That's why all they can say is, like, doesn't the family member in the room matter?
Well no, do you think the way they killed Terry Shivo was an ethical way of killing her?
Um no, at that point I don't give much ethical consideration because I don't think it's even a person at that point.
So are you less of a person if you have dementia?
Um, you can argue, but you're not, not a person.
When?
Do you not not become a person when you no longer can deploy a cottage?
Well then, if you're asleep then, or if you're, you're in under anti-ferences between somebody and you're not deploying your conscious experience.
When i'm under dead, when i'm under anti-year, why do you keep using this as an example?
Because, because with an embryo, you can develop.
You can't wake an embryo up.
They don't have the plural.
You give it time.
It takes time to wake up and the flying is going to transform something differently.
It's transitioning.
It's not the same thing.
So is that what?
You believe?
That there's something that, like happens, it comes down from the sky?
No, it actually.
Hold on, do you think that something magically comes down from the sky?
Well, hey, you're the one who likes these situations.
Well, I know how like everyone's at all.
If something comes down from the sky and inserts into the woman's womb after the child is already alive and developing, which you've already agreed to as a human being, do you think that's how a child develops consciousness?
Some other part has to get added.
Like she goes to the OBG lands option.
That is what I thought.
Do you have the wrong answer?
Hold on.
We have to insert the consciousness part.
Yeah.
I thought, because when women go for ultrasounds, don't they have like the long amniocentesis?
Isn't that like when they put the consciousness in the baby?
I'm asking you because you're the one making this argument.
Let's see if I can actually get this.
I want you to actually answer.
Oh, okay.
Let me try to get this.
Because the argument that you keep.
The argument that you keep making.
Destiny.
Does this count as an urinary?
Because you ask me, because I'm not even answering.
Jesus.
Oh, can I answer that?
The argument that you keep making is that the child doesn't have the capacity.
I can just tell you.
Would you stop for a second?
Okay, I'm sorry.
The argument you're making is that the child in the womb doesn't have the capacity for consciousness because a child isn't 20 weeks old yet.
And what we've said multiple times is that the moment of conception, which you agreed, all those genetic components are already there.
What is a genetic component?
Because the genetic code comes into existence.
Genetic component is another word for blueprint.
A blueprint is not the thing itself.
How do you think a child gets consciousness?
Do you honestly think that there's like a part that's inserted into the uterus that then gives a consciousness?
Do you think I honestly think that?
Why do you ask it that way?
Do you honestly think?
Do you really think I honestly think that?
Because I don't think you're that stupid.
Honestly, why I'm saying that.
Because you keep asking this question.
Where do you think I would say?
What do you think my answer would be?
Where does consciousness come from?
How does it happen?
Tell me what you think I would say.
I'm so curious.
I actually don't know because you keep saying that the child in the womb.
Yeah.
Because when you have the argument with Lila about coma that you've talked about, like ad nauseum at this point, I'm getting sick of the same argument over and over again.
Bro, let's talk about viability.
Could you stop interrupting me and acting like a child, please?
I'm sorry.
You just literally keep talking while I'm talking.
Does this all count as one interruption?
Remember, she asked me the question like 20 or 30 years ago.
No, but when you're you keep arguing that the child in the womb has no rights that can be terminated, killed, brutally dismembered.
Brutally.
Yes, actually Brutal, you admitted that earlier.
The only type of abortions are very in favor of, yes.
Abortions are very gruesome.
So you said that the child has no rights and that because the child hasn't developed consciousness, it doesn't have the capacity.
And what the argument that Lila and I have made multiple times today is that the child just needs time to grow because the child has everything the child needs to develop if you don't care.
This is the point.
It needs nutrients from the mom.
By definition, the child has everything it needs at the moment of conception.
The person under anesthetic needs nutrients to live.
How many people.
It depends on how long you're under anesthetic.
Okay, if you're the one making this argument, if you're the one making the argument, that personhood doesn't begin until consciousness.
Tell me how the child in the womb develops consciousness.
Explain it for me because I don't think you understand what happens at the moment of conception.
Okay.
You probably know the process better than me, okay?
So I'm going to try my best, okay?
And then correct me if I'm wrong, okay?
So the egg sees a bunch of sperm guys around.
They let one in, usually, not always, usually one comes in, and then the egg and the sperm come together.
And when they come together, the cells begin to grow and divide.
Now, over time, once you've gotten to hundreds or thousands of cells, different billions of cells.
Probably not instrument.
There's like hundred thousand, ten thousand, then eventually billions of cells, right?
I think that you have little things called stem cells that go to different parts of the body and begin to grow and develop based on the genetic code you have and how things are being directed during that process, okay?
I'm sure there's a more complicated way to explain it.
That's about as well I understand it.
So what I would say is: when does the baby get consciousness?
It's not magical.
What happens is, is there are parts of your brain that stem cells are hanging out in that are slowly growing out and developing.
It's getting nutrients from the mom.
It's developing along some normal path.
And at some point, it develops the parts, and then those parts begin to metabolize things and function, and then you have that conscious experience.
So you just said, it develops the parts.
It develops the parts.
You just admitted it.
Thank you.
You just admitted it.
That at the moment of conception, it does not mean to form consciousness is present.
Can we have you sitting straight up?
He's in his child.
Do I really?
Is that like a rule?
It's just like.
It wasn't on the release I signed.
You have to sit up.
That wasn't on any of the parts.
Wait, look at the camera.
Show it on me.
Am I that out of frame?
Because you keep arguing way down the street.
If Lila is in a coma, but she has the ability to potentially.
Why can't I answer a question?
Why do you keep talking?
Can I answer the question?
You did.
I didn't get the answer.
You actually just proved it.
You were making the point that you said it develops.
So you proved my point wrong.
Develops implies you didn't have it.
That's why you develop it.
You don't develop.
Where did it come from?
Did the magic conscious fairy deliver it in my vagina?
The reason the child got consciousness is because the child, the human, developed its consciousness naturally.
Just like you will develop as you get older, age.
You'll have an aging process.
The toddler will develop age into an adult.
And until you've developed the parts necessary to have a conscious experience, you're not having a problem.
And we're saying that's illogical and unnatural.
It's not illogical.
It's perfectly logical.
Just like if I give you the blueprints and the parts and I show you something, the parts in the blueprint don't go vroom vroom.
But when I put the car together and I turn the key on, it does go vroom vroom.
I wouldn't say that just because I've got the parts and I've got the blueprint, I've got the vroom vroom.
I would say after it's all put together, then it has the vroom.
Unlike a car and parts and someone putting in a key, an embryo that's developing is self-developing and self-actualizing with nourishment and time.
With nourishment and time.
You can say a self-building car that's building out.
I'll say a self-if you want to use everything self-building a car.
A self-building car with all the parts in the blueprint that can decide.
It's still not a car until it's put together.
Hold on.
Hold on.
If you want to use your car analogy, if I go buy a baby Tesla because it's a tiny self-building baby Tesla, and if I leave it in a room with oxygen and put a couple gasoline things along the wall, baby Tesla will develop into this mega beautiful Tesla, okay?
I would be very angry with anyone who came into my garage where baby Tesla was and killed baby Tesla and said, well, it wasn't a Tesla yet because it wasn't big and all the way developed yet.
I would say, it would have been if you didn't kill it, if you didn't destroy my Tesla.
It would have been.
But it was still a Tesla.
It's still a Tesla.
Do you see that?
$199.
Have my abortion destiny.
That was very rude.
Why did that one get to play?
Well, the TTS trigger is $199 and up.
Okay.
So they can insult me for $199.
Destiny.
A blueprint.
I see how it is.
A blueprint will never become a car.
An embryo will become a newborn if you don't kill it or it's not miscarried.
Do you see the difference in why your analogy doesn't work?
The point of the analogy.
I know that a car and a child are not the same thing.
But your analogy also doesn't work.
Your application of the two things to compare doesn't work.
The reason why you make analogies is to show some part of the argument that's similar.
And I'm showing you your argument is wrong and faulty because your analogy doesn't work.
Do you see that?
Because a blueprint doesn't develop into a car without somebody else going into it.
So do you think the thing developing itself is like the thing that makes it a human?
The fact that it develops itself.
That's one of the qualities of being a unique individual human is that you can grow.
Yes, and you can develop.
Okay, I disagree.
I don't think that that makes you anything.
So you're saying that it's not an aspect of a human being.
It is an aspect of being an organism that an organism grows.
It's core to a ton of your entire cancer you just described, okay?
Cancers are things that grow on their own and develop and pass sell down all the time.
Are you equating a cancer to a unique human organism?
Cancer is going to be pretty unique.
So are you thinking about it?
But no, I'm not equating.
You keep doing this thing where when I make a person, are you saying this thing is the same thing?
No, that's the point of a comparison, is to just show you the fault of your argument.
The point of a comparison is to expose where there is logic or a lack of logic.
And I'm not sure if you're a bad person in the lack of logic.
I'm not sure what you're trying to understand is that a thing that is developing into another thing is not the thing that you can't do.
You're not understanding because it's not developing into another thing.
It's developing itself to its full potential.
Let me ask you a question.
It's a biology question.
Do you believe a woman's body tells the child how to develop?
Is that where you think how babies develop?
Do you think the woman's body tells the embryo how to develop?
I mean, it depends on how philosophically I'm going to get that.
You could argue, yes, it provides half the instructions during insemination.
That is how that works.
So technically, after the woman's body is contributing half the DNA, now if you want to cut it off at the conception mark, which obviously you do, but for a variety of reasons, teleologically, we could think of it.
After human life has been created, after unique human life has been created.
Oh, well, if we assume all the hard parts away, well then, yeah, at that point, it is an independent thing that I don't think, my guess is no, at that point, the mother probably doesn't dictate the growth.
That's right, because the child, as Lila has pointed out, is self-directed.
The child tells its owner.
The growth is self-directed while taking nutrients from the mom, yeah?
Absolutely.
The child is in its natural state.
I don't think any human being past gestation is connected to other human beings taking nutrients from the body.
Every human being past gestation needs nutrients.
No other human being is connected unless you don't have to stop.
My infants needed my breasts to survive because I was producing milk.
Wait, wait, but Destiny, now you're connected to the microphone.
No, no, they're not connected.
I don't know why you use that as an example.
Why are we saying that connection, your connectedness, the degree to which you're dependent or connected to your parent determines your personhood?
That seems to be where you're going with that argument.
I don't know.
That's not at all where I've gone with that.
Where are you going with that?
That's what you just said.
Well, here's what I would say, okay?
This is what I would guess, okay?
What I would say is, broadly speaking, 20 to 24 weeks is about when you develop a conscious experience.
So at about 20 weeks, I would probably cut it off because when consciousness forms, that's when the subjective experience, the person, the who, begins to.
Why?
Why does that matter?
Because that seems to be the thing that we care about when we're talking about it.
You care about that.
That's what you care about.
Why does it matter?
Everybody cares about it.
No.
That's why when we talk about Terry Shaivo, notice what your defense of.
Majority of Americans actually oppose abortion.
Wait, hold on, what?
$200 what the different Notice how when you guys are talking about Terry Scheivo.
Notice how when you guys are talking about Terry Shaivo, the thing that you were trying to say was: hold on, Terry Shaiva wasn't totally brain dead.
She had an intellectual disability.
That shows that you yourself were trying to grab at that idea that she still had some conscious experience.
Because at the end of the day, we all know that's the only thing that matters.
No, Sherry Shaiva was alive.
There's no doubt about that.
Her body was alive.
There are first-person accounts of her being alive.
There's no room for her.
You don't need to take a person.
And let's say that you chop off their arm and you replace it with a bionic arm.
Is that still a person?
Okay, let's say you chop off a leg and replace it with a leg.
Is it still a person?
Yes.
What if you get rid of the heart and replace it with a bionic heart?
Is that still a person?
Yes.
And then at some point, what if you replace it?
Let's say we've got a full human.
What if you just replace the brain?
Is that still the same person?
There have, I mean, yeah, if that's possible.
I mean, if we get to that point.
Okay.
It's ever been done successfully.
Okay.
I mean, it'd be an interesting question, but it still would be wrong to kill that person, Destiny.
Are you saying if brain implants are possible, it's okay to kill someone who successfully has a brain implant?
Is that what you're saying?
No.
Okay, because then why do you ask that question?
Why is it relevant to whether or not you can kill the embryo?
My mind is so blown.
I need a second to recover.
Okay, I've got a question.
I have never met anybody that bit the bullet on the brain transplant makes you the same person thing.
Well, I think it's gonna, it's, I mean, people say if you have a heart, a heart transplant, or you just say, well, there's people say, I feel a little bit different.
There's something that I'm saying.
I, I, I, the subject I hasn't changed.
You might have different feelings, but but I don't think you are your brain destiny.
So this is also a question.
Really, what am I?
You are a you are a human being, which is made up of many parts.
Okay, but you're not gonna say that you could cut my body, cut my neck off, right?
You cut dismemory of the neck.
Let's say you can choose to keep one thing alive, my head, and put it on another body, or the whole rest of my body, and put another head on.
What would you choose to make it me?
Well, I would, it's less about which one is you, and it's more about do I have the right to kill even me?
That's what we're debating here.
You're just trying to get it right.
No, destiny.
No, no, you're being pretty.
Do you want to get hypothetical again?
No, no, no.
This is a story of Wolfenstein's.
Destiny just played that game.
Destiny.
So it's real, it can happen.
No, no, no.
This is in World War II.
Destiny, this is a very important point.
I agree, but you can't.
No, I am answering it because whether or not you can, we had the technology to put a new brain in someone else's brain, right?
Or we had the technology to cut off your head, put it on somebody else, and then put a different head on that other body.
I mean, the question of is that person still destiny, or is that a new person?
Those are questions to explore.
But in both cases, it would be wrong to kill destiny with the new body that maybe is part destiny, or destiny with the new brain, that's maybe part destiny.
I don't know if that's true.
I don't think I believe that.
Well, that's an interesting position.
No, I think you agree.
No, I cut a person.
Let's say if I stick a person, I cut a person's head off, okay?
Let's say that I stick the head on a bionic body, and then let's say that I take a body and I put a bionic head on.
I don't think people would look and go, oh my God, there's two Stevens.
They would go, wow, Stephen has a bionic body.
They wouldn't go, wow, there's Stephen with a bionic head.
They would say, this is Stephen, because we are our brains.
Yeah.
Because we are the conscious experience we have.
I mean, just like our brains are various in the world.
But to clarify, our brains are very, very important.
It does help.
But just to clarify, our brains are very important.
But you're left.
I'm donated $200.
Triple seven.
I think he just wants to stop the cut.
Triple seven, triple seven, triple seven, triple seven, seven, seven, Okay.
I was going to say, our brains are very important, Clara.
I agree.
But there's also a mystery there, right?
About what makes a human in terms of the soul and the body connection.
Because you can have a lobotomy.
You can have a part of your brain removed.
There's the story of a baby like Jackson who's born missing a large portion of their brain because of hydrocephaly or anicephaly.
And in those cases, you still have a person, and it would still be wrong to kill the person, doesn't it?
Do you think they kill Jackson?
No, Jackson's alive.
Which one was the six or whatever?
It wasn't amazing.
It was tragic.
I have a question.
Do you believe that baby Jackson should have been murdered?
Who's baby Jackson?
Well, not murder.
He was a child born, and he lived for about four years with part of his brain.
And it's actually a common justification for late-term abortion when children are diagnosed in utero with hydrocephaly or ancephaly when their brain hasn't fully developed or their brain is all hasn't fully developed.
It's ableist to say that because you lack some brain function, because your brain is-I'm not talking about lacking some.
Let me finish it for a moment.
It's ableist to say that because you lack some brain function or you have dementia or your brain is less developed or you're missing a part of your brain, that you are less human and it's okay for someone to kill.
It goes back to my slippery slope argument earlier, like at the beginning of that.
It's next to slavery.
No, because you make it slippery slope.
You've separated out personhood from being human.
Gotcha.
And then a proliferation.
Some babies like Jackson is.
Some children, hydrocephalus was an issue with Jackson.
I believe there's also a really famous case in the United Kingdom where parents are trying to fly around their hydrocephalus kid's brain, or they were trying to fly this kid's body around and get him treated by doctors or whatever.
But the issue is you can have some like very basic human function.
I think you can respond.
I was talking to you, not them.
I didn't want them to hear, okay, but I'll be able to.
The problem is, like, the brainstem allows you to have some basic, really basic human function, like response to stimulus.
I think you can respond to light.
You might be able to respond to like hot things, I think, but there is no conscious experience there.
It's, I don't even know if you would argue the problem.
Baby Jackson was having conscious experiences.
No, no, he wasn't.
I met him.
No, that's a great thing.
I mean, you can talk to his family.
I'm sure you can.
And I would probably feel like you're afraid of the same thing.
Are you like the expert in determining who's everyone's consciousness?
Yes.
And what conscious experiences everyone has?
Yes.
That is the problem with your whole argument.
Your argument is.
I know the appeal to science.
I know it hurts.
No, you're putting a moral quality on consciousness.
You are.
So now we're talking about the same thing.
But even if you, that's not fair.
Stephen slash destiny are trying to say that you get to be this determinant as to what types of experiences people have to have in consciousness in order to be persons and deserve not the right the right not to be killed.
Because I brought up to you earlier about the situation of children in the womb from a pro-choice and a pro-life biologist who agree that 12 and a half weeks a child can feel pain.
A lot of folks would say that would mean there's consciousness there of the child's ability to feel pain.
Nobody would say that.
Or about the child.
Well, excuse me, these biologists would.
Then brain does that next time.
Nobody agrees at all.
Or the child response to actual twins in a woman who are interacting with each other.
A lot of people would say, well, that obviously proves consciousness.
You have this arbitrary definition of consciousness.
No, I don't.
That is really a slippery slope because you already admitted early in the conversation, Lila got you on.
I feel like some people in this conversation may be lacking consciousness.
I understand.
No, I think some people don't actually actively listen and just wait to talk.
Gotcha.
But I would say, Lila got you at one point.
Excuse me.
At one point, Lila was asking you about the conscious experiences of a toddler versus what was an adolescent or a 20-year-old.
And I would even ask you about the newborn.
And you then admitted that those conscious experiences are different, and therefore there should be varying degrees of personhood, which I go back to the fundamental principle.
That's a bad discussion.
That's a person.
If you put intellectual abilities or development as a qualifier for whether or not you are protected from lethal acts, from homicide, you're opening the door to tremendous injustice, and that's what's happened with abortion.
Tremendous.
I have a question for Lila and Kristen.
Where are you?
It's been two hours.
So if you guys had to steal man the other side and be charitable, what is the best argument that you come up against from the other side, the most compelling argument the other side makes?
And Lila, let's have you go first.
Go ahead.
So I would say it's not the consciousness argument because I do think that that is pretty arbitrary and it's also the moral intuition that's sort of guiding destiny.
You could easily apply that before consciousness.
So I don't think consciousness, and also you can be unconscious when you're sleeping or under anesthetic and a toddler has less consciousness than an adult, et cetera.
So it doesn't really work.
I think the most effective pro-choice pro-abortion arguments are the appeals to extreme emotion and very tragic cases.
And those are, I think, what win the most people over because they say, oh my gosh, I can't imagine forcing a rape survivor to give birth to the rapist baby.
So you hear these really tragic cases that are horrific, that are heartbreaking, and they tug in a lot of people's heartstrings.
And the Pearl's response to that, of course, to hearing this horrifically tragic case of this very young girl who's the victim of incest or rape and she's pregnant is to acknowledge that it's horrific because it is.
And it should never have happened.
Sure.
And that that girl deserves justice and that that perpetrator needs to be held accountable.
And then you have to ask the question: okay, what next, right?
What is the next thing to do here?
And the girl needs medical care, she needs counseling, she needs to be removed from that dangerous situation.
But is the answer to commit an act of violence against this new now third party in this scenario, this pre-born life that is not the perpetrator of the crime?
This is my steelman position.
It has to be a good idea.
Well, I'm responding to the pressure.
Not necessarily the pro-choice position.
The steelman position, genuinely speaking.
And in this country, you know, we give the death penalty.
We actually are forbidden by federal law to give the death penalty to rapists in the United States.
But in an abortion, you would be giving the death penalty to that pre-born life.
And when you're doing that too, it's done in the name of protecting that girl or that woman, but that act of abortion isn't going to unrape her.
It's not going to take away the trauma that she endured by the rape.
It's only going to levy another unjust act against her, that child, that developing life that deserves life just like you and me.
So while it's a horrifically tragic case, unfortunately, when it's represented without any counterpoint in media, I think it is effective in winning people to the pro-choice side.
Now, we had second-class citizenship for a long time in our country.
And throughout human history, we've tried second-class citizenship.
And it's, you know, saying that children who were conceived out of wedlock, for example, used to be considered bastards and not be allowed to own property or obtain certain levels of positions in their professional lives.
And we said, no, that's actually wrong.
Like a child is not at fault for what happens the night of his or her conception or the state of marriage of his or her parents.
That the child is a unique, whole living human life that deserves fundamentally the right to not be killed, that right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
So yeah, my answer would be the same as Lahila's.
Same as well.
Okay, got it.
And Destiny, what would you say is the best argument that you could have?
They didn't understand my position at all.
Why the fuck would I give them any leeway whatsoever?
That was insane.
Holy shit.
Well, don't necessarily steel man, but what is the best argument you come up against from the pro-life side?
As someone who's pro-children, the emotional ones, when they bring out the tools and like, this is what it's like to kill a baby in the womb.
Or just saying, child.
Obviously, the issue is that all pro-lifers are unhinged lunatics, and the only way they can ever win any argument is with charts and graphs of this is what a fetus is cutting apart and terminating.
And you're vacuuming it out, and the baby cries.
You can hear the baby go, woo!
As it's getting sucked into the vacuum, those are the best arguments.
They're so good, and they're so hard to argue against because how can you argue people?
I debated a pro-choice scholar one time, and I actually asked her, we had a really great conversation.
She was actually being intellectually honest at the end of the conversation.
And she answered, to be clear, there's still man in my position.
She and I exchanged a lot of emails back and forth, and we were going back of what we thought each other's best arguments were.
And I thought it was very interesting that you didn't really want to answer the question earlier.
You didn't answer these questions at all.
About what if I'm wrong versus what are you wrong?
I did answer that question.
Because I actually think your position is extreme.
It's a very reckless position.
So was yours.
To start with.
Especially when you talk about women's children.
No, because your recklessness results in tens of millions of children being put to death.
That's the result of your recklessness.
Tens of millions of children dying every day to accidental miscarriages anyway, so it's not like that much worse.
If I buy into your position, right?
So because children die from car accidents, it's okay to run them over with a car?
No, I'm saying that it wouldn't be less, it wouldn't be as tragic if 20,000 children died from car accidents if there were already like a million people.
You're saying because there's accidental deaths in the world.
No, what I'm saying is that if you're trying to make some appeal to a broader tragedy, the tragedy loses a lot of gravity and that question I posed earlier.
What is the question I'm not answering?
Because what?
What if you're wrong?
I already answered it if I'm wrong.
If I'm wrong, it's pretty bad.
It's pretty bad.
Are you Catholic or religious?
That's actually What is your denomination?
Why does that matter?
Well, what if you're wrong?
I am Catholic.
I converted people together.
Okay, but what if you're wrong?
I've considered that a lot.
Well, what if you're wrong?
You're really wrong.
I've considered that.
That's like the worst type of wrong.
Because not only is it, like, forget anything happens on earth, you're like eternally fucked, right?
If you're wrong on that, it's for what?
For being Catholic?
Yeah, you'll go to some other hell or some other dimension of, you know, I don't know.
Wouldn't that be like the worst thing in the world to be wrong about?
Probably more important than the abortion thing.
It's who the big man in the sky is.
This is why I referenced earlier.
It's called Pascal's Wager.
This is why it's stupid to think and like, well, what if I'm wrong about this particular thing?
Because you have to assign problems.
But what you're doing is you just like, you're making these judgments of, well, it's consciousness somewhere 20 to 24 weeks.
If you're driving and it's a dark road at the end of the night and you're tired and you see a shadow in the middle of the road and you're like, that could be a small child or it could just be a shadow coming off the tree.
And in your world, running over the shadow is the same thing as running over the tree.
No, in our world, you avoid running it over.
Wait a minute, won't the child run across the door and the shadow will become the child?
And you investigate to make sure you're not running a child.
In your world, and the view you're taking is, screw it, I'm going to speed up and I'm going to go through the shadow and just hope to God it's a shadow and it's not a child.
What if you're wrong?
So I mean, it's a reckless decision.
What if you're wrong?
What if I am wrong?
Hey, Destiny, if you or someone can prove me wrong, I will happily.
But what if you were wrong?
No.
If someone can prove to me that, because you made me deal with the gruesome details of tens of millions of babies being murdered.
So what if you're wrong?
If I am wrong.
If I am wrong about abortion.
And abortion is nothing but removing a clump of cells that has no meaning whatsoever.
It's just like removing your appendix, which, by the way, a majority of people would disagree with because we all have seen ultra surgery.
I love how qualifying.
Okay, well, not just showing science, right?
So if I am wrong and it's nothing and every vaginal canal is suddenly magical in terms of the magic.
That's the magic and the magic conscious fairy too.
Yeah, that's right.
Because you believe in a lot of magic to justify the position.
No, if I am wrong, and this is really magical, what I have done in my life's work and advocating against abortion is saying that women who may not want to carry gestate another human being in their womb for nine months had to be inconvenienced.
That's what if I am wrong.
Okay.
That's absolutely.
But if you're wrong, you've just said 60 million, 600 million people were killed.
Do you think if an 11-year-old is raped, she should be forced to carry that child to term?
Now we've moved on to the well, let's address that because I actually was addressing that earlier.
Yeah, I want to hear that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Let's talk about it.
I think it's a horrific situation, and we both agree, which is why it's such a loaded question because it's just horrific that she's raped and that she's no 11-year-old should be pregnant in the first place.
Okay.
So start with that.
And she needs support and care, and the rapist needs to be held accountable, and she needs to be taken out of the vicinity of whoever's abusing her.
Yep, true.
We all know this.
I don't know why we're talking about it, but go ahead.
But the solution in that, what is the next step in that, right?
What is the next step in that very tragic situation?
Yes.
It's not to take the life of this innocent, now conceived third party.
It's not to end that life.
That's not going to unrape the 11-year-old.
It's not going to untraumatize the 11-year-old.
In fact, it might traumatize her even more.
True.
And it's forcing the birth.
She's still going to have to birth that life.
That life doesn't magically come out of her.
She's going to have to, if she had an abortion, and usually by the time with a young rape survivor, it's usually well into the second trimester.
It's going to be a very traumatic act that now kills her baby and she's still having a birth process just of a dead child.
Sure.
So then if the 11-year-old gets raped, is pregnant, and is scared, and then she goes to a doctor looking for an abortion, should you charge her with murder?
Wait, do you believe?
Wait, no, I don't think so.
Because if the abortion is.
So Lila just said that in a lot of these cases where we see these very tragic circumstances where there's been rape or incest of young children who become pregnant, the pregnancy is not often discovered until well into the second trimester, well beyond 20 weeks.
Beyond consciousness.
Well beyond consciousness.
Yeah.
So, do you agree with us that a child who becomes pregnant because of rape or incest with another child who's pregnant with a human being who, as you have said, has consciousness is like, I don't know, 24 weeks.
Do you think abortions justify in that case?
No, but just because I hate the woman.
So let's say you have the 11-year-old and the 11-year-old goes to Planned Parenthood to have an abortion.
Do you think the 11-year-old should be charged with murder if she tries to abort a child?
No, because in that case, she's an 11-year-old who's like a bad person.
Yeah, but you can still charge adolescents with.
You don't have to try them as an adult.
You can try them as a child.
In any case, do you need to answer the question?
Do you agree with us, though?
I have that.
That's the easiest question in the world.
No, you shouldn't be allowed to have abortion.
You shouldn't have what?
No, of course not.
If it's already a baby, why the fuck would you have an abortion?
Just because somebody's younger is going to be dramatically inconvenienced for seven, eight months or whatever.
Yeah, but the difference is my position is coherent.
No, it's very incoherent.
actually want to go back to your position if that's okay back to the coma and the consciousness yeah and and explore more you were saying oh wait wait i just want to clarify Yeah.
Because what I was trying to demonstrate is because you were saying that in your world, if you're wrong, it's the biggest genocide in the history of the fucking universe.
It is.
And then you are saying, in my world where I'm wrong, some women have been minorly inconvenienced for nine months.
For nine months, big whoop.
But that's not true.
In your world, if you're wrong, 11-year-old girls are being convicted of murder.
No, no, no.
Order.
Destiny.
No one supports that.
Yes.
If you're an 11-year-old girl.
Every 11-year-old girl in America is being convicted of murder.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
I said, in your world, in your world where it's illegal to have an abortion, you get punished for it.
That's what you want to do.
You can traumatize rape survivors.
Wait, hold on.
So try to kill a sibling?
First of all, I have to.
If your 11-year-old is trying to get away from you, could your 11-year-old kill their younger brother?
I mean, theoretically, since you like hypotheticals, if there's a case-I do like hypotheticals.
If there's a case- By the way, it's not hypothetical that children get raped by adults in the United States and they get president.
Yeah, well, it's not hypothetical that late-term abortions happen on rape survivors all the time because society says, oh, you should have a burden.
And I would say that's wrong.
But notice how I can very easily spend less than a year.
I can very easily give me a bunch of people.
The only two studies that have been done on rape survivors and abortion show that over 80% of women choose life for their child, and 90% say that they are glad that they did, and over 80% of women say that they regretted the abortion.
For the ones that had abortion, they regretted their abortion.
You don't care about those numbers, so why bring them up?
What are you talking about?
If those studies showed the exact opposite, that would have zero impact whatsoever on your defense.
You're correct on my position.
You're selectively bringing up pieces of information that might support you, but like, who cares?
You don't care about that.
I want you to go back to the claim you made about women.
It should impact your position because you just said you cared so much about this rape survivor that they should have an abortion.
And I was just giving you data to show you that rape survivors actually regret their abortions when they have abortions.
And when they don't have abortions, they actually are happy that they didn't.
And you didn't seem to care about that data.
I don't care.
That's not relevant to me.
I don't care.
But you are just arguing from a position of emotion.
No, no, no, no, I'm not arguing from any position of emotion.
I am crystal clear, logically the entire way.
If you go out to get an abortion on a third-term baby because you were raped as an 11-year-old, then you should be held responsible for a conspiracy to commit murder, whatever the punishment is.
And I think we even disagree there, and this is fine that you do, but I would compare it.
I would consistently uphold the law the same way I would if an 11-year-old killed her younger sibling or if the 11-year-old kills somebody else.
Now, there might be other aggravating or mitigating circumstances that would change.
That might be the case, but I'm saying in general, that's where I would start.
Much the same if anybody kills anybody, you probably start with, bro, that was a murder.
Like, let's see what's going on.
And we typically start there, yes.
But I'm saying that hold on, but that's not a problem.
In a criminal trial, we look at mitigating factors.
We look at anything.
When you use me, I think that's being wishy-washy.
I'm crystal clear on all of this.
Can we go to the coma back to the conflict again?
Because we believe that you're not going to be able to do it.
Oh, wait, hold on.
I'm sorry.
Do you believe in puberty?
You know what?
When does puberty begin?
When does human life begin?
When does puberty begin?
Okay, guys.
I want to know.
I want to know.
Because she says, apparently I don't believe in conscience because I can't give the precise moment it forms.
I'm curious if you believe in puberty.
No, that's not the reason why consciousness is a bad argument.
It's not fundamentally different.
It's a thing that develops in a range of time.
Yeah, it absolutely is.
No, because when you develop puberty or when you start puberty, it doesn't change whether or not you have the fundamental.
I never said it.
People pointing to a developmental process that has some period of time.
So hold on, Destiny, you were saying consciousness is everything to you.
And if you have, you're temporarily unconscious, then that's well, because we're trying to understand.
I've already answered this question a million times.
I'll answer it for the seventh time.
I want to get into the moral intuition thing because where it seemed to land for you, if I'm understanding you correctly, so please correct me if I'm wrong, okay?
I really want to understand this.
Yes.
Where it seemed to land with you is I was trying to really pinpoint why consciousness equals humanity or personhood for you.
Especially when consciousness is unpredictable.
People have differing degrees of it.
Some people haven't developed it yet, and they're, I believe, still people.
But nevertheless, you say that at this 20 to 24 mark is consciousness, and that's humanity or personhood for the human.
All right.
So what I want to understand is why.
Tell me more why.
You mentioned moral intuition earlier.
Explain that more.
Sure.
When I think of all the ways that I could test for life or all the ways that I could destroy life, everything to me seems to revolve around a person having a conscious experience.
But you know that it's a life before consciousness, no?
You admitted that.
You admitted that earlier.
What do you think I mean when I say a life?
You mean a biological human life?
No?
We all agreed on that.
Do you think that's what I mean?
I do.
Okay, in that case, I just realized my whole position is wrong because I said a fetus was a biological human life.
You won.
Excellent.
You won on definitions.
We know we won.
Okay.
We didn't even need you to tell us.
I mean, I think our argument is pretty airtight.
It's not airtight.
I've already explained it a million times.
The reason why you're trying to play tricky words with the definitions is because it's a tricky word.
It's alive or it's dead and it's alive in the world.
I should have a telling regime.
Are you conceding?
I consider a person to have personhood.
At 20 to 24 weeks, that's when consciousness develops, right?
So my policy cutoff would be at about 20 weeks.
Why does that matter?
Is what I'm asking.
The reason why, and I said why it matters, is because when I think of one, how do we consider when the end of life is?
The end of life seems to be the cessation of life.
Why do you have to measure that?
Why would I answer a single fucking question?
Sorry, excuse me, sorry, go ahead.
I need more interruptions.
I guess.
No, that's a good point.
I just want to say that.
Just let me sort of say that.
So the cessation of a conscious experience seems to be the point at which we say that person is dead.
And then when I think of all the ways that I could replace parts of the body or replace the heart, that's probably still a person, the arms, every single thing.
But when you start replacing the brain, something unique seems to be happening there.
It seems like we are our brains, the experiences, the memories, the subjective conscious interpretation of the world.
That seems to be the thing that's really important to defend.
So when I think of like, when I'm instructive on like, how could I end a life and what is the end of life?
None of it revolves around reception to pain, heartbeat, unique DNA.
All of it seems to revolve around this conscious experience.
And then when I think of like, let's even be more abstract, if I try to think of like, what does it mean to create a life?
We're talking about AI now, right?
When we talk about AI, when we talk about creating a life, we're not talking about creating bodies.
We're not talking about creating hearts.
We're not talking about even creating DNA.
What we're really talking about is creating or emulating a conscious experience in a machine.
That seems to be the thing that we're defending.
When we think about vegans and why vegans defend animals, they're not defending animal bodies, animal hearts, whatever.
They're defending the animal's conscious, the sentient conscious experience, the animal.
That's why I say if life all ends that way and can be ended that way, that's probably when life begins.
Okay.
I can't believe I answered the whole thing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And I think perhaps I may be able to answer your question in terms of where the disagreement is here.
Because just like a person under anesthetic or a person asleep or a person in a temporary coma that is going to wake up, it would be wrong in all those cases to kill the person, right?
I agree.
Okay, excellent.
So similarly, for a child a few weeks before potential consciousness first can be measured 20 to 24 weeks, in a few weeks it's a matter of time duration, that child will have consciousness.
So in that way, they are very similar.
They are not experiencing consciousness, but in a matter of time, they will experience consciousness.
So in both cases, it's wrong to kill.
The child has the capacity to develop consciousness.
But I want to understand.
Yeah.
Do you agree?
Do you agree?
No.
Okay.
Why?
Why does the development process matter so much to you?
The development process matters because there is a thing that I am valuing.
The thing that I value is the human conscious experience.
No, it's not.
But Destiny, I don't think that's correct.
The thing that I'm valuing is, or more precisely, I said before, it's the capacity, the underlying structure to deploy that conscious experience.
Now, when you talk about a person undergoing anesthesia, they have the underlying mechanism.
They have the capacity to develop a conscious experience.
But why does the capacity matter to you so much?
It abates for a while because they might be asleep or in a medically induced coma, whatever.
And then it comes back.
But there is a thing, even when it's temporarily ceasing, there's a thing that we can speak of.
There was a conscious experience.
There was a person that knew what it was like to be a thing, to be a person.
That subjective experience existed.
It might be temporarily abated, but all the machinery is still there to deploy the exact same one, and then they'll come back and deploy this unconscious experience.
If I were to create a human, okay, up until the moment that first conscious experience happens, there is no prior experience to speak of.
That's why when you guys keep saying things, when you guys keep saying things, like the fetus will develop the capacity, it will develop it, but it hasn't developed it yet.
So there is no such experience to speak of.
For a sleeping person, when you go to sleep tonight, you have had a whole subjective experience right now.
And when you wake up, that experience will resume.
But a baby hasn't even been aware of that.
Destiny, what if I have amnesia and I don't remember anything?
I'm like a brand new first moment of consciousness human being.
And during my coma, during my coma, I lose all memory.
I lose all sense of my personhood.
And when I emerge from my coma, I am like a brand new baby.
Would it have been okay during that coma to kill me?
Oof, I would have to think a lot about that question.
So the issue.
Have you thought about it before?
No, I've thought about it a great deal, but the question is way more complicated than you seem to think it is, okay?
But that's not an easy question.
Well, it's not an easy question.
The direct analog is when somebody takes a teleporter in Star Trek, are you killing one person and creating a new person every single time?
No, I don't agree that that's the direct analogy.
It is the direct analogy.
No, I guess.
Because when you start talking about, because now you're getting away from just conscious experience, and now you want to dig into the parts of conscious experience, and I'm not going to sit here and lie and tell you that I can tell you precisely because there are a lot of things that make up our conscious experience.
One of those things is memory.
If you erase a person's memory, and if you give them whole new personality traits, and then you wake them up the next day, is that even the same person that was in the middle of the day?
Well, it's a great question, man.
I don't know.
That's a really good question.
Because Destiny, a newborn, or certainly a 26-week-old pre-born fetus, doesn't have memory, has a very nascent, if very nascent personality.
Memory was a necessary.
Okay, but you're trying to define consciousness.
What is conscious?
You've brought up memory.
Consciousness is the subjective experience that we have, knowing what it's like to be.
But their subjective experience, they're not even going to remember it, does it?
Just because you don't remember, it doesn't mean it's happening.
I'm still a human being, but I'm blackout drunk.
So the bodies in the room have that capacity to develop consciousness.
They develop, but they haven't developed it yet.
Because it's not the thing that's not.
The person who is brain dead, who you're saying has no longer has the ability to have consciousness.
So that's not the same.
You have somebody who is brain dead, who you're saying, does not have the ability to have consciousness.
The conscious experience is over.
You have your magic button, right?
And you've already determined through your magic button that this person can never have consciousness again.
That is fundamentally different than the child in the womb who has the capacity still yet to develop consciousness.
The child in the womb who has the capacity to still develop consciousness is completely different from the person who's lived their life, something tragic has happened to them, and now no longer ever has that capacity to be able to do that.
Obviously, it's different.
It's fundamentally different.
What is it like to be a two-celled organism?
What is it like to be a newborn?
You don't remember it?
I don't remember, but I can probably guess what it's like.
But you can then guess away what it's like to be a 10-week-old embryo then.
You don't remember either.
No, no, no.
I can't.
So that doesn't mean you can kill the 10-week-old embroidery.
Guess what it's like to not have a conscious experience?
Guess what it's like to have a dreamless sleep?
Well, I mean, guess what it's like to be dead.
No, I can guess what it's like to be a baby.
There's probably a lot of new sensations.
You're probably having crazy temperature adjustments.
You're probably seeing a whole bunch of stuff in a really squeaky way.
I can guess what it's like.
I don't know exactly.
I can't guess what it's like to be a thing without a brain.
I don't know what it's like to be a bodybuilder.
Do you think fetus is a dream?
Or what it's like to be a woman?
Do you think fetus is in the womb dream?
I mean, once the necessary brain parts are there, I imagine that's a good idea.
Scientists say it can be as early as 16 weeks.
That's probably not a matter of time.
That's not the eye movement, REM sleep.
I don't know if I believe that, but I know science is hard to believe.
I mean, the reality is what we're keeping doing.
What do you think they're dreaming about?
I have no idea.
Lila, you wanted to say something, Lila.
You go ahead and do that.
So what we keep coming back to is there's all these qualifications on what consciousness even means.
And when we take it and isolate them and we kind of make an argument or ask Destiny a question about them, he says, well, that specific aspect of consciousness doesn't matter.
Destiny has trouble defining consciousness.
He does trouble defining exactly when it begins.
And yet, to be clear, I didn't have trouble defining it.
I literally told you exactly what it is.
But you said it involves these different things.
It's a subjective experience.
Hold on.
Wait, does subjective experience not count as a definition?
Okay, but my point is that you're not going to be able to change with the person.
Hold on, Destiny, my point.
So does your conscious experience change with a person?
Welcome to humanity.
That's why your slippery slope fades.
That's not a slippery slope.
To say that everybody has a different subjective experience.
That's not a slippery slope.
The point here is your definition of what even consciousness is, the aspects of consciousness, when you isolate them and describe, is this a reason to assign personhood or not, it falls apart because some people don't experience, when you're a newborn, you don't experience your consciousness.
You don't remember it later.
Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean you're not conscious.
And then if I get it, when you're unconscious, you're unconscious.
No, but you're going to wake up.
And when you're an embryo pre-consciousness, you're going to develop it if someone doesn't.
Develop it.
You're not waking up because there's no experience.
Speak up.
Nobody's going to be able to do it.
Why does it develop it now?
You can actually say this.
Excuse me.
The child is sleeping in the womb.
It's not sleeping.
Sleeping implies you were awake at one point.
That's what sleeping means.
Things aren't sleeping from the moment of their inception.
They refer to a different discrimination.
Why does that happen?
Why does it matter so much?
The child actually is a sleeping.
Why does the DNA matter so much?
It all matters.
That's what we're saying.
Well, no, no, it doesn't all matter because you wouldn't say a sperm is a baby, right?
No, because a sperm is a part.
It's not a whole.
Remember the parts in the whole colour.
But a sperm at some point will, when combined with an egg, will develop into something else.
And when it develops into a whole, a unique single-cell embryo, that is a human life that is a clear sense of the sense of the body.
Why should the uniqueness of the embryo matter more than the uniqueness of the sperm or the egg?
Because it's a whole.
It's a whole individual human being.
It's a whole lot.
What do you mean?
No, no, no.
Because of a unique genetic.
The sperm is a whole thing.
An egg is a whole thing.
They're both a body.
They are part of a whole human organism.
An egg is part of the mother.
Hold on.
So sperm?
It's not.
Hold on.
So semen and eggs are not part of a human organism.
My skin cells are part of me.
My egg cells are part of me.
They're not in and of themselves an individual human life.
They don't carry unique genetic code.
And they're never going to develop into a unique cell.
They carry unique genetic code.
And the cells in my body, my egg cells, I'm not going to magically get pregnant without having my egg cells inseminated, obviously.
Sure, but why should that be the defining point for how you consider a life is what?
Biologists all agree.
No, Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Biologists aren't answering these questions.
It's a question more important.
Science.
I know, science.
No, no.
Why do you develop, why do you value the zygote and not the moment before conception?
Because we all acknowledge that a human life begins at fertilization.
That's something very special happening.
How do you think?
You call my definition circular by saying a human life begins when we've agreed a human life begins?
I'm asking you why you consider that.
Because at the moment of conception, I'll repeat this slower this time.
At the moment of conception.
Excuse me.
Two parts, apart from the mother, the egg, the part from the father, sperm, unite and create a unique whole with genetic code, unique genetic code that's never, because it's unrepeatable.
It's not true.
It's a unique genetic code.
Two twins meet the twin swimmers.
They can both have children that are theoretically.
Twinning happens later, by the way.
What?
Twinning happens later, by the way.
Not necessarily sometimes.
So two sperms.
The genetic code comes into existence that's never existed before.
Why do you value the unique genetic code?
Because that is when you became you.
All the components about you, Stephen.
Is killing a two-cell organism.
Is that just as immoral as killing a baby?
What do you mean by what kind of organism?
If it's a human organism.
Yeah, so it's killing a fetus when it's two cells.
Does that have the moral equivalence to killing a baby?
Yeah.
It's a human life.
That's right.
Okay.
It's like killing a baby has the moral equivalence, even though they have less consciousness than killing an adult.
Let's say that you're, let's say that.
Because consciousness and development, your age, your maturity as a human life doesn't define your worth or your personhood.
So let.
And back to the zygote, a zygote has the capacity for consciousness.
No, it doesn't.
It has all the machinery.
It has all the machinery needed for consciousness if it's not.
No, it doesn't have the machinery.
It has the blueprint.
That's all it has to do.
If you give it time, just like the coma patients.
Give it time and if you give it neutral.
Just like the coma patients.
But it doesn't have the machinery.
If you give it time to wake up from the coma will regain its consciousness.
It's not regaining it.
It doesn't regulate it.
It will regain its consciousness.
How do you regain its consciousness?
Do you acknowledge there is a difference between the person who had the ability to have consciousness, who now in your magic button no longer has the ability to have consciousness versus a child, a human, a fetus, whatever name you want to give that doesn't consider in the womb that has the ability to have consciousness.
Do you understand the difference between someone who no longer has the capacity to form consciousness versus someone who has the capacity to form consciousness but just needs a little bit more time?
Do you see how there's a difference there?
Is there a difference between a dead person and a fetus?
Man, I don't know.
That's a real mind conversation.
I'm not sure.
I don't know.
I'd have to think about that one.
Maybe we can get a better question.
Okay, think about it.
I got a couple things here.
This is for the entire panel.
And I know this is kind of a unique question to ask.
Do you think this could potentially be a good middle ground, a good compromise?
And I know there's some potential existential risks involved with the development of something like this.
What do you all think about an artificial womb?
Now, obviously, there's some considerations of, well, what are the impacts on humanity?
Because we could use these as breeding grounds.
But let's say just within the confines of the abortion discussion, do you think an artificial womb could be a compromise between both sides?
Or would you be ignoring some of the potential downfalls of an artificial womb?
Would you be in favor of?
Yeah.
I think it's a technology that's a very fascinating question.
And I think that especially if there's like a problem that the woman is experiencing and the baby is experiencing and somehow it could be like a medical device to support them, you know, it sounds like it could be potentially used for good.
But I think the potential of the use for bad and the fact that it's breaking the natural bond that that baby deserves to have with his or her mother, this is why surrogacy is so problematic because you're severing that child often from the genetic mother and from the gestational mother.
And then usually the social mother is sometimes even a third different mother.
And so the child has a right, I think, to their mother.
The child has a right to a mother to be gestated naturally in their mother.
Why we would say that that would be the number one goal is that that child has a relationship and is just stated within his or her mother.
However, I ask this question a lot.
I'm really glad you brought this up because I ask this question a lot on campuses because often we hear the argument we didn't get to it today because Stephen doesn't care about the bodily autonomy arguments, but we often hear the bodily autonomy arguments of it's my body, I have the choice to decide whatever happens to my body, whether or not I want to give permission to this another human being to grow inside of me that will change my body.
And someone who's been pregnant four times, I can testify to that.
So I actually do think that the artificial womb technology would actually, it will, when it is developed, will decimate the bodily autonomy argument.
That you will not actually be able to use that argument to justify legal abortion any longer when a woman simply can choose to take the child out from her womb and implant it into an artificial womb to grow.
That way, she doesn't have to pay someone to end the life of her child.
Now, do I think that's the best situation?
No, because a child deserves to have a relationship with his or her mother.
And I think there'll be a lot of bad things that come out of children who are born in artificial wombs who don't know who their mothers are.
And so there's a lot of other situations and societal questions we'll have about foster care and adoption and things like that.
But I do think that will actually decimate this whole argument of the quote need for legal abortion in our country.
Sure.
And I guess one question, and again, ignoring some of the, I suppose, societal impacts of if we were to introduce an artificial womb, because there's definitely considerations of if people started farming kid children, for example.
But within the confines of the abortion argument, do you think that because a woman could end the pregnancy, but the life could persist?
So do you think that that would be if an artificial womb came along?
Do you think that would, in effect, put an end to the whole abortion debate?
I would think it would, but I asked Stephen this earlier about artificial womb, and he didn't, I mean, Stephen, you're representing the pro-abortion side here.
Would you think that those who advocate for legal abortion would see it?
I still think they will argue no.
And from the conversations I've had on campuses, which are in the thousands now, I've yet to have someone who agrees with me that the development of it who's pro-choice, that the development of an artificial womb would eliminate the need for abortion, as in their words, because they would still say that while that's still inconvenient to a mother to have to, I don't know, maybe the artificial womb only works at 13 weeks, so she would still have to undergo 12 weeks of possible morning sickness.
And so they would say it doesn't matter if there's artificial wombs, she still has agency over her body, therefore she can just destroy it.
There's also a kind of a weird ownership, genetic ownership argument that emerges, even though this is not, I think, a fully conscious thing by a lot of pro-choice advocates.
But there's this argument of, oh, I don't want my kid out there in the world.
You know, I want basically control over my kid.
So I think in that case, it's sort of a property argument.
They make this child is my property, and even if it can be survived in an artificial womb, it would be, it would be my right to do that.
And that's what happens with people with IVF, with couples, or they split up and they've already created human beings who are frozen in IVF clinics.
There was a very, you know, famous case of a Hollywood actress who this was the situation.
And Nick Loeb, the former partner, sued because he didn't want the mother to destroy these children that they had frozen.
And the court ruled that the embryos were her property.
These human beings were her property to do with what as she saw fit.
And that's a broader question of why are we treating human beings as if they're our property say, well, I don't want to get pregnant.
This isn't the best time for me.
I wasn't intending to get pregnant.
This baby is inconvenient to me.
Therefore, I have the right to kill it.
We act as in our country as if human beings are, these children are property.
Yet, then we also claim that we have a right to be a parent, and that right allows us to own other human beings, which is wrong.
Wait, how old are those embryos when they're frozen?
A few weeks.
Yeah.
A few weeks.
They're not very old.
You're in a burning hospital.
Oh, yeah.
Yes.
Please give me that.
Yeah, there are two children crying on the bed.
Like, please carry me out.
But next to them, there's a tray of 10 frozen embryos.
You're grabbing the tray of frozen embossers.
Answer this question.
Are those my frozen embryos?
They're random people's children.
I think that actually.
I actually think that makes a difference because I'm saying I need to know more information.
I gave you all the information.
It's two random babies.
They're very Asian.
And then it's 10 frozen embryos.
They're all also very Asian.
None of them, none of the babies, neither the born toddlers or the frozen embryos are mine in this situation.
Because I think first you have to ask that question because I already answered it.
Well, no, I would say some people, when you would say, Why are you obfuscating so hard?
Just answer the hypothetical.
You're like boxing demons.
It's a loaded question that they're trying to answer.
It's the same as Diane Answer.
Would you press the red button and kill 10,000 people over here, or would you press the red button and kill your entire family over here?
And you have to.
But I'm not asking that question.
But it's the same question, Destiny.
But that's not the one I'm asking.
You have no relation to any of the children.
I don't know.
The question would be, I don't know what the children are.
You don't know?
I don't know what the situation is.
I don't know, can I reach those children?
Can I reach those embryos?
Listen to me.
Can you let me answer the question?
No, you're not.
The majority of people would say they would reach.
The majority of people would say they're going to reach for the toddlers.
I'm not asking for the rest of the time.
But that doesn't, saying that you reach for the toddlers.
Can I answer the question?
You're not answering the question.
I absolutely answered.
I'll answer the question.
Can I answer my question?
Oh, yeah, go ahead.
So the majority of people would say that they would reach for the human toddlers versus the human embryos because they recognize themselves in those toddlers.
Those toddlers can also feel pain.
Those toddlers are crying out to them versus the embryos who are absolutely silent.
But that analogy doesn't change the fact that a tragedy is unfolding and human life will be ended.
It's the same, Testini, just to remove familiarity, because I mentioned that.
You did not answer the question.
To remove familiarity, because I know in one hand it's your family and it's 10,000 individuals on the other that you don't know.
But let's make it a little different.
Let's say it's two toddlers and five elderly people in their nursing home.
There's two toddlers crying in the lobby.
There's five elderly people in their beds.
Who do you save?
Grabbing the toddlers.
Yeah, if you grab the toddlers.
I hate old people.
Right, but if you grab the toddlers, that doesn't mean you think it's good that the old people died.
It doesn't mean that you don't.
I was glad when COVID happened.
Come on, Destiny.
It doesn't mean that you think old people don't have value.
It doesn't mean that old people aren't persons.
It just means that you're going to go towards the ones that you feel most emotionally in that moment connected and you feel you can save.
Gotcha.
Similarly with the burning building, it doesn't mean that those embryos, oh, gotcha, they're not persons, gotcha, they're not humans.
It's just that, no, just like with the elderly people, I'm going to run and try to save those toddlers.
So it's the same answer.
And the babies.
Just after you respond, I do have to get through a couple chats.
Go ahead, Destiny.
Okay, I was just, okay?
Two babies are right here, okay?
Crying.
Help me, okay?
They're both one-year-old, okay?
They can't run out of the building or anything, okay?
And then here is a tray.
There's a tray of 10 perfectly in vitro fertilized, perfectly preserved specimens.
If you just pop them into a fake uterus or a real one, they'll grow to people, right?
What's the morally correct choice?
The two crying babies or the 10 perfectly preserved embryos?
Isn't a morally correct choice in the sense that, in the sense that you are arguing that then, if we choose the children, the toddlers, that somehow means the embryo is not a value.
Well, of course, we're going to choose the toddlers.
They're just like I would choose the toddlers over the five elderly people in their beds.
That doesn't mean the embryos or the elderly people aren't humans.
Okay, let's say you had a choice between two.
Do you understand that, though?
Do you understand what I'm saying?
I don't know.
I'm trying to understand.
I'm asking another question.
But you understand that.
I don't understand that.
But don't you understand?
That's what I'm asking.
But don't you understand?
I don't understand.
That's what I'm saying.
But don't you understand?
I'm just going to ask, then you can tell me.
Destiny, this is not going to say.
You have to say what you don't understand.
I'm asking questions to elucidate it.
You can't do that.
I don't understand the difference between the toddlers and the old people.
That's what I'm asking.
You don't understand the difference between what?
Between why the toddlers and the old people matter.
That's what I'm going to ask another question.
Can I answer that question?
No, Because I can ask another question perfectly fair.
But hold on, let's slow this process down because we go super fast here, which is fun.
We're not going fast.
It's a bunch of rambling.
We're not engaging with them.
Well, we just keep going.
So we're over and over.
We're going to go a bit.
But the reason what I said I would like a response to it, Destiny, is because in my statement, what I was explaining was that the elderly people in the nursing home or the elderly people in the building are humans, are persons, and me choosing to save the toddlers doesn't mean that those elderly people aren't humans, aren't persons, or don't deserve the right to life.
Similarly, me choosing to save the toddlers doesn't mean that me not choosing to save the embryos means that they are not persons, not humans, and don't have the right to life.
Does that make sense to you?
Or what doesn't make sense?
That's another question.
Can you explain?
What doesn't make sense about that?
The age thing.
Okay.
Oh, why?
Why?
So are you saying that the elderly people in the burning building in your scenario are more worthy of life than the toddlers because they've had more consciousness and lived experience?
Well, let him say it.
Let's argue that words in his mouth.
What do you think, Destiny?
Oh my God, you know what?
I want to think about it.
I want to know what you think.
Seriously.
Yeah, let me tell you.
Tell me.
The guess that most people probably do, me included, you'd probably be weighing roughly the amount of life left about, right?
Like if we go on the hypermost extreme example, you can choose either a one-day-old baby or somebody one day away from death.
You'd probably save the one-day-old baby because they've got so much more life to live.
That doesn't mean that that person's alive.
Hold on, one more.
Let's fix.
Hold on, hold on.
I thought that meant you could murder the old person.
Hold on, let me fix that.
So let's just solve that problem for you.
Let's say the two toddlers, you knew, because you are a psychic or something, you know, you had this fortune teller, you knew that they would both die in five days.
Yeah.
Would you still save them or would you try to go in and save the five elderly people in their beds?
Five elderly people.
Okay.
Well, then there you go.
You chose to make the decision.
I probably still, even though if I knew in the back of my mind they're going to die in a car accident later and they're crying right there, I'd probably still grab emotionally dragon.
We're not talking emotionally.
You think morally it's more correct to save the children that are going to die in five days than the older people you could wheel.
I don't think you can actually morally say whether or not children are going to die in five days.
Well, but it might mean a lot of assumptions.
I'm going to say hypothetical.
But I think the bottom line is.
Jesus Christ.
Whoa, loud noise.
I think about it.
The thing is, he's got an air mattress upstairs, and I think his mom just jumped on the bed.
I think what I'm trying to say here is that in that case.
Hey, can I just ask my one question?
Well, we're getting to the bottom.
We're not getting to the bottom.
I'm so sick of the same question.
Destiny just likes to ask the question to try to.
Well, no, because he doesn't actively answer.
Well, let's let him say.
Let's let him say.
Let's let him say.
Order, order in the podcast studio.
Let me do a couple chats here, and then we can, if you guys want to pick up again, we can.
So we have Doc Vanablis here, Mr. Density.
Terry S was not in persistent vegetative state.
She was severely brain damaged.
She was still able to interact with others.
The videos are still available for you to view by definition.
Thank you.
That interaction excludes PVS.
So, what is PVS?
Persistent vegetative state.
That's what I tried to prove to Destiny, but he said it didn't matter what the family and the video said.
Yep, that's true.
True, and I'll explain why that's wrong scientifically.
They don't like medical explanation, but I'll give the medical explanation.
Give us a medical explanation.
Yeah, very quick is people with a brain stem can still respond to incredibly basic visual stimuli, and they can do so in ways.
That's why, when you watch the video of like Jackson the baby, he does it.
I think you're talking about Alfie.
That's it, or Alfie, or whoever, or Terry Shribo.
It's the same thing.
So, the videos you see are that.
Now, obviously, the families are like, oh my God, she's alive.
She's communicating with everything.
But, like, the doctors all say, This Jake is super dead.
The brain analysis afterwards showed this brain was super dead.
She was never waking up.
There was never going to be improvement.
It wasn't just severe mental disability.
Half her fucking brain was gone, and she wasn't even probably having an unconscious experience.
What you're seeing is the very rudimentary expressions of things your body can do to very basic stimuli that the brain.
What does that have to do with abortion?
This is like we've talked about coma so much today.
It's but what I've already explained to you: when you're talking about someone in persistent vegetative state or somebody who's who is severely brain damaged and we're not sure has the capacity to have consciousness, what does that say?
Well, how does that change the fundamental question, which is, does the human in the womb have value who definitely has the ability to have consciousness?
Who's unlike the person who is in a position?
It doesn't have the parts yet.
It doesn't have the ability to have consciousness.
It does have the parts.
It has the ability to develop the parts.
No, the part.
I know what two-cell organism.
Where are the parts?
Where are they in the two-cell organism?
The code is that's a blueprint.
A blueprint is not the thing itself.
In two cells, where are the parts?
Where is the brain in two cells?
So you're back to the fairy.
You're back to the corner itself.
A blueprint, if you put a blueprint alone in a room, okay, and you put the wood, line up all the wood around the room, okay?
The blueprint doesn't magically direct the pieces of wood to build the home.
And then you give it other things.
That's what the ability to do.
But that's nutrients.
That's different because the embryo self-nutrition.
That it's a self-assembling machine, but it still needs.
But the self-assembly, the blueprint, genes, hold on.
I'm sorry.
Is there a brain in my drainage?
Is there a brain in your DNA?
Is there a heartbeat in a DNA?
Your body is a blueprint.
It is part of the genetic.
For you to develop a brain and a heartbeat.
Develop because it's not there yet.
True, I agree.
So let's continue on with some of the chats here.
We have Dayvon Jackson here.
Thank you for the Davon Jackson.
Yes.
He's simply saying the potential for consciousness is not the same thing as having consciousness.
Non-existence is probably better than being born to parents who don't want you.
I'm anti-abortion as contraception, though.
I don't know.
Okay, Dayvon Jackson.
Good to see you in the chat, man.
Thank you, Mon.
Thank you very much.
We have Carmen here with the $69 super chat.
Thank you very much.
Oh, the sex number.
Yeah, that one.
All right, Destiny, your arguments are as baseless as they are stupid.
Human life is the most precious gift God can give a man and a woman, in my opinion.
If you are in favor of abortion, what would that say?
I'll read the rest.
Then I'll bet you are in favor of legalized murder.
Hashtag abortion is murder.
Hashtag abortion is murder.
Absolutely.
It's a hashtag.
Hashtag, by the way.
Okay, thank you, Carmen, for that donation.
Appreciate it.
We have Carmen here again.
Destiny, your arguments are as baseless as they are stupid.
Human life is the most precious gift God can give.
You're literally reading the same book.
Oh, it's the same one?
Oh, no.
He doesn't have to do it.
Oh, they sent it twice.
They sent it twice.
Okay, well, Carmen, thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Double time on that one.
We have Sweet Tooth here.
Sweet Tooth.
Thank you for the $69 donation.
Why is it when Destiny would use science, you females attack him for it, but you can use it later in the convo?
And why you get mad when Destiny want you interrupt, but you have been doing it the whole time since it started.
You girls are just too missing an O there, are just too emotional.
Sweet Tooth, thank you for the.
Do you guys, anyone have a response?
Thanks for the misogyny, I guess.
I just wish Destiny had another person here because I do agree it's a bit imbalanced to have two pro feminists.
No, this is better if there was a single person.
I actually feel bad for people listening because I feel like the people listening probably wanted to have more of a discussion about other arguments you hear about abortion, like bodily autonomy.
No, those are dog shit arguments.
Why would I have those arguments?
Excuse me, I'm still talking.
Like the person who just brought up the question about a person being born having a bad life.
I feel like people who probably tuned into this debate probably wanted to talk about other circumstances beyond persistent vegetative state and people in a coma.
Because we just literally have the same argument for you.
If you want to see really good arguments in favor of pro-life, go watch my YouTube videos like six or seven years ago when I was pro-life because my arguments for pro-life were really good.
Well, you should watch mine.
Way better than that.
What changed for you, Destiny?
Yeah, actually, we never got to that.
Why did you become pro-abortion?
Because I did a greater analysis of when death happens.
And then I realized that saying that life begins at the moment of conception doesn't make sense unless you say death begins the moment all of your body disappears.
It doesn't make sense.
Why do the markers for life and death have to be the same thing?
Well, because generally when we talk about why a thing exists, if we're trying to figure out when a thing starts, sometimes we look at when it comes to the money.
But we agreed earlier when human life begins.
You just assigned person to it at consciousness.
So we do that.
Just like we know that human life continues past death, but we wouldn't really assign that any type of moral weight.
Things still happen.
There's some metabolizing and shit that happens to the body after you die.
If there's actual true death, the body's not acting in a coordinated fashion anymore.
Yeah, maybe not in a coordinated fashion, but there's still stuff going on.
But we would say that it's dead because the brain is seized.
But you usually give a little window of time.
Like there is a woman as an example who you probably can't.
Yeah, but you're not giving that window of time.
Well, just to clarify, she was in her coffin and she actually was tapping on the coffin because they declare death too soon here.
Sure, we're not giving a window of time because we want to extend it past when death has happened.
We're going to say we missed when death.
Destiny, there's a window of time before consciousness where the child, the life, the human, is alive and will develop consciousness very soon.
If it doesn't have that consciousness, I don't care.
But when you're dead and you're really dead, you're not going to become alive again.
Yeah, but if you're dead and you're really dead, then you're dead.
Then we say you're dead.
But so back to my original question, why is having the definition of death that's medical so important to you for a marker for personhood in the womb, even though before consciousness, the human is still alive?
Because there's a lot at stake in the conversation.
So I think it does well to analyze both sides of what exactly is happening.
What do you mean?
As in, you've got on one end, you're balancing potential lives that are being lost, and on the other end, you are threatening the autonomy of a woman-controller body.
Okay, so there is, so, okay, so you do care about bodily autonomy just up until your marker of consciousness.
So this is about autonomy in the end.
If we're just talking about a surgery, yeah, it is just about autonomy.
Okay.
Okay, that's a good thing.
But your bodily autonomy doesn't give you the right to kill somebody.
But if you're not killing a person, that's really your body.
I'm saying the reason that this consciousness are this consciousness definition matters so much to you is because of bodily autonomy and because of competition.
No, I'm saying the reason why the whole abortion argument and figuring out when conscious starts or starts, if we care about that, the reason why it's important is because in the realm of abortion, that's what's at stake.
You're weighing the potential loss of a woman's autonomy for no reason if you're wrong versus the weight of murdering children if you're wrong.
That's why it's important to be aware of that.
I would say if you're wearing weighing those two things, murdering 60 million children would probably be higher up on the moral wrong.
It depends on the probability of you being right or wrong on anything.
So to clarify, if I am an embryo who's going to develop this consciousness in just a couple of days, you are never in the middle.
Hypothetical, you love these, okay?
Stay with me here.
I'm here.
In this hypothetical, there is an embryo who's going to develop consciousness in just a couple days.
That's not even happening.
It's not a hypothetical.
Because it happens.
So in that case, though, you would say the bodily autonomy of the woman is more important, those two days prior to consciousness, than that child's, that human's, excuse me, you don't like the word child, that human's right to live.
True, yes.
Why?
Because it doesn't have the conscious experience yet.
Why does that matter?
Because that's the thing I think that we protect when we're talking about endowing consciousness.
Well, even though that consciousness is, I guess we're going to go back in a circle.
You're talking about, let me go back to the bottom.
That's fundamentally.
The most fundamental thing is, you're talking about protecting a thing that I don't believe exists yet.
What if we have 19 weeks?
What about, what if, because medical technology wouldn't have to kill.
Medical technology keeps improving, right?
So we all acknowledge that it used to be 28 weeks.
Oh my God, you're making another viability argument?
I don't care.
No, but I'm just asking you this question.
So at 19 weeks and if you could viably take consciousness, I don't argue for viability.
Why am I answering viability?
Excuse me.
If we have medical technology that allows a child who's 19 weeks and six days to be born and survive.
Yep.
Then you should be able to take it out at 19 weeks, six days, and use it as target practice.
So that child who's born in the hospital, who NICU is helping, can be totally in the garbage.
Yep.
Magnifying scope and everything.
That is the problem with the consciousness argument.
It's not a problem at all.
It's wholly consistent.
Just like how it is immoral.
If a person is very inconsistent with the people who are in the world, if a person is going to die in one day, is it ethical to kill them?
No, it's not.
Because they're conscious.
If I'm unconscious, it still isn't killed.
Wait, what?
If I'm unconscious.
Because you care so much about consciousness.
I'm talking about lack of consciousness.
Completely conscious.
Being temporarily conscious.
I got a person right here.
Person's whole body.
I'm getting ready to stab this guy.
Is there a difference between when you're unconscious and you're lacking consciousness?
Is there a difference between stabbing him five minutes before and five minutes after he dies?
Yes, of course, because death is the important marker.
Then you're asking me, is there a difference between killing a child five minutes before it is conscious or five minutes after?
I'm going to give you the same answer.
Consciousness is not a dangerous thing.
No, because Destiny, you still didn't listen to what I already said.
Like half an hour ago.
Hold on, you don't have to kill a dead person, Destiny, as we both know.
You do have to kill a pre-conscious person.
You don't.
Obviously, we're not killing the thing I care about.
That's the whole point of the question.
In an abortion, you're not afraid of the people.
You are acknowledging that the child in the womb is alive.
So if you're killing a child in the womb five minutes before the child in the consciousness.
The question we're talking about isn't whether there's a living thing.
It's whether the thing is a person.
Why do we keep going back to this?
So it is living.
Because when you said...
Of course it's living.
When do you think it's dead?
Earlier you were kind of crying.
You asked Lila about somebody who is dead.
I think I think it's a dead thing that becomes alive with the magical fairy.
Someone who is dead is not alive.
Do you agree with that?
I totally agree with that.
So stabbing a person who is dead is not the same as stabbing a 19-week, six-day-old fetus in the womb, hours away from turning 20 weeks when you're like little magic conscience fairy invades my uterus and suddenly implants a conscious in the world.
The similarities is that stabbing a dead person isn't harming anyone because there is no one of which to speak.
Stabbing a fetus that doesn't develop a conscious experience is not harming anybody because there is no one of their topic.
By your logic.
There is nobody to speak of.
There is not a person who is not.
By your logic, stabbing an unconscious person has no moral problem because they are unconscious.
Or they not a person.
The child is going to become conscious destiny.
But they were never conscious.
I just point out that matters.
If you become unconscious.
Why does pre-consciousness?
Is there a person still to speak of that is not your conscious experience?
Why does pre-consciousness matter so much?
It doesn't matter.
If you've never been conscious, it doesn't matter.
I never want to hear the word consciousness ever again after this data.
My God, how many times have we said that?
We got some chance.
Let's see.
One more thing on the burning building.
One more thing on the branding.
Can I ask why one thing on the buddy really?
Well, let's say, hold on.
Can I just say what I was going to say?
Oh, order.
Order, order, order.
On the Titanic, right?
To make it quick, make it quick, Lydia.
Okay, I'll make it quick.
They saved the women and children first, right?
I don't even know if that's true.
Well, whatever.
Typically, we save the children or the woman first.
That doesn't mean that the men are less human or less persons than the woman and the children.
No?
No.
There you go.
So similarly, if you happen to save the toddler, but not the embryo or not the elderly person, that doesn't mean the elderly.
That's why the numbers are The embryo or the elderly person is less human or less of a person.
Okay, so we have to.
So the moral quality of the future.
We have some chats here.
We got Dank Naked here.
Thank you for the donation.
Dank naked.
The word fetus means offspring in Latin.
If you kill a fetus, you're killing human offspring.
What is in that womb is human.
We can tell the difference between an elephant fetus and a human fetus, dank naked.
Thank you very much for that.
Destiny told me earlier he didn't care what the word fetus meant when I asked him.
Sure, he has a don't win debates with the dictionary.
We have pyrotechnists.
Thank you for the donation.
What about an egg's possibility to undergo parthenogenesis and develop into a fetus without sperm fertilization?
Holy shit.
I can't even, I don't know, I can't push that.
Parthenonogenesis is unfortunately not.
Fucking dumbass.
Seriously, right?
Jesus.
Yeah, I'm.
If you're talking about like taking a skin cell and putting it in an enucleated, an emptied egg and putting in the genetic code and developing that into an embryo, in that case, yes, it would still be an embryo and still be alive and still has personhood.
We have Doc Venablis here.
An argument can be made that consciousness is present at the genetic level as evidenced by transgenerational inheritance of memories and learned tasks as well as epigenetic expression.
So consciousness may well be present at the consciousness of the world.
I like that argument.
I mean, come on down and join us.
Might as well throw that argument.
I mean, that definition of consciousness honestly sounds more convincing to me than that would mean dead people have consciousness too because all their DNA is not a problem.
No, because a dead person is not going to be aware of that.
But they still put the DNA.
Those intergenerational inherited memories are still in the world.
But that doesn't solely define what makes a human life.
That's an aspect of a human life according to that consciousness.
Oh, the memory in your genes.
That is an aspect that that's a very important thing.
It was destiny.
A dead person is dead.
So that's the difference.
I totally agree.
And a not yet alive person is not yet alive.
Consciously, yes.
Absolutely.
But keep bringing up that consciousness.
You just said alive.
You keep complaining alive.
And you keep agreeing with us when we call you on it that a human being is alive in the womb, right?
Even before consciousness develops, you agree that a human being in the womb is alive.
Because you keep saying, before it's alive, you keep saying this.
Okay, I'm not answering you.
So just for the audience to understand the tactics, right?
Never in this debate do either of these people think that I think that whatever exists before 20 weeks is dead.
Bringing up that alive thing is trying to win using etymology.
You're trying to win using a word.
You know what I mean is no, I don't know what you mean.
Okay, so then you genuinely think when I said that, let me hear you say that.
I have never seen that.
Do you think that when I say that, I think that a fetus is dead?
No, I follow people.
I think that's a good idea.
What do you think I'm saying?
I think that when you accidentally reference the pre-conscious human as a living human, I think, and then you kind of correct yourself and say it's not, that's not what I mean.
Meaning you call a person a living human, but then you also call the embryo pre-consciousness a living human and use the same terminology, you're accidentally showing the point that your arbitrary measure of consciousness is not a good definition for when a human life begins.
So that's why we get stuck on that point for you.
What's actually happening is you either totally don't understand my argument, which is strange because I repeated like eight times, or you understand the absurdity of your argument.
So the goal is to try to catch on like Xander's like, what do you mean when you say human?
What do you mean you say child?
What do you mean when you say fetus?
What do you mean when you say alive?
The definition I've given, I'll say more than that.
That like I define somebody as having personhood as being a person at 20 to 24 weeks in the conscious experience develops.
If I say that like, oh, it's not alive yet, I clearly don't mean that it's a dead lump of cells that becomes alive.
What I mean in terms of like having the life of the person that we're talking about, I might misspeak because we all use these words like differently sometimes, but I very clearly, syntactically and semantically defined exactly what I mean.
If I use one word in place of another, you should still understand what I'm meaning, unless you're so desperate to try to win on like a word technicality because you understand you've lost the logic of anything else that you're trying to argue.
That is what is happening.
Our position is 100%.
You understand the logic.
I'm not logically correct.
I think you're the one who has to create a significant thing.
No, that's why I've never tried to call you out of picture, like, oh, but you said this word, so that means you're wrong.
I've never done that in a second.
Words matter, and we're talking about words matter.
It's trying to catch me like a technicality.
It's not matter when you're talking about whether or not human beings should be able to live or die.
They actually matter.
And what you're harboring, Destiny, is an innate bias and privilege against children who are younger than 20 weeks in the womb.
True.
And so you keep using dehumanizing terms or saying it's not alive.
And then you're like, oh, wait a minute.
I meant it was alive, but I just said it wasn't alive.
Well, which one is it?
I think part of it is, as Lila was referring to, it's kind of written on the human heart.
And as someone who has a son yourself and you've seen ultrasounds, we all know what is inside of a mother is a human being and it is alive and it is unique and it is precious.
We don't always like to admit that because that human being could be highly inconvenient to us.
Children are highly talking about absolutely.
Children can be inconvenient to some people.
But what you're harboring is this privilege and bias against a child before a child turns developmental discrimination or age discrimination.
Gotcha.
And I'll reiterate my point: I am biased.
I'm biased against beings that do not exhibit consciousness or have the ability to exhibit consciousness.
Unless they're in a coma.
That's how you decide somebody is dead.
Once somebody is saying, I'm just going to keep, you can cut us a bunch of it.
I'm not going to let her ramble for like five minutes and then not repeat my argument because she's just repeating her argument.
So I'll just restate mine.
I do discriminate against things that don't have a conscious experience because there's nobody being harmed.
When you abort someone that's 10 weeks old, you can't speak of a person that is being harmed.
There's a clump of cells and it's gone.
Just like when you stab a corpse, there is no person there that's being harmed because conscious experience is that that is wrong because the corpse is dead and the human being in the womb is alive and the corpse is dead because the corpse is dead.
Their body is no longer exhibiting a conscious experience.
No, their body is no longer working in a coordinated fashion.
So I think it's very insincere for you to continue to say that the 19-week child in the womb is the same as a dead human being because we all know in this room that the 19-a-week 19-week child in the womb is not like a corpse.
But you want to keep saying that because it helps you justify your position that abortion should be legal up to 20 weeks.
Because you have to take that discriminatory view based on age, based on development, in order to justify your abortion.
You can use like all the loaded words.
But you're right, Destiny.
Your position is correct.
You believe that children up to 20 weeks can be killed and you don't give a shit about them.
So congratulations.
You have been philosophically consistent with your beliefs.
What I'm telling you is that you're not going to be able to do that.
What you're telling me is that you think if an 11-year-old child is raised on the term, that person should be forced to carry that child a term because otherwise it would be immoral to abort a clump of cells that don't even have an experiment.
What I'm saying is, your position is a reckless.
Excuse me.
What I'm saying is, your position is reckless.
It creates varying degrees of personhood, which I have said over and over again, leads to awful things throughout all of human history and can't hold up when medical technology will prove you wrong, as I proved you wrong multiple times about a child who feels pain at 12 and a half weeks.
Sib toddlers and twins, sorry, twins who can actually interact with each other at 14 weeks.
Okay.
And I'm going to go with a position.
So congratulations.
You are correct.
I'm going to go in a position that doesn't compel 11-year-old girls to forcibly be carrying a child.
That's my point.
I have a clarifying question for Destiny.
So if consciousness is everything to you and anything you do before a child is conscious or a human is conscious in the womb is totally fine, would it be morally acceptable for somebody to intentionally, maybe that was like some fetish they had or something, intentionally get pregnant, and this has actually happened horribly, intentionally get pregnant to intentionally get abortions, but they're doing the abortions at 19 weeks.
So as a fully formed embryo, a fully formed fetus can feel, and you're okay if that person gets abortion after abortion.
It's totally morally morally acceptable.
Go for it.
I am thinking.
So it can be killed.
So I could have 30 abortions.
30?
You could have 35.
A 19-week old baby.
Unlimited abortions.
However many your body is killed.
And you think it's completely morally acceptable?
Yeah, 100%.
Okay, well, it is a consistent experience.
Well, let's try to get through some of these tests first.
I personally think the arresting the 11-year-old for murder, for getting an abortion, after getting raped by a dad.
I think that's horrific.
Well, that's what I'm saying.
You see, now you're bringing up other arguments.
You said it's consciousness.
What do you mean?
Was your argument against abortion?
He would actually arrest the 11-year-old, he said, if the abortion was past 20 years.
I would.
But in my world, she would have the opportunity to at least get examined and have an abortion.
In your world, typically you don't find out when you're a rape survivor.
If I have a very young girl who probably is not having regular menstruation, you usually don't know you're pregnant until well into the second.
Maybe for rape survivors, we should have better support in society for them, like immediately screening for our pregnancies and stuff.
But they don't know.
Typically, the fact that they're raped isn't known.
They don't share that.
They're not like calling the police right away.
They're 11 years old.
Well, they better make it known then.
I don't know.
You have to figure out some way to do it.
Are you trying to change my whole position because of the system that exists as is?
Sometimes an 11-year-old might be forced to carry a child determine.
They don't have the ability to get external help for their actual child.
That doesn't mean she should be able to murder them.
I think, well, I'm glad you're against murdering consciousness.
I try to be.
That's like my position I'm the most proud of.
I am very anti-child murder.
Hold on, let me just go to the next one.
I just got to come in.
I do just have to come in.
Let's try to get through these chats just because we are running a little bit late here, and then we're going to have to wrap up here pretty soon.
So, okay, let's try to just get through these chats.
If you do want to say anything in response, I just ask you to keep it brief.
That way, we can just get through all of these.
Gotcha.
All right, we have Matt L here.
Thank you for the $49 super chat.
Appreciate it, man.
Better coma example.
The patient had a traumatic brain injury where, if left to its own device, its own devices will heal in approximately nine months to a point of regaining consciousness, as you have defined it.
Would termination of this human be acceptable?
I believe this is.
No.
No?
Okay.
All right, Matt.
So why is that the case then for a child?
It was a conscious experience.
You still have the capacity to play it.
There's some healing process, and then it will deploy it again.
Back and forth on this brief.
It's okay.
We went through it.
There's no answer for why.
The answer is the child has not had a conscious race.
There's no logical reason why.
That is logical.
It didn't exist.
But why does that provide not having the moral?
I am Stephen.
When I go to sleep, there was a Stephen, and there will be a step.
If I have a trient of age, there will be a Stephen.
When I was an embryo, there was never a Stephen to speak of.
Destiny, you've said that many, many times.
The point of it.
But we've said it within weeks, the children.
Within weeks, though, it hasn't yet.
But it's not five years.
But why does that matter?
Because it's not there yet.
But the child is there.
It just hasn't developed the knowledge.
It's not there yet.
Whether we have five years, five seconds, five millennia beforehand.
It's not there yet.
And you're also just denying that children, which we know scientifically, actually have REM cycle sleep.
First of all, I don't even know that.
I don't even believe that.
I doubt we even know that.
Okay, science.
All right, we have Fernando Marrero Jr.
Hey, thank you, man.
He says, whatever.
Thank you, man.
Appreciate it.
There you go.
Title drop.
Yo, Rams, thank for the Canadian 69.
Appreciate it.
The youngest age of fetus medically proven to have survived outside the mother with medical support should certainly be considered human.
Okay, Rams, thank you.
We have Vanessa Tam.
Thank for the Canadian 50.
Oh, interesting.
Mercy.
You're always saying that the REM cycle sleep for fetuses is around 23 weeks, which would actually be consistent with conscious experience.
We have Vanessa Tam here birthing the baby fetus is the only way it's coming out of the mom, so why not help The pregnant mom during pregnancy, and she can bird the baby live and adopted versus dead and dismembered.
Well, there's this whole thing called, yeah, so you guys should be able to do that.
That's exactly what we do.
You probably know a little bit about this, okay?
There's this thing called pregnancy, okay?
That's there's a whole nine-month process between actually getting pregnant, it's called pregnancy.
Oh, thank you for that.
There's a whole period in there that sucks to deal with.
Varying levels of suckiness, but yeah, there's probably a good six or seven months there of time that can be saved, and then a whole bunch of like irrevocable changes to the human body or whatever that you could probably avoid if you don't go through that whole period.
But yeah, Destiny, death is defined as the complete and irreversible cessation of brain activity.
Sure.
That's not the same.
So say that if that's the definition of death, if that's the definition of death, a child weeks before consciousness at 20 to 24 weeks in the womb doesn't have that definition of death.
It's not even have the brain activity.
But it doesn't have brain.
It's irreversible and it doesn't have a cessation of brain activity that will never come back.
It's going to develop.
It's brain activity.
It's going to develop.
I agree.
A child has brain activity.
It will develop.
And once it develops, you see that even your definition of, well, I'm defining it the same way that death is defined, they're not the same.
Do you see that?
No.
You don't see that.
You could have a definition of going broke is when you lose all of your money.
But guess what?
You're also broke if you don't have any money, you don't get any more.
He has a new definition of death, is what he's saying.
He's made his own definition of death.
What is your definition of just for this?
Whatever one helps me win the debate.
Desparian.
Can you hold up your doodles?
Do you acknowledge that it's different if someone is dead and all their brain activity has ceased and will not come back versus a child in the womb who has the potential and it actually has the capacity for brain activity in time?
Okay.
Do you see the difference?
I know there's a difference, but this difference is not relevant.
The point is that you're not going to be able to do that whole debate, though, Destiny.
It's not the point.
Because you're saying it's morally okay to kill the child that has the capacity for brain activity but has a bad thing.
Who is being harmed when you abort a 16-week-old fetus?
Hold on, while you're talking about that.
Destroying that 16-week old.
Here, let's just try to get through these chats.
If you want to bring it up at the end, we'll try.
All right, we have real life outdoors.
Hey, thank you, Dest.
Do you think there's a philosophical significance?
I think that's what he did.
Do you think there is a philosophical significance in non-existence existence and cessation of existence?
Why do you feel humans put so much importance on endangered eagle eggs than human fetuses?
Junior question: Do you feel it's purely a population issue?
A lot going on there.
Quick responses to these super channels.
Yeah, there's differences between all of these, but there is no quick response to that.
It's super complicated.
Why do we care about endangered eagle eggs?
We probably feel some obligation to save unique animals or something in environments, and that's why we're obsessed with like pandas and shit.
I don't know if it's necessarily logical or reasonable, but I mean, well, and I think there's anything wrong, you know, it's smashing bald eagle eggs.
Have you done anything morally wrong?
Whereas it doesn't matter because it's not really alive, it doesn't have consciousness.
I fucking eat meat.
Why would I care about smashing eagle eggs?
I think the point is the point of the questionnaire is: you know, why do we, maybe, maybe the point of the questioner is: why do we not care about aborting children in the womb, but we care about eagle eggs?
And it's true, it's a good point.
It's a very different eagle eggs because there are many, you know, and I'm a conservationist.
I believe in protecting the environment.
There are forces, even environmentalism, that say that we should protect endangered species, but we shouldn't protect human lives.
So, that is a huge, I think, it's not logical and it's not correct.
All right, we got a debate.
Oh, whoops.
Good to me.
I mean, for that.
Oh, this is my favorite guy.
Destiny, there is no point in using analogies when there are hardcore facts about this discussion.
Also, using a range for consciousness comes down being a theory, which is a synonym for assumption.
Therefore, it's not concrete.
Trash debater.
I have another one here for you.
I mean, I agree.
It doesn't make logical sense.
It's not consistent.
Not like a one-celled organism being a thinking, feeling being.
No one said it was thinking consciousness.
Pain is considered an immediate conscious sensation.
And a toddler can't drive.
The ladies are correct, and Destiny is wrong yet again.
He talks fast and it sounds good, but perhaps he should use words correctly.
Do you agree with me?
Do you agree with me?
Welcome for the advice, Jessica.
I agree with everybody.
It's considered an immediate conscious sensation.
Do you agree with that, or do you think that's wrong?
No, I don't think I necessarily agree with that.
Just disagree with science.
Thank you.
No banooka.
Did you read that?
Because that's actually the pre-conscious child, by your definition of conscious anyway, they don't react to stimuli and can feel pain.
I'm pretty sure like amoeba can feel.
But they're not an amoeba.
They're a human consciousness.
Are they still conscious?
Do you think that?
Probably because I'm not using feeling pain as my description for pain.
I just saw that the pain is definitely a problem.
Oh, fuck.
Well, the donator said it.
I guess I'm, I don't know.
I'd have to think about that one, too.
Well, we still haven't really gotten down to that exact definition of consciousness because it's so connected to the power.
I can't exactly define what consciousness is.
Fuck me, I guess.
I would think of as arguing.
I didn't know the burden of me was just a matter of time.
I was arguing for killing human beings.
I think I would have that definition memorized.
You don't even have a definition for puberty, and you seem to tell me that you're going to be.
So you're arguing whether or not human beings should be killed, violently ended in the womb.
Whether or not they should have a right to live.
Their body should be turned into prisons where they have to carry something to take.
There we go.
So 11-year-olds.
It's not about consciousness.
You're going back to rape arguments.
Raped 11-year-old.
Oh, my God.
Pregnant.
Let's read some more super chats.
We have tactical lupus.
Thank you for the 50.
Excuse me rambling about nothing on the loop the whole podcast.
Yeah, it's bad faith the whole time.
Even the girl you're with is annoyed.
They haven't heard anything.
Destiny has said, bro, one on the house analogy, parts aren't a whole.
Okay.
What an absolutely base dono guy.
Okay, Ayush Chuxi.
If you take out fetus at any point during pregnancy and it can survive, it would be wrong to take its life.
Said, at any point, the fetus is body part of female, and they should have the right over it and should be allowed to make choices based on Ayush.
Thank you for the super chat.
We have Dank Naked here with the 50.
All I'm saying is when I put some cake batter into an oven, and if someone pulled said cake batter out and spilled it onto the floor, I'd exclaim, what are you doing to my cake?
Not what are you doing to my cake batter?
Oh my goodness.
Oh my goodness.
Destiny.
Someone's a thinker.
First of all, the argument is still defeating.
Cake batter on a counter would not be a cake.
A cake is a thing.
True.
All right, we have Dr. Ocho.
The embryo is still a human, just like a toddler is just a bunch of people.
Dr. Ocho with the super chat, thank you, man.
Kristen is incorrect.
Being generous by not saying lying.
REM sleep, REM sleep doesn't happen in the womb until 28 weeks.
Okay, of course.
Well, there was another study I saw today that said 23 weeks.
I saw another study that said 18 weeks.
Okay.
Vex liberal, thank you for the big $200.
Wow, huge.
All human cells contain the blueprints for an entire human.
Genome universality.
Is it a unique human?
We don't consider.
Yes?
What do you mean?
No, they don't.
We don't consider skin cells to have the parts for consciousness, nor do we give them more consideration.
Wait, what do you mean?
That's right, because a skin cell has your blueprints, has your DNA.
When you say your, who is you?
What does that mean?
Who is you?
If you like me, what is me?
Yeah, but who is me when you say me?
Disgusting.
Yeah, if I rip my arm off and I put it on the table, is that me?
Is the arm me?
And they're a part of parts.
Yeah, yeah.
But I don't say I rip my arm off and I put my arm up there.
Is that arm me?
It's a part of you.
Well, it's no longer a part of it.
It's no longer attached to it.
So this is me, and the arm is not me, right?
Well, and single cells, living human being.
You are the whole arm.
Even as an embryo, you are all.
The skin cells that flake off you are not unique whole human beings.
What if my head flaked off me?
Would that be me or would the body be?
That's why I'm glad you're not saying that.
Interesting.
Okay, we have Dank Naked here.
Do you think my head is going to fly off my body?
Destiny asking the most bad faith question.
The toddlers will have a higher ability to live than the embryos.
Wow.
As humans, you are programmed to protect your young.
Of course, you'll feel an urge to protect toddlers over embryos.
Doesn't mean those embryos aren't alive.
Let's see, thank you.
We have perfectly stated.
Correct?
Thank you.
I believe that was Bryce, by the way, with the super chat.
Thank you, man.
Good to see you in the chat.
Yo, Angel Cardenas, thank you for the 99.
Thank you.
I can't believe the.
Okay, talk down to Destiny.
When she thinks a seed is the same as a tree, they ask 100 questions.
And when Destiny tries to answer one, they ask 100 more as he's answering, then get mad because somehow he's interrupting, okay?
Thank you for repping me.
Okay.
Rams, Merci Bucou for the Canadian $69.
Thank you for the soup chat, man.
Unfortunately, the only way with evidence-based medicine to find out what the youngest fetus age we are able to save is to extract fetuses and try to keep them alive in the large study.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't even do that to animals.
That would be immoral research.
Okay, and then we have none ya business.
Thank you, man, for the soup chat.
If it doesn't exist, Destiny, then why the need to abort it?
You make no sense.
That's a fair point.
That is such a good point, because I thought it was like nothing and then all of it just pops into existence.
Fuck me.
That was a really good point.
That was my question about the debate over.
You've lost.
You didn't even consider that.
Mike Davis, thank you, man.
Good to see you back in the chat, man.
Wait, is this the Mike Davis?
It is the Mike Davis.
Do we have his photo somewhere around here?
This Destiny Misfit Weirdo is a really slow brain making an argument about consciousness.
If we were to ever meet, Ike knock him unconscious, straight into airplane mode, would it be cool to kill him then?
Well, all the pro-lifers in the room would say 100% no.
Should we arrive?
Destiny's consciousness, ability for consciousness or development of consciousness does not equal his value or personhood.
You're still a person.
If you're a human, you're a person.
Destiny, would you accept a boxing match with Mike Davis?
Well, it depends on the environment we're in.
Like, if he's got those non-slip shoes and he's fighting in the native, like, Wendy's environment that he's used to in having, I might lose that one.
I'm not sure.
I'd have to think about it, you know?
Okay, fair enough.
We have the lifeline apologetics.
Say thank you, man, for the soup chat.
I really appreciate it.
Destiny, since you hold there is no consciousness at conception personhood, do you believe a woman should be able to drink and smoke from the earliest point of pregnancy if she doesn't get an abortion?
I would say no, because you're committing harm to a future person.
Whoa.
Whoa!
So is it committing harm to a future person to dismember them at 19 weeks?
No, because you're preventing that future person from existing.
Ooh.
Nice try.
I like how you thought I was.
I actually don't have to say anything about that.
They think that they can catch up with them.
We just thought they were not.
But you consider that, like, oh, I totally messed up.
Hold on, Destiny.
If they do exist.
In order to abort them, something exists.
What exists?
Something, but not the person.
That's the whole point of the entire argument.
The conscious race doesn't exist yet.
Yes, that is correct.
But they're going to be conscious.
But you're saying that person, the six-week-old child in the womb when the mother's drinking and doing drugs doesn't, which we have been arguing this entire evening, has the capacity to form consciousness, which is your baseline.
The unethical part isn't that you're harming the six-week old.
The unethical part is you're harming the future.
But how do you know?
How do you know that the child isn't going to be aborted at 19 weeks?
Maybe the mom does not.
Well, if you plan on aborting it, then it's not unethical.
Then you can do whatever you want.
Yes, based.
As many trips down the stairs as you find necessary, as long as you know you got the abortion.
You can kill a human, and that's moral, but you can't drink and potentially give the child fetal alcohol syndrome or make the child be born with a drug dependency.
That's immoral.
When am I saying you're okay to kill humans?
At 19 weeks and six days.
Or the conscious experience.
You're not comfortable with that language.
Okay.
Well, no, because you're information.
You can end the life of a human being, which is a unique genetic human being, which we can't do.
I don't care about any of that shit, yeah.
So you can end that life.
That is not immoral, but it is immoral at 19 weeks to smoke, crack cocaine, and because you're harming the future person.
Like, they're going to be about, and then you're going to harm them, right?
But they are that person at the time.
They're not that person yet.
They are.
If I go on top of this building, you just defeated yourself.
Like, this is.
I like how you think I've never answered this question before.
If I go on top of the building and I put a piano there, okay, and I go to push that piano off the building, let's say that I push it off onto somebody immediately.
That would be unethical, right?
Well, what if I set a timer to push this off in five minutes and then I walk away, right?
And I know a person's going to be walking by in five minutes.
Well, is it ethical?
Because I'm not harming anybody right at a particular point in time.
Hold on.
The unethical part is that in five minutes, a person will be there.
So I'm setting up a scenario where in the future, somebody's going to be caused by my actions.
They're going to be caused harm by my actions.
That's the unethical part.
The unethical part isn't me putting the piano there or putting a contraption there.
The unethical part is setting a future person up for harm.
So for a fetus, for a fetus at six weeks old, you're going to smoke and drink and do all that.
That's fine.
If you get an abortion, that's whatever.
But if you do that and then you carry that child to term, or if you intend to carry that child there, you're harming that future person.
Right, and I think that we totally disagree that consciousness doesn't define a human.
That's fine.
If you're unconscious and still a human, you can have less consciousness and still be so human.
We went through all of that.
Just one thing.
Was there something to do, though?
Because the toddler is a little bit less of a person than a yeah, but there's still a binary of do you have consciousness or not?
Once you have it, you can talk about degrees of consciousness.
And that binary, I think, is where the illogic comes in.
There's no reason.
There's no reason for why a child has the capacity for consciousness and just needs time to develop it, why you should discriminate.
Hold on.
You can say that there's no reason, but it's not illogical.
There's a binary of are you an NFL player or not.
However, people that are, there could be people that are better NFL players than other NFL players, but there's still the binary if you are unfortunately.
What's illogical is to draw the arbitrary line.
It's not arbitrary at all.
It's very concise.
When conscious experience happens, you're possessing that.
It's not precise because you can't define it.
It's not because you can't define it at a particular point in time.
It's called a continuum fallacy.
Look it up.
I'm not going to explain it.
It's an arbitrary line to use that for the brain.
What does arbitrary mean?
What does arbitrary mean?
To determine the moral value of consciousness.
If you want to say it's arbitrary to determine moral value, just to say that it's a good idea.
I can agree with you.
A newborn has consciousness more so than a pre-born.
I keep saying that.
I'm a point of why you were repeating that.
I can agree with you that it's arbitrary.
But the point is, everything is arbitrary.
If you're going to get that fundamental, a unique genetic code is arbitrary.
A unique zygote is arbitrary.
A unique feet is arbitrary.
It's all arbitrary if you go really, really, really fundamental, but we're not here to do it.
We pick ethics.
We pick when life begins.
Yes, and I pick when life begins based on what I think life ends because I think that's about what we're worried about protecting.
What are we protecting when we talk about protecting a human being?
It's not a body.
It's not a cell.
It's not a heartbeat.
We're protecting their conscious experience.
That's about what we're doing.
Here, we'll come back to that.
Let's come back to that.
At least over.
I mean, I just want to say that.
I'm sick of having to resell the same things over and over again.
All right, let's get through the super chats.
We're going to get all across the table.
We're going to all projectile vomit into each other.
We're going to get through the chests.
Let's go.
Get through it.
We're going to get through the chest.
We're going to have control over this.
Apparently, just a point of two chatters, Jennifer and Jonathan, said that I've missed their super chats.
Jennifer, maybe we're coming up on it, but I don't.
I don't see any of your super chats.
I don't know, but something about, did we do one related to the Khmer Rouge?
Nope.
I thought I saw something, but...
Wow, so you just fucking ripped that person off.
Well, maybe my guys actually.
There's like an argument about harming babies.
What's that?
It was something about harming babies.
Was it under the threshold?
In any case, okay, so let me do this one.
We have one here from Polarized.
I'm not going to pull it up, but he has a question for Kristen.
It's a very simple question.
If an embryo is a human being.
For you, Kristen.
Oh, is there more to the question?
That's it.
Well, it depends on what type of embryo it is.
That's a human being.
That's a human embryo, a human being.
Yeah, if it's a human embryo, it's certainly a human being.
Somebody save it.
Nick, can you?
Keep it center.
Keep it center.
Sorry.
Rip.
Welcome to the whatever studio.
Okay, let me get through these super chats while Nick fixes that.
We have Dank Naked here.
Destiny, there's a difference between a dead body and a fetus developing a brain.
How bad faith are you right now?
The fetus is going to develop a brain and a dead person is dead.
Dang naked.
We've said that like, I don't know, 30 times.
I'm just too dumb to understand that point.
It's not going to be a bad thing.
I don't want to understand that point.
Because it would defeat my whole, like, it's inconvenient.
It's an inconvenient fact for me.
It would just obliterate me.
Yeah, well, at least you know that.
I do.
This is like the head of the Exodia that just obliviates my whole argument.
All right.
We have Devin Cena here.
Thank you for the 50.
Nazis murdered disabled children because of their impacted consciousness mental faculties.
Was that okay, Destiny?
Yeah, I think mental disability is the exact same thing as having no conscious experience at all.
That's what they said, so I believe that.
What level of mental disability?
Do you think the Nazis are justified in murdering children?
Please explain.
Well, probably the ones where your brain isn't even really working, I would say it's probably justified.
Like in the antenna's shaiva.
I think that was a pretty terrible statement you just said, that the Nazis were justified in murdering disabled children.
I don't think the Nazis were trying to kill people that weren't having conscious experience.
I think they were trying to murder people because they were trying to get rid of the unclean from society.
I think it was a bit different, but you just said, okay.
So if a woman has an abortion at 19 weeks for a eugenic reason, because of the skin color of the baby, because she.
Oh, that could be unethical.
That would be unethical.
I thought it wasn't a thing.
Earlier, it wasn't unethical for a woman to get pregnant as a sexual fetish and continue to have abortions at 19 weeks because the 19-week old baby is not a baby and not a human, not a person.
So why would it be unethical to kill a 19-week old for a racist reason?
I don't know if it's unethical to practice a sexual fetish.
It might be unethical to design society with a racial vision in mind.
So it is wrong to kill at 19 weeks for a race-based reason.
I don't know if I care about killing the thing.
I'm thinking more of the designing of a society based on race.
But you just said allow me to ask you, is it wrong to kill a 19-week-old fetus, a child in the womb?
You're asking me as if something is wrong.
Or gender.
We could ask about gender because that happens.
I think you're acknowledging that you're killing, though, is what you're acknowledging.
No, you don't think it's killing me.
Let me explain.
Okay.
Please do.
You're trying to ask me, is it wrong to practice eugenics?
And I'm saying, in general, I would say that probably eugenics is wrong.
Whoa, I didn't ask that actually.
Is it wrong to practice eugenics on a 19-week-old before consciousness?
Hold on.
That's the issue.
I don't care.
It's always wrong to practice eugenics.
Even on a 19-week old pre-consciousness.
On anything.
It's probably not a problem.
But if the 19-week-old pre-consciousness has no moral value, why is it possible to even be racist against that 19-week old?
I didn't say you're being racist against a 19-year-old.
I see you're practicing eugenics.
I don't know if there has to be anything.
Why would it even be eugenics to kill the 19-week-old?
I would say it would probably be unethical if you were to say that people should only breed with people of their own race, that that form of practicing eugenics is unethical.
Even though you're not killing anybody.
That's part of what I said.
Hold on.
I know.
Okay.
I'm just asking you to the answer.
I don't know if I can.
The thing is, I can explain every part of this.
No, It's not a problem.
It's not hypothetical problems.
I can't explain anything about getting cut off, okay?
You're asking me.
Okay.
Go ahead.
You're asking the question is, is it unethical to kill a 19-week-old thing by virtue of doing it because of eugenics?
And what I'm saying is, practicing eugenics is unethical.
In your mind, you're transferring the idea that I'm saying, oh, you think it's unethical to practice eugenics by killing a 19-week old?
You must think it's unethical then because you're killing the 19-year-old.
No, killing the 19-year-old or the 19-week-old has nothing to do with whatsoever.
It's the practice of eugenics.
Whether it's 19-week old or 21-week old, I would say both are wrong.
However, the additional thing would be that killing the 21-week-old would also be murdering a child and practicing eugenics.
Killing the 19-week-old would be unethical because you're practicing eugenics, but not because you're killing some baby.
But Destiny, by virtue of your argument, you cannot practice eugenics on a 19-year-old because they're not a person yet.
Do you think that's your argument?
Hold on, Destiny.
Do you think it's eugenics to sterilize?
Can you answer that?
No, because that's not.
I don't think that's what eugenics means.
Okay, let's define then.
Eugenics is, I'm doing in this scenario, it's a racially motivated act of oppression, violence, against this 19-week-old fetus.
Okay.
That is pre-conscious, so it's not a person in your book.
I don't know.
I don't know what that definition of eugenics is.
My understanding of genetics.
Well, would that be wrong?
Would I?
What I just said in that hypothetical, would that be wrong?
Practicing eugenics in my mind for racial visions and writing.
It's not to kill a 19-week old pre-conscious fetus for racist reasons.
Yeah, but not because you're killing the fetus, but because you're practicing eugenics.
But why is it practicing eugenics if it's not killing a person?
Because we have different definitions of what eugenics means.
That's why I just wanted to say I can go back and define eugenics.
My understanding is genetics, or I'm sorry, my understanding is eugenics is when you have a societal breeding plan.
So for instance, this could be a practice of eugenics, is saying black people are not allowed to have children.
It doesn't mean you have to have abortions.
It doesn't mean you have to kill anything.
Okay, so if we're saying that that is illegal, we're saying that's eugenics, telling people who can or can't have kids is eugenics, then I would say it's unethical to practice eugenics for a racial vision of mine, even if that means aborting a nine-week old.
Even if that means having an abortion of a five-week old.
But that's not wrong because you're killing a five-year-old.
It's wrong because you're practicing eugenics.
But eugenics isn't defined by having an abortion of a human living being of a person.
You're putting a moral quality on this unconscious fetus.
No, I'm not.
I'm putting the moral quality on the practice of eugenics.
But you're only saying the eugenics is bad because it's ending the life of this child for eugenics reasons for this human.
But the reason, but God listened to us.
I said that eugenics was designing socially, like socially deciding who can or cannot have children.
And now you're telling me, you said eugenics was about killing a baby.
I never said that.
That's a destiny.
You're saying it would be wrong to kill a nine-week old for race-based reasons.
No?
Is that correct or yes?
Correct, yes.
Okay.
But then on the same hand, you're saying that that nine-week-old is not a person and doesn't have moral status.
Correct, yes.
Okay.
The wrong that's being committed isn't a wrong.
The wrong that's being committed isn't the wrong against the nine-week child.
The wrong being committed is the social wrong of eugenics.
So it's just the intention of the thing.
No, it's the same thing.
Killing them has no wrong.
It's not the intention of killing a baby.
It's the intention of eugenics.
So they get moral value.
Hold on.
They get moral value if they are, they all of a sudden get moral value if they're being killed for racist reasons, but if they're being killed for a while.
They're not getting any moral value.
I wouldn't punish the person for murder or I wouldn't punish the person for having abortion.
Wait, what did they do wrong if it's just a thing?
What are you doing wrong if you told black people not to have children?
What's the wrong thing?
Nobody's being harmed.
A 14-week old child in the womb is not a person and it's just a thing and it has absolutely no value.
I understand what you're saying is that because you don't think that a human has value and isn't a person until they have consciousness.
But what are they actually doing?
They're not actually doing anything.
They're not even practicing eugenics because there is nothing there to turn eugenics on.
It's a non-profit.
You said that it's a non-person.
It's not a thing.
You say only white people should breed with white people.
Is that practicing eugenics, even if you haven't had any kids yet?
You're not defining.
That's different.
I literally defined it positively as eugenics.
What do you think my definition is?
You're not defining what that nine-week-old thing is then.
What is that?
It doesn't matter what it is.
It does because you're saying it's wrong to kill it.
So what is it?
I'm not saying it's wrong to kill anybody.
It's wrong.
You practice eugenics.
You're saying it's wrong to eugenic reasons.
Yes, what is practicing what eugenics is wrong?
Practicing eugenics is.
Do you practice eugenics on things like cars?
What do you practice eugenics?
Theoretically, you could, sure.
Can you practice eugenics on refrigerators?
Theoretically, you could, sure.
Let's say that I find out that certain refrigerators and cars can't reproduce.
You've already said that.
I'm sorry, were you going to let me answer the hypothetical?
I think I'm going to be like, I think you do.
Okay, my bad.
No.
You already said what the definition of eugenics was.
Okay.
Here, let's do a couple super chats here.
Let's say that I found out there was a car that was owned 99% by black people, and let's say that I armed that car with an ability to stab you in the balls means you couldn't have kids.
Would you argue that that's the ball?
Stabbing the balls.
Stabbed in the balls.
It's Cadillac that only black people drive.
Would you say that's a form of eugenics?
That would be wrong.
It would be eugenics, even with no babies present.
But you're still stabbing somebody.
You're still harming someone, like the nine-week.
Sure, but you're not killing a kid.
It's eugenics.
You're killing what you don't want to call a kid, but it is a kid.
You're killing a human that you don't want to call a person, but it is a human.
You're still upset with killing it for racist reasons, but for other reasons, you're okay with it.
And that doesn't make sense, Destiny.
Totally makes sense.
Let's do some super chats here.
How many more of these do we have?
We're getting there.
So a molar pregue do not get rights because they are non-viable.
Pregnancies with lethal genetic abnormalities that will never be viable on their own, but can still become full-term.
Anacephalic babies never develop consciousness given time.
Comments?
Pregnancies with lethal development.
Well, actually, that actually is false.
So pregnancies with lethal genetic abnormalities.
So the question is, does having a different genetic code or something that could end your life, does that change that you are fundamentally human and that you are valuable?
A child who has been diagnosed with ancephaly or a child who's diagnosed with Down syndrome or cystic fibrosis or whatever terrible syndrome you want to come up with, that doesn't change the fact that the child in the womb, that child, that fetus, sorry, don't mean to trigger you, has rights and is valuable and should be protected.
I don't think just because someone has been diagnosed in the womb, by the way, the New York Times even said earlier this year that 80% of genetic tests that come out and say that a child has Down syndrome, cystic fibrosis are wrong.
That was like the New York Times.
So that doesn't actually change your value, and it doesn't say that that human is no longer worthy of life.
Wow.
Okay.
We have Crystal Cole here.
Thank you for the super chat.
Really appreciate it, Crystal.
Thank you.
There are multiple definitions of consciousness.
One is related to awake, asleep, under anesthesia versus consciousness in terms of metaphysical human awareness.
You can be unconscious according to the first definition while being conscious according to the second definition.
Crystal, thank you very much for that super chat.
David Keiko, thank you for the super chat, man.
Thank you.
If I am the last boy on earth, is it immoral or virtuous for me to pull out and nice dono, dude?
Good one.
I need to read these first.
Yeah, you really should.
All right.
Not cool.
Jennifer, this one came through.
We're reading $20 donos now?
No, just brokey fuck.
Jennifer, just a point of clarification here.
The read trigger is the actual question you want answered has to be $49, $99 and up.
It can't be cumulative.
So just a heads up, but something about the Khmer Rouge, I guess if you want us really quick, just we'll give you a slide on this one.
Killing babies and bashing babies against the tree, we would all agree is pretty bad.
Yeah.
All right.
Jennifer Hemingway, any relationship to the author?
Okay.
What is the question?
Is it bad to bash babies against the title?
I'd say tree killed.
I'd say it's pretty bad.
I reckon that's pretty bad.
We have the lifeline apologetics here.
If early term abortion fails, the pill, hypothetically, if the child is born, the pill could have damaged the child permanently, just like drinking and smoking, example, would it have been wrong to take the pill if she's stuck and has to try abortion again?
If you're going to have an abortion, it should probably like a foolproof method, not something that can fail and have like a fucked up, damaged kid, because that would probably be unhelpful.
The majority of abortions in a country today are committed via chemical abortion.
They have a 15% annual failure rate.
Wow.
So are you against chemical abortions?
If that's the actual stat, I probably would be.
I have a feeling that's probably not true, but if it was, I would probably be against it.
It actually is, but okay, yeah.
But you just have to go back for a percentage of the cases of surgical abortion because it's incomplete abortion.
Gotcha.
All right.
Which is why there's abortion pill reversal, which can sometimes save the life of the child.
And it saved a few thousand lives.
If you take the first abortion pill in the regimen, you can save it that way.
And you go to stay with you.
The life of your children.
Or if you have problems with the first one, just keep taking more and more, okay?
Nothing says you can't take like two or three plan B's, you know, plan C, plan D. Do you think plan B is an abortifacient drug?
Does that mean abortion?
Yeah.
Do you think plan B can cause an abortion?
Is plan B the one that it prevents implantation?
Yep.
Yeah, it probably is.
Thank you for having a consistent definition.
I don't know.
My definitions are all very consistent.
Well, no, I mean, you've had a consistent definition of when you think babies should be killed.
You have been very consistent throughout all this.
I think it's wrong, and I think it's reckless, and I think it's very dangerous.
But you've had a consistent position.
But I would thank you for actually admitting that plan B, which a lot of people are.
But why are you saying admitting?
Well, no, because Let me finish because when I talk about the dangers of plan B, I will often be told in interview or by interviewers that I'm lying that plan B is merely contraceptive, it's not aborifacient.
But it actually says on the back of the plan B box may prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.
If you Google the word fertilized egg, it comes up.
Yeah, I'm aware of that.
The strongest.
I'm not admitting anything.
I obviously don't care.
Yeah, but the strongest pro-life arguments, in my opinion, are usually ones that consider the teleology, the development of a human, rightfully so, begins at not conception, but implantation.
And I find that those pro-life arguments are more convincing than the ones that believe it happens at the moment of conception, because if it happens at the moment of conception, there are like millions of babies that die every single day, tragically, that we never hear about it and don't even know about it, don't care about, which is like a very weird position to have.
Whereas like implantation more closely follow, because you agree that it's possible to fertilize an egg and the egg just doesn't implant.
It just, yeah, it glips out.
To think of that as like the death of a human or the death of a person is like very strange.
Just because that happens doesn't mean that those aren't human beings that deserve all the rights, whatever.
But the idea that it begins at implantation, I think, is more satisfactory.
But if that's the case, then having plan B wouldn't be considered abortion.
So you believe IUDs are abortifacient?
Because I was reading something yesterday that Planned Parenthood had put out on their Instagram, and they were saying that Plan B isn't very effective for people like me who are overweight.
And so they were suggesting that women get copper IUDs inserted in them, which we knew copper IUDs, they're not preventing the release of an egg, but they actually sanitize and kill anything.
Well, that's sperm, but if you're doing it after the fact, after you've already had unprotected sex, the goal of the IUD is to make the womb inhospitable to human life.
I don't know anything.
I've never heard about that before.
That might be true, but I've never heard that you can do an IUD as an abortion measure.
Yeah, it was actually, it was very new to me that Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry is actually now lobbying as if IUDs are emergency contraception, but they use the word contraceptive.
They won't actually use the word abortifacient.
So I was just trying to find out: are you actually consistent as well?
Because you did admit that.
I won't even admit that to you because I don't know if that's true.
I'd have to research it on my own.
I've never met my life.
Usually, like scheduling for IUDs and all that takes a while.
I've never heard of using an IUD to.
It was on the Planned Parenthood's Instagram page.
I was pretty shocked by it as well that they were now recommending this drug, this device, which actually can kill a baby.
It prevents implantation of the new human being into the uterine lining.
All right, we have a super chat here from Trauma Davey.
Thank you.
For anti-abortion, what is people reproduced by shaking hands?
What if people reproduce by shaking hands and the child magically appeared in 10 minutes?
Would it be unethical to let go a second before?
I mean, this is.
That's not unethical.
No, it's not unethical.
Just like it's not unethical to not have sex and not conceive a child.
All right, trauma, Davey.
Thank you there.
And we have just three more here.
We have gotcha.
Thank you for the donation.
Appreciate it.
For the pro-lifers, if an enslaved African-American woman in the 1800s unlive their fetus to protect the fetus from an insult from an enslaved life, would that be immoral?
So like a mercy killing.
Yeah.
Is the way that they would probably see it?
And I think, yes, killing someone because it's immoral.
It's killing someone because they are going to be enslaved or have a bad life is not right.
We should instead work to free them and get them a better life instead of end their life.
Gotcha.
And gotcha sent it twice here.
So gotcha, thank you for the subsequent.
Maybe is this one directed at Destiny?
He wants Destiny's take on this one.
Destiny?
For the pro-life.
No, this is a fucking dog shit argument.
You can't make arguments in favor of abortion by killing people that might have shitty lives.
It's the stupidest fucking argument in the world.
You would never think you're a two-year-old.
We have found some.
Common ground.
Common ground.
There you go.
Most pro-choice arguments are stupid.
If you read Judith Thompson's original paper on the defense of abortion, her defense of abortion is one of self-defense, but she very clearly outlines, if you read her paper, that Judith Thompson defends the right for you to have an abortion.
She doesn't defend the right for you to kill the fetus.
That's why if you make an argument for viability and you cite Judith Thompson's paper, you haven't actually read the paper because she doesn't even make that argument.
And even towards the end of her paper, she admits that having a seventh month abortion because you want to go on vacation is probably an immoral or a shitty thing to do.
Well, and the whole problem with her argument is that the child, whether it's pre-viability or pre-consciousness in your case, still deserves to live and still deserve nourishment from their parent.
Well, that's a complicated argument because that's a very complicated argument because if you're making an argument with self-defense, even if things aren't acting with intent to kill you, you can still argue that you have a right to lethal self-defense against those things.
For instance, if a four-year-old is running at me with a knife, he's going to come and kill me or stab me to death, and I have no other way to avoid him but to shoot him in the head for whatever reason, technically you have a right to defend yourself against that child.
Well, in that case, you would, first of all, what responsibility do you have for the child running at you with a knife?
And second of all, you should try to disarm the child.
That's why, in cases where even if you feel you're in some places, if you feel you're being attacked and then you attack the person back by this lethal violence, you shoot them, but it's like, hey, you could have run away.
You didn't have to stop there and shoot them.
You could have run away.
You could have.
I agree with you.
Then they are counter arguments in that counter argument too.
So for instance, the counterargument to that counterargument would be if you engage in sex, but you're doing every single thing you possibly can to avoid a person appearing.
So for instance, if you're taking contraception and you're using condom and they still appear, do you then have full moral liability for them doing whatever?
And I believe, I think Thompson in her paper uses the example if you leave the window open and like a people seed floats in and like lands in your house and suddenly grows into a human just because you left the window open by a crack but you thought the screen would cover it, are you now morally responsible for the development, the protection of the nourishment of that?
But that you can go back to the right.
Right, but I think, I mean, I think, again, her argument is flawed because regardless of whether or not even how much the person wanted to be a parent, they're still a parent if there's a child inside them and that child still deserves to live and has the right to live.
All right, we have Gretnek here.
Thank you, Gretnek, for the donation.
Really appreciate it, man.
Thank you.
Still pro-life.
Both sides, super smart.
Destiny answers non-stop logical and the girls try to get him on the tech.
This is going nothing but in circles, Brian.
Get a man on the pee life side next time to not just get emotional answers.
It is very redundant.
Damn.
Okay, well, there you have it.
Yeah, it would have been good to maybe have like 3v3, like have one guy.
Fuck no.
It's already hard with like three throwing in more people.
Everybody screaming at each other, right?
All right, we have mockery here.
Thank you for the donation, man.
Really appreciate it.
If you don't value life specifically as a human consciousness, how do you justify eating meat?
If you value a fetus because it's going to become conscious, would it be immoral to stop a blank because you're interrupting the process that leads to a unique life?
Stop sex, I think.
Stop.
Well, stop.
I think he's saying non-consensual.
Yeah, let's not talk about that.
So we'll do the first question.
If you don't value life specifically as human consciousness, how do you justify eating meat?
So I assume he's talking about beef or chicken or pork, kangaroo.
Have you ever had kangaroo?
I both have.
I only care about human conscious experience.
I didn't say human because we're not having a vegan debate here.
We're just having a.
Okay.
All right.
I mean, I think humans are different than animals, than non-human animals, and I think that they deserve to be aware of that.
Do you think that humans?
Do you think if animals in the womb have consciousness, they have more value than a 19-week-old fetus in the womb?
No, because I don't care about animal consciousness at all.
Okay.
Well, we're totally caught up on chats.
Thank you for you Brian.
Yeah, I know.
It took us a while, but we're there.
And Destiny, I just want to say I appreciate you dealing with two of us here.
I like half appreciate you.
You guys argue in extreme bad faith.
Both of you do.
I was not.
I hope you weren't intending that either.
I don't think we argued in bad faith at all.
I think we were able to isolate your justification for abortion, and we went in circles many times because at the end of the day, I think it's an arbitrary line that you've drawn.
You choose to notice that.
Wait, can you restate?
Can I have you restate my argument in the best light possible?
I'm curious.
A human being does not have rights to personhood and the right not to be killed until that human being, in your view, develops consciousness at 20 weeks, which you cannot define and tell us what consciousness is.
So you can kill that human being until 20 weeks.
It doesn't matter because it's not a human being.
It's not even a thing.
But it is wrong to practice eugenics and then kill it before 20 weeks because it's eugenics, but we still don't know what any other thing is okay because you won't define what it actually is.
Okay, and I'll do this one time just to show the audience, right?
Can you do that?
Absolutely.
Your position is that if we're looking at the existence of a human being, there is a unique life that is created at the very moment of conception.
The blueprint that is going to determine everything you ever will become happens at that very moment.
You can trace back the beginning of your existence at the moment of conception, and it is the most clear and consistent way to define exactly when your life starts, when that unique organism exists, and then when it begins to grow and become a baby, an adolescent adult, blah, blah, blah.
Not quite correct, because it's not just the blueprint print, Destiny.
It's also the substance.
It's also a really important point, though.
It's not that important.
My summary of your position is a million times better than your summary of my position, which is dog shit.
But that's the way it is.
No, no, no.
But just to clarify, because it's not.
But just to clarify, and I appreciate you giving a stab at it, but it is incorrect.
Because it's not just a blueprint, like a blueprint on a car or a blueprint on a building, Destiny.
It's also the substance of the thing.
And the thing is that it's a very important thing.
Let's be clear, it's not.
You don't even believe that.
I do believe that.
Everything is there.
It's a single-cell embryo that with time and nourishment will continue to develop.
An infant will continue to develop.
You believe in physics.
Absolutely.
You believe in time and space.
Absolutely.
In one cell, the only thing there is the blueprint.
And the potentiality to continue to develop and multiply.
Sure.
But there's a mechanism to begin building the blueprint.
But it's only one cell.
It's just a blueprint.
A blueprint of a house is never going to build itself.
It will if other people are nourishing it.
Not quite, Destiny.
Sure, it has a little bit of self-assembly, but again, it is a blueprint.
It doesn't match, Destiny.
It doesn't match.
Because in your, to make it a more exact argument or exact analogy to your blueprint, it would be as if, again, like I was trying to say earlier, but I think we got redirected another direction.
But as if you put in the blueprint, your argument would be as if you put a blueprint on a plot of land, you stacked up all, you put all the nourishment there.
Let me just finish.
You put the blueprint there with all the stacks of wood, and you walk away and you say, okay, well, the house will just build itself.
The child, the difference between the blueprint and the stacks of wood is it needs workers to go build it.
In the case of a single-cell embryo, it is a whole person that's going to self-actualize and develop and multiply itselves to reach different levels of age and development, as we all do as human beings, not just pre-born, but once we're born, et cetera.
Oh, planned life thing.
Thank you.
Sorry, go ahead, go ahead.
That's fine.
Destiny, just release in that conscience fairy.
Okay.
We have, let's just see here.
We have lifeline apologetics.
Destiny didn't answer.
The hypothetical assumes the abortion fails and damages the fetus permanently.
If the abortion fails, is she stuck in the choice to attempt abortion again to prevent the potential damaged future child?
Fans of the ladies hope to work with you all someday.
Yeah, you should probably attempt abortion again.
Yeah, otherwise you are harming a future person.
Yes.
To use the piano analogy, let's say that you're not going to be able to do it once again.
You say it's immoral to harm a future person, but it's not a problem.
It's not even going to push a piano.
Let's keep it nice.
Let's keep it nice.
It's immediately off a building and there's nobody beneath it.
Let's say that you go to push it, but it only like half falls and then it's going to fall in five minutes when somebody is beneath.
Yeah, you should try to push it again to avoid harming it.
Your argument does not make sense because you say it's immoral to harm a potential person, but it's not immoral to kill, in your view, a potential person.
It's immoral to harm the future person.
A future person.
If you have an abortion, no future person is moral to kill a future person.
According to your argument, all humans before 20 weeks are future persons destiny.
No, because if you don't, if you have an abortion, there is no future person.
There would have been if you didn't have the abortion.
But there isn't.
There would have been implies there is not.
But somebody still existed.
You just killed them.
No, they didn't exist.
That was the whole point.
They never started to exist.
What was in the womb then?
Was it a fetus?
It didn't exist.
A fetus existed?
The fetus is existing.
Not a person.
A fetus.
The fetus, the child, the lattice.
Whatever you want to embellish it and draw it up.
How can you justify saying that harming a potential person, a fetus in the womb, is immoral because that may long term in their life hurt them, but it's not immoral to kill them.
Because in one sense, you are harming a future person.
In another sense, you're preventing that person from existing.
He doesn't care that they would have become a person if you wanted to kill them.
I know you're saying it like half-life trying to own me, but at least you're actually correct.
I understand your argument.
There's a fundamental difference.
I think it's, I don't agree with it, obviously, but I understand it.
And, you know, it is what it is.
You're still keep giving the same answer.
So I understand.
We got it.
All right.
We have chat here from, I guess I'll just read that one while it's up.
Agel Cardenas, W Destiny, the Karens are ignorant.
Do you guys want to respond to the Karen accusation?
No, we were asked.
I mean, we were asked to come here and talk about our pro-life beliefs.
And I feel like we did that.
We did not insert ourselves into this debate.
Okay, we have BOF.
Could you hide that?
Destiny, how certain must you be that a fetus is conscious to consider abortion wrong?
Let's say there's a 10% chance that the fetus is conscious at 21 weeks, 20% at 22, 30%, 23, et cetera.
At what point would you ban abortion?
Like I said, the part is like 20 to 24 weeks, so I'd probably just cut it off right at 20 weeks is like where people say the development is.
All right, we have DMZ D Mize.
Thank you for the 69 donation.
Really appreciate it.
The two women are not accepting that he has clearly drawn where his line is.
The practice of eugenics wrong, abortion prior to a certain period, he feels acceptable primarily that it be done before the kid could feel pain or has brain stimulation.
Unless it's done for a eugenic reason, which was the whole debate we were having.
Then you're opposed to it.
Yeah.
If you have an argument with a room full of kids and you say, hey guys, you guys should probably not have children or like wait a long time to have children, that's fine.
But if you only say that in rooms of black kids, that's not fine.
The same action, but it's bad because in one sense you're practicing eugenics, in the other sense you're not.
The bad thing is the eugenics part.
I don't know who you're practicing eugenics on with a 19-week old fetus if you said it's not a thing.
Well, if you're not practicing, you're practicing it on society.
That's what eugenics practice on a societal level.
I don't think it works, but let's get this chat.
We have We Aboo.
Thank you for the donation.
It's not good to base your values on potential.
If a person inherited a gene that made them predisposed to being extremely violent, do we preemptively put them in jail?
It's difficult to make decisions on things that haven't happened.
Weaboo.
Thank you very much for your super chat.
Appreciate it.
And then we have Dragon Zombie 2000.
I'm neutral on this topic, but I really feel Destiny's just gish galloping.
Not sure what that is.
He's not really making any convincing arguments.
He's speed talking his way out of corners to avoid addressing Lila's actual points.
Lila's absolutely crushing it.
Respect.
Thank you.
Destiny, your response.
Or Lila.
No, you go ahead, Destiny first.
Absolutely true.
I mean, the pro-life argument is very simple in many ways.
It's about human rights for all humans.
You don't get to put personhood based on developmental markers.
Personhood is for everyone.
If you're a human, you're a person.
If you're a person, you're a human.
That's the bottom line.
And so you don't do age discrimination or developmental discrimination or consciousness or unconsciousness discrimination.
You're a human.
You have human rights.
And that's why we oppose intentional violence against humans.
And that's why we didn't talk about it in this debate, but maybe we could do another one at some point where we get into, you know, how to stop abortions, all the other arguments for abortion and against it, how we can make our civilization more just and more loving to a place where there are less abortions.
Women don't even choose it anymore.
We're supporting them more.
I mean, there's a whole lot more that pro-lifers focus on a lot beyond the debate on this consciousness question.
Sure.
Okay.
Let's see here.
I think we're all finally caught up on all the chats.
So closing statements.
And you have to get going, right?
Lila, what's that?
Oh, I missed it.
I'm good.
I'm sorry.
Oh, you're good?
Hold up.
Time-wise, are you guys doing time-wise?
Fuck out of here.
Do you want to think about anything?
I didn't know I was going to have access to that.
Destiny wants to be unpunished.
It's a four-hour debate on abortion.
This is like the joke topic where everybody, abortion and vegans, are the two that I never do long form debates on.
So you wrote me into.
Destiny wants to go to sleep and have experienced blissful unconsciousness.
I want to go do drugs.
That's what I'm saying.
But no one's allowed to kill them in these uncomfortable.
What do we?
Okay, I'm just kidding.
Okay, what else do we want to talk about?
Well, we're going to keep going here.
We could, if you guys want, we can continue.
Or if you guys feel like we've the duration of the podcast has been sufficient, then we can wrap it up.
Sure.
Is there anything you really want to hit or say anything?
I would love, actually, I mean, not necessarily now because I know I have to drive three hours and I think you have a flight and stuff.
But I would love to do a podcast to talk about sexual ethics and talk about the whole reason we have the abortion crisis in the first place.
One of the reasons is we have laws that permit abortion and people are just getting them.
The other reason, though, is the other reason is, I think, societally, culturally, post-sexual revolution.
I think that's a very interesting conversation.
Abortion has become a parachute.
Get out of jail.
Free card for people.
I love how children are described as like punishments, like the constraints of the people.
We agree on that, yeah.
Well, that's what you're describing, that's how get out of jail, like having a kid is being in jail, and the parachutes are to save you.
That is how abortion, when you do polling and you do research for how many people view abortion in our country, that is how they view abortion, is that it's a wrong, that it's ending the life of a human being, but it's a necessary wrong for them to continue whatever they feel is the trajectory of their life, and that that child, inconveniencing them, justifies ending their life.
And that's why I think what Lila was saying earlier was it was sad that we actually didn't get into this at all in this conversation: is about what are we doing as a nation to transform our culture where no woman feels like she has to choose abortion again?
Because that is part of our work in the pro-life movement.
It's not just simply educating people about science and biology and reality or passing laws.
It's also tangibly coming beside women and changing policies and whether it's on college campuses or in the workplace or advocating for tangible support services and resources.
I don't feel like we appropriately got to that point.
I would say we should raise abortions by giving more contraceptives to people and let them keep fucking.
That's my era.
I actually have one question for the pro-life side here.
And I've heard this come up from people who are either more liberal or pro-choice.
What would you say to someone who says it's hard to take pro-lifers or conservatives seriously on the abortion issue, considering their social Darwinism on nearly every other issue?
Now, you might reject that premise, but I would reject that premise.
I would reject that.
But I've often heard it said that one of the arguments you might hear is, well, they're only pro-life in this one particular instance, but they're not so in favor of once the child is born.
This isn't my position.
I was saying that what we have done in the pro-life movement for 50 years, while Roe was the law of the land, was create a whole social safety net of pregnancy centers, maternity care centers that vastly outnumber the fewer, you know, there's more than 3,000 of them that outnumber the 600, fewer than 600 Planned Parenthood abortion facilities in our country.
And these are nonprofit entities that are in the hardest-hit neighborhoods who raise money on their own.
We're door knocking, delivering diapers and formula to actual doors in neighborhoods surrounding abortion facilities.
So that's actually not who we are in the pro-life movement.
That's not what, you know, when you look at the money raised within the broader pro-life movement, the majority of money that is raised in the pro-life movement actually is for the tangible support services.
So I would say that that actually is unfair and it's very untrue of a statement.
I would say we would have also different policy debates about a lot of things that are very important that determine how humans thrive in our nation.
But I think we need to also enter in those conversations with good intentions with one another, not assuming that each other or those on the other side of the aisle just hate human beings.
You know, my position on, I don't know, immigration or school choice or health care might be different than yours, but that's not meaning that I'm starting with the assumption that I hate human beings and I think human beings should suffer.
I would say I have very good reasons for why, for example, I oppose socialized health care or why I think there should be choice in education.
Parents should be able to choose to send their children to charter schools as opposed to sending them to failing public schools.
I'm not saying that because I hate children.
I'm saying that because I think it's a good policy prescription that can benefit society.
So I think that's actually, you know, when you come to those arguments, both sides are actually saying that they value human life.
What's different in the pro-life movement is we're saying that valuableness, that human dignity that we're giving to a child who's at the border or a child who's stuck in a failing school in Detroit, we believe that child in the womb has that same dignity because we are all human beings.
And fundamentally, the one thing that we all have in common is our humanness.
And human beings deserve basic human rights.
And that first right is the right not to be killed.
Did you have anything to add, Lila?
Well, I mean, we just released our new North Star coalition kind of position statement saying we need complete legal protection for all humans in this country, you know, the abolishing of abortion.
And we also need to make our country a friendlier place to raise a family.
And so that goes to things like a child subsidy.
I think that if you're a parent, you should get a cash benefit, you know, money back for that child.
I think we need to make birth free in this country.
So I do think that there are some things that even conservatives can get behind to say, listen, you know, we should be funding things that make our family, our country, more pro-family.
Got it.
And maybe last thing to go out on a lighter note, should we react to that Dave Chappelle clip?
Just on the heavy, heavy light.
I don't know if that's a lot of light.
Heavy flight.
All right, let's do a little clip.
We'll react to a little clip here, kind of related from Dave Chappelle's stand-up.
We'll get the panel's input and then we're going to wrap up.
All right.
Yeah, just go ahead and.
Do you want me to say something?
Videos tab.
Oh, shoot.
Yeah.
I'm trying to hold them.
I've got to change my flight.
We're going to put it centered.
Oh, C-T, perfect.
Yeah.
But when was your flight?
I changed it.
When was it?
It was tonight, like midnight.
It's not going to happen.
Out of where?
LAX, I had to dinner as well.
So I'm going to have to stay for breakfast and then.
When is your flight to DC or where?
Are you worried that you're just going to miss it or do you have other things you want to do instead?
I have to have a meeting before I leave.
So I'm stuck here.
Because if you show up, I'll say what I think anyway.
Wait.
I'm not for abortion.
Can you make it...
Eric, hold on.
Pause, Go to the audio symbol.
Make sure it's all the way up.
Oh, that's weird.
I'll know if we can hear it.
I was going to say, if you show up late, usually they'll let you fly stand by on like another flight instead of a three-book on it.
Yeah, I'm looking at it right now.
Bro, hello.
Can you start from the beginning?
Can you start from the beginning?
I'll be real with you, and I know nobody gives a fuck what I think anyway.
I'm not for abortion.
Oh, shut up, nigga.
Not for it, not against it either.
It all depends on why you're pregnant.
I'm going to tell you right now, I don't care what your religious beliefs are or anything.
If you have a dick, you need to shut the fuck up on this one.
Seriously, this is theirs.
The right to choose is their unequivocal right.
Not only do I believe they have the right to choose, I believe that they shouldn't have to consult anybody, except for a physician, about how they exercise that right.
Gentlemen, that is fair.
And ladies, to be fair to us, I also believe if you decide to have the baby, a man should not have to pay.
That's fair.
If you can kill this motherfucker, I can at least abandon them.
It's my money my choice and if I'm wrong then perhaps we're wrong Just figure that shit out for yourselves.
Okay, I think that's it.
The reaction from the panel.
I love when comedy reveals the truth about how our abortion laws in America don't actually make sense.
That men have no rights to say whether or not a woman can choose to pay someone to end the life of her child.
He has no say in the decision at all, even though that child was created with half of his DNA.
Yet she decides to keep the child and raise a child and he wants an abortion, he could be put in jail for failing to pay child support.
I think that's unfair and it doesn't make sense.
And I think it emasculates men in our society.
I know many of us in the pro-life movement believe that child support should actually begin at conception because that would be fair, right?
She has, as a mother, you have a special role and your body is justing another human being, so men cannot do that.
But the man should step up, but we should allow him to be able to step up.
So I think it proves the irony.
Some logical consistency in that skit.
I thought it was funny, but every point he brought up was dark shit.
Not the best, not the best.
Well, I mean, he also, I mean, he also made the no uterus, no opinion.
Yeah, the problem is that everybody should be interested and invested in whether or not children are being murdered in the United States, whether you're a man or a woman.
So the idea that just because you have a dick means you don't have a pain is fucking beyond stupid.
Also, the problem with financial abortions is the way that family courts are structured and the way we think about paying child support is we're always thinking about not in terms of what's fair to the mother or father, we're thinking about in terms of what's in the best interest of the child.
And in the best interest of the child, if you're going to have a child, the child needs financial support.
If the government's not going to be able to pay, then the father has to step up and pay, or the mother if the child goes with the father.
So child support isn't something that's supposed to be fair, or you can have a financial abortion if the woman can have a physical abortion.
Child support is just supposed to mean that if a child is born, it needs to be financially cared for.
And some of that financial support should probably come from the two people that made the child.
Usually it's the father paying child support because usually the mother is a caretaker.
That's an interesting point that you're making, and I agree with a lot of what you're saying, Destiny, because our court system, when it is oriented towards the child's welfare as opposed to the desires of the adult, I think that's just because the child is the one that needs the advocate there and is the one that's the most vulnerable.
I do think sometimes our court systems are not focused as much on the child and our legal system is not focused as much on the child.
Obviously, abortion is case in point because the woman decides in some cases obviously to have the abortion or she's coerced into it and she has it.
And then in other areas in reproductive technologies.
Because reproductive technologies, most of them are all about the adults desiring to have a child.
And in the process of creating all these children, a lot of them are killed or endangered and that's harmful too.
But overall, I think it doesn't make sense.
It's like the Lacey and Carr Pearson law here in California.
In California, you can kill your child in abortion, no questions asked.
That's a celebrated right.
But if you are murdered by your husband or your partner on your way to an abortion facility, you as a woman are murdered and your child is murdered, he can be tried with committing two murders.
Does that make sense to anyone?
Well, and I have a question here for Destiny related to the Dave Chappelle clip.
So, you know, he's sort of talking at the end there.
What did he say?
My wallet, my choice, or my money, my choice.
This is obviously directed at someone who's pro-choice.
Do you have a stance on legal paternal surrender?
I feel you can't do it.
No.
You can't do legal paternal surrender.
So, wait, when you say paternal center, are you talking about like the financial abortion, being able to say, I don't want to have any paternity, I don't want to be able to do it?
Yeah, I mean, I think the term that people who are in favor of it prefer not to use either paper abortion or financial abortion.
But would you be in favor of that?
I mean, in a world where the government was subsidized and take care of all of it, sure.
But when it's not happening, no, you probably have to pony up for the financial support.
Okay.
Okay.
I think that's totally fine.
The penalties of, I fucking hate talking about this issue, these audiences, but the penalties of being a single mother that has to take care of a child for 18 years is so infinitely greater than the penalties of paying some child support, of which half of fucking fathers don't even fucking pay anyway.
That the idea of like comparing those two things is one of the most retarded fucking things I've ever heard of uttered by virgins is actually one of the stupidest fucking things to complain about the burden of child support when you're abandoning your kid to a single mom.
That is unfucking believable to see if you can get it.
I think we have some common ground there, Destiny, because I do think that that's part of the reason we have so many abortions actually is because, yes, it's women are choosing these abortions, but most women who have abortions actually are single moms.
And so they're already dealing with raising a child on their own and a broken relationship with a man who's usually not in the picture and sometimes, like you're saying, defaulting on child support.
So I think that is a major problem.
Well, Destiny, I guess my response to you there would be you say that the ramifications impact women a bit more greatly.
But I mean, when it comes to the financial component, for example, men, if You know, we did away many years ago with debtors' prisons, but men who fail to pay child support, perhaps they're in some financial, bad financial position.
They're going to get locked up in jail.
Go to the court and work it out.
Rearrange your child support is usually based on your income, your ability to pay.
You figure that out when you know I pay child support, so I know that it's based on your income and everything.
It's not like they're going to take a guy that's earning $1,000 a month and he's got to pay $10,000 a month to his rich single mom who's driving around in a Ferrari because of all the money she's making on child support.
Or if it's really that big of an issue, as much as I hate to say it, wear a condom, don't get somebody pregnant.
But what if the guy is indigent?
So you just what?
Indigent.
Is that the right word?
Impotent?
What are you talking about?
Indigent.
Indigenous.
Oh, like homeless.
Homeless, no money.
Oh, he can't afford to pay shit anyway.
What do you mean?
Right, but I mean, I'd have to look into it further.
But my understanding is even if you don't make any money, if you fail to pay child support, that puts you at risk of being incarcerated.
Well, I think the courts get into the details of the situation because if you are like, you're homeless because of some medical injury or something, or you have a mental health condition, they will take that into account because usually there's court proceedings where the woman's trying to get the money from the man.
So it depends on the circumstances.
You know what?
You did make another interesting statement there, though, Destiny.
And you said that, well, the man, if he's concerned with the financial ramifications of pregnancy and having a child, then, well, he should just not have sex.
That's a rather pro-life.
Yep, that's the same thing.
That's literally what I tell students on campuses every time.
It's a very rather bronze age, pro-life position of you to take.
I don't think it's a pro-life position at all.
Well, it seems like almost.
It's a cautious position, right?
Listen, my rule is I only know women that make more money than I do.
Okay?
So, you know, I got somebody pregnant, they got the money to take care of their shit.
I don't knock up any fucking broke bitches.
That's how you live your life.
Boom.
There's nothing bronze age about that.
Also, I'm pro-choice.
My wife gets knocked up.
We're getting an abortion.
We're driving down to the abortion clinic.
Like, boom, have the conversation before.
Like, I don't know what to say.
You have some amount of ability to exercise your reproductive rights with a woman.
I mean, if you're worried about her getting pregnant, be careful.
Either use multiple forms of birth control, don't use birth control, make sure she's got a really long staircase.
I mean, whatever you have to do, but I mean, once the child is born, it has to be provided for.
You can't just be like, oh, well, I didn't want to.
Oh, no, no, no, no, because now you have a living person whose life is going to be materially impacted by the financial contributions you make.
So at that point, you have to consider the best interests of the child.
You know, would have, could have, should have had an abortion or should have fucked, whatever.
You're past the point at that point.
So, well, sure, I suck, and it's not fair.
It's not really fair because sometimes people want men, especially want to argue this point of fairness.
It's also not fair that women have to carry and deliver kids.
But like all red pillars like to say, life isn't fair.
It's not always fair.
Men and women aren't the same.
Men have to pony up a little bit more on the financial responsibility side.
Women have to fucking deliver kids and have periods and be annoying in general.
So life isn't fair.
That's just the reality of the situation, right?
Well, I think we agree a lot with you on a lot of that, Destiny.
Except for the long staircase comment.
You were saying something earlier that was interesting.
I don't know if you want to talk about it, Destiny, before the camera started about you used to be pro-life, now you're pro-choice, but you have a son.
And then you made some comment about you wouldn't, something about your son.
If I would have been pro-choice, would have been super aborted.
What's that?
Yeah, I would have had an abortion if I would have been pro-choice pregnant, but I was super pro-life when my kid's mom was pregnant.
So we had a conversation and I can't have an abortion if I'm pro-life because I feel like a hypocrite.
Do you feel like your pro-son would hear this?
How would it affect him?
No, I tell it to.
What do you mean?
You told your 12-year-old son of a lovely person.
Yeah, super frank.
But he knows me and his mom are split up.
It's not like we chose that arrangement.
Like we want to be split or whatever.
But I still love him.
How do you think that affects your child?
It doesn't.
He knows I love him.
We hang out.
We have fun.
Like, I talk to him.
I love him.
But I'm not going to say that.
I'm not going to be able to do what I could have killed you.
Before he existed.
But he was in existence because he was alive.
Okay.
Are we going to redo the whole conversation?
Human beings aren't in existence?
You're saying they're not persons, but they're still in existence because they are.
Their hearts are beating through their body.
What I'm saying is, I don't treat my kid like an idiot.
He sees he has two separated parents, so obviously the situation is not ideal.
But I love my kid, of course I do.
Now that I have him, I wouldn't kill him.
We could have had an abortion.
I mean, maybe at some point.
But you tell him that you would have aborted him.
I don't know if you said that.
I make jokes about it, but I can bring him for the next conversation.
We'll see.
Hopefully, he thinks it's a joke because that probably would be hard to hear.
I don't think we're all traumatized the same way.
But maybe.
He might be traumatized.
I'm a little traumatized, and I wanted to be spinning.
I'm not afraid of a child to be told.
Yeah, I would have killed you.
Absolutely.
I say it just like that, too.
All right, we have our last chat here, King of Arena.
Thank you for the donation, man.
I'm on the fence about whether a fetus is a person, but since killing a person is significantly worse than an unwanted pregnancy, it seems better to risk being pro-life than pro-choice.
I'd think even a half or third chance of killing a kid is worse.
That was the point I made earlier when I was asking Destiny about what if he is wrong versus what I am wrong.
That even if you're not 100% sure.
I'm really resetting this whole argument.
No, I'm just reaffirming what the commoner was saying.
Even if you're not 100% sure if a fetus is a person that you think has rights to life, I think we always need to err on the side of caution.
And that's why I was calling your choice of saying person who doesn't begin in 20 weeks is worth it.
I mean, it's the hunter.
Well, it's the hunter hypothetical.
If you're hunting and you hear rustling in the bushes and it might be a human, but it might be a deer, do you just shoot before you can confirm that this isn't a human, this is a deer?
And you would say, well, let's make sure I'm actually hunting a deer and not a human here.
So, but that's probably a good idea.
But there's going to be a lot of people who are not going to be able to do that.
But hold on.
When you go hunting, there is a chance that you could shoot a person in a deer suit right now.
But if you knew that there was a 10-year-old wandering through the woods near hunting, it's not a good idea.
Yeah, but even so, you could be shooting a guy in a deer suit every time you shoot, right?
Well, if you knew that there was, again, the hypothetical problem.
I'm not saying you knew.
Oh, we lost our lives.
In the hypothetical.
Hold on, can we engage with the hypothetical?
Yeah, well, I was.
There could be a person in a deer suit, right?
Okay.
I'm sorry, that's real life.
There could be a person in a deer suit, right?
Okay.
But what you would say is, is it worth me to eat meat knowing I could be killing human?
What you would say is the probability of me eating meat is very, very, very high if I hunt to kill this thing.
The probability of that being a living person is very, very, very, very high.
Right, and you can take the hypothetical to an extreme.
Like, you can say, well, because you can say, when I get in a car, I might kill someone in a car accident.
Is it worth the risk?
Asking, like, can I do this thing if it caused this bad thing?
You have to weight those probabilistically because that's where the whole thing is.
We already know with an abortion, with an abortion, you know, you know that it ends the life of the thing.
But if even if you're like, well, I'm not sure if it's a human or not, so this is not your position, Destiny, is some pro-choicers.
They're like, I'm not sure whether or not it's a human.
I don't know when life begins.
And the pro-life response to that is to say, well, if you don't know when life begins, saying it's okay to kill something that could be a life, even by your definition, is not just and not.
And I understand.
And I'm saying that locking an 11-year-old for having an abortion because she's pregnant.
But now you're going to an extreme.
You can't call it an extreme, girl.
That's real life.
But she's going to emotional abortion now.
Which I think we actually disagreed on that case.
I was saying we shouldn't lock up the 11-year-old.
You accused us of going to emotional arguments, but you've been the whole time saying you have a very straightforward, fact-based opinion that it's just consciousness and you're sure.
Well, hold on.
She's giving me a potential risk, and I'm giving you a potential risk.
I do just want to say, like, I know we're leading the end of this year.
A little combo.
I do think overall Destiny is trying to argue his best, and he's doing that.
I don't need your charity.
I'm not trying my best.
I was bad faithful.
Well, and I know Kristen, and I know she has great intention.
So I just want to, I know the bad faith thing has been leveled a bit, but I will just say I think there's a lot of good faith, imperfect debating happening here.
I think you two are evil.
Unironically, you guys are like out here trying to get abortion rights and everything banned from all of human society and shit.
I think that's kind of evil shit.
Restricting the rights of women.
Well, I think dismembering a child in the womb is absolutely horrific.
We can at least all agree.
We all think each other is evil.
I didn't say you're evil, Destiny.
I hate evil.
I'm advocating for fucking child murder.
What is more evil than that?
It's got to be a pretty evil position.
Well, in your mind, because of, I think, cognitive dissonance, you're convinced yourself.
You've seemingly almost perfected.
Nazis convinced themselves that killing Jews was good.
That didn't make it a good thing, right?
You convinced yourself that they are not human lives, that they don't matter, that they're not persons, therefore it's okay to kill them for any, almost any reason except for eugenics, but almost any reason.
So, in that case, because if you sincerely think that, and again, I think there's cognitive dissonance at play, you know, I think, yeah, they think there are some good intentions that you have.
I mean, I sincerely think that.
Gotcha.
I do think that the position, the pro-abortion position at its heart, though, is not just illogical, but it's evil because has led to the killing of 60 million children in this country.
And that's absolutely horrific, and that's why we are working at Live Action to stop that and save lives and serve women and help and do all the things that we're doing, educate, et cetera.
60 million people.
Would you say that's like 10 times more or like 100 times?
Where are you at on the other human rights abuse in our history and in the 20th century?
I'm sorry.
I was in advance.
All right, Destiny, can you show the camera the doodles you've been driving?
I don't even know.
They were very good doodles this whole time.
It was wonderful.
In any case, I was a little jealous because I went to the show and you're like, brought that to Destiny.
Yeah, yes, for some.
Oh, I had to do that.
Well, you didn't need that because I let you guys finish your statement.
So you were.
Well, no, I mean, Destiny, you went really fast and you were like changing the topic.
I mean, we were, I think, both doing that in fairness.
So next time, you know what we could do?
Next time we need a whiteboard.
A moderator.
You did great, Brian, but someone who.
No, no, no.
Not Don and Brian, but we're not going to be able to do that.
And they cut the camera.
We do need a whiteboard.
But more, put the question up and then we each take a turn answering and then have like two minutes.
We'll get like a timer.
Like a timer and then 30 seconds to respond.
That's true.
No, this is my first time.
That's okay.
This is my first second.
I'd like you to do a whiteboard where you just draw out the arguments in terms of that.
Okay, so Lila, where can people find you?
Thank you.
So liveaction.org is our pro-life organization.
So we have all kinds of arguments for life, responding to his position, as many other pro-abortion positions, facts and resources.
If you want to be educated or educate other people, follow us on social media.
I have a podcast too, the Lila Rose Podcast, and my new, brand new YouTube channel.
Destiny, you should come on and we'll do another one.
Whenever you want, okay.
And so you can check that out on YouTube, Lila Rose podcast.
And all of our socials are live action or Lila Rose.
You can check us out at studentsforlife.org or standingwithyou.org if you need pregnancy resources or support or help for abortion pill reversal.
I've got a podcast explicitly pro-life, and you can check out my YouTube and my Instagram and all my social media handles at Kristen Hawkins.
Destiny, where can people find you?
You can check me out at www.nomorebabies.org.
Okay, we show you the best brands of hangers to use, how to use copper IUDs to have abortions, all sorts of exotic ways to abort a pregnancy you never even could have imagined or could have dreamed of.
Also, youtube.com/slash destiny, kick.com slash destiny, and destiny.gg.
Are you getting a kick deal, by the way?
Wouldn't you like to know?
All right.
Oh, I have to say one thing since Lila's here.
Lila, I saw the interview with Pints with Aquinas.
Aquinas.
Aquinas, and I have to, this is part of the beef, I guess.
I've never even addressed it.
He said, he said that he hopes that the whatever podcast crashes and burns.
So Pints with Aquinas.
I hope, am I even pronouncing it right?
Yes, Aquinas.
I hope that.
He didn't know enough about it.
Your thing crashes and burns too.
Damn.
How about that?
You can crash and burn also.
Okay.
In any case, thank you, everyone, for tuning in.
Big thank you to the wonderful panel here for coming tonight.
Thank you to everyone who tuned in to watch.
You could have been anywhere in the world, but you were here with me.
I appreciate that.
Thank you to everyone who so generously super chats and donates and supports the show.
It means the world.
Thank you, thank you.
Thank you.
Five hours, Brian.
It was a long, it was a long show, long show, but it was good.
That was good.
Guys, the dating talk is going to be back Tuesday the 27th, so about a week from now.
We'll be back at our, and then thereon after we'll be back to our normal schedule, Sunday and Tuesday at 7 p.m. Pacific.
Tuesday the 27th, 7 p.m. Pacific is our first dating talk back.
If everybody in the chat, if I could get some 07s in the chat.
07s in the chat, guys, please.
But yeah, thanks again for tuning in tonight.
Thank you once again to the wonderful panel for coming and doing this.
And 07s in the chat, and we will see you guys next time.
Good night, guys.
Bye.
▲
Export Selection