CVS Meta - 2022-05-09 - Kieran Responds to Brenda

Author Recorded Monday May 9th, 2022

There are 20 episodes in the Meta:Rants series.

Kieran Lisney sent me this brief audio response to the latest Brenda Von Ahsen episode because Kieran is very passionate about the philosophical and religious truths that undergird the pro-life position. Brenda is invited to respond to this response.

Under Construction

Under Construction

These YouTube transcripts are generated automatically and are therefore unformatted and replete with errors.
in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit amen glory to thee our god glory to thee heavenly king of comforter the spirit of truth who are everywhere present in philisti all things treasury of every good in the store of life come and abide in us cleanse us from every stain and save our souls oh good one through the prayers of holy fathers lord jesus christ our god have mercy on us and save us amen name of the father and of the son and the holy spirit amen brenda it is very nice to be addressing you i've listened to your interviews before my name is uh kieran sorry i'm driving right now so i listened to your interview today while i was at work currently on my way back from work your latest interview with david and i really enjoyed it it was very entertaining it's always good to hear your take on things and i wanted to address some of the topics that you guys had talked about not so much um kovid the vax and all that stuff i i side with david on that stuff um but i'm not you know i'm not as emphatic on that um if you want to you know put an experimental drug into you or uh whatever that's you know that's your prerogative it doesn't affect me any and i just find the whole uh conversation around it as not being totally interesting um so you know we'll talk about some of that stuff or i'll address some of that stuff but only as it relates to bodily autonomy and the issue of abortion which is what i'm really passionate about in this case i wish you guys would have covered on that topic for the whole time [Music] i was really surprised i must say by your admission that from the moment of conception it is considered a separate human being within the person the mother in this case if we can say that if i might be so bold as to say that it's only mothers who can give birth to children and i have to say that i was very pleased to hear you admit that at the same time a little bit saddened because on one hand you admit this is a human life and on the other hand you take the position that it's okay to snuff that life out and to ostensibly get rid of it and throw it in the trash obviously i'm sure you wouldn't use such egregious words but it's tantamount to what's going on but i wanted to point out some of the philosophical things because that like david is what i'm very interested in not so much the legality of it because i think that in terms of natural law which you deny and uh national law uh in our legislative and judicial system i don't think that uh the law has much to offer in terms of what a christian already has because i think there are plenty of laws that are um reprobate in character and i think that there are also a lot of laws that are really good and reflect god's character and they change and they're malleable and as you can see throughout your your um you know your basic overlook of history you'll see that laws change over time and that doesn't as you i'm sure would agree does not um negate whether or not something is immoral or moral just because it now has the legal stamp of approval or lacks that stamp of approval case in point being slavery for instance so i wanted to talk about a little of a little bit about these philosophical inconsistencies because you did say a number of things that i actually found um blatantly contradictory and i was surprised that i think david didn't point them out maybe because he's interested in more of a friendly back and forth and i have to admit that the reason why i'm giving you this type of a message or response in the first place is because i don't know if i have the wherewithal to sit there and not allow my pride to bubble up when i'm having a discussion of this nature with somebody and so perhaps that can be something we do in the future but you know in the meantime for the moment i'll just keep it to a general response and then you can respond if you want so you did say um you know multiple times that you don't believe that natural law exists and that you only follow the laws of science but i did see many many not only appeals to natural law from your side uh namely in regards to what it means to be autonomous in terms of uh one choosing or not not to take the vaccine but also in terms of intrinsic rights that women supposedly have to be able to choose what they want to do with quote unquote their body and we'll talk about their body and what that actually means in a second but i wanted to point out this first inconsistency because i think it's a presupposition that you hold to that kind of hinders and invalidates almost every one of your arguments that you make because on one hand you want to say that god doesn't have natural law set up upon the earth in fact because god does not exist but then you appeal to all of these arts and you derive them from you know what is and you can't get that from a naturalistic atheistic worldview it's just not possible going back to slavery you would agree that we ought not to keep slaves anymore and i would agree with you wholeheartedly but again if you know theoretical law or law of the nation is what we solely follow then you'd have to admit that if that were to come back into function today from your own standpoint from your own objective standard of what is good and what is not you would have to admit that slavery is then good because it's legal i'm sure you wouldn't like to do that but you would be forced into that corner then going back to the fetus being a human life you say from the moment of of conception the the baby is a human life it's a it's an actual human nobody would dispute that which that's what you said but i know many people that would dispute that in fact your position is rather unique not many people will admit that who are on the pro-choice side or pro-murder side as i say women can do what she wants with her body even kill the human life now i don't want to talk about whether or not this is really her body or not yet david pressed you on this issue and i think that he got you to concede that it's not truly her body but i want to talk to you about how this is a glaring inconsistency from the beginning of the talk that you had with david in regards to whether or not david or people like david like myself who have not gotten the jab are responsible for killing other people by having not taken the vaccine and further from that not just whether or not they're responsible but whether or not it's actually a bad thing because it's not just their body that they're then working with now you even made close to this argument where you said well you're affecting other people by not having the vaccine and i would say you might be able to make a case for that you you as somebody who refuses the vaccine if the vaccines actually were proven to work let's say in a perfect world they all do work and somebody refuses to take one but they don't want to do it because of some moral reason they find with it fetal stem lines etc and they don't take the vaccine and then as a result of that they unknowingly infect somebody else with the coronavirus and that person ends up in the hospital and dies now getting back to legality this would not constitute first-degree murder but further from that it's that person's body and they're not even directly trying to affect the other person that they affected inadvertently by not taking the vaccine so if your principal applies that it's a woman's body let's substitute that word for it's a person's body and they can do what they want with their body even kill another human life which is what you said about abortion then the logical conclusion is you don't have a leg to stand on or to criticize other people who don't want to take the vaccine because whether you like it or not the logical outcome of your argument for the woman's right to choose is the exact inverse of what you want when it comes to the vaccine if it's a woman's right to do what she wants with her body and she's directly knowingly and i don't want to say passionately but she's willfully killing another human life because her body supersedes at other persons and you're okay with that then you should be okay with that in terms of the vaccine as well i also find it interesting that you make this exact quote at about 56 minutes in you say to david you want to increase the suffering and i want to decrease the suffering that's the difference between the two of you is what you claim and yet again we have another big problem here we have an ought that you're pulling from an is human suffering exists but it doesn't mean just because that human suffering exists that we should try and diminish it by what naturalistic atheistic stand um or or position can you say that that's a bad thing and that we should not uh aim to increase suffering or to even deal with suffering because david wasn't advocating for uh you know intentionally increasing somebody's suffering he was simply saying that it's a possibility that somebody might suffer that doesn't mean you get to kill them and your position is well if you can stop the suffering even if that requires killing the person then why not do it that should be okay that's a it's a real big problem these are just some of the the basic ideas that i've i've i've gleaned from listening to your interview just one time through and just kind of mulling some of these things over in my head brenda and i have to say that um you know god he when he speaks through his prophet isaiah he says come let us reason together i'd have to say that for all of the academia and um the logical and philosophical engagements that the atheistic the new atheistic world has engaged in it's really um you know moot at this point because there's no way to there's no way to reason when one contradiction comes after another um you talk a lot about science and you talk a lot about following the authorities in science well again i i hate to beleaguered the point but just look at phrenology for instance look at the study of the size of the human skull and this supposed effect it has on declaring whether or not a human is inferior or superior this was the science that was mainstream back in the 1800s that many um slave proponents used to argue the fact that african americans were inferior not only spiritually but also physically from whites and other races because they looked at the function of the brain and they looked at or excuse me the size of the skull and they looked at all these other pseudosciences now this was mainstream science and it was touted by some of the most prominent scientists of its day and we look back on that now and we shudder in horror and i think that the same thing is going to come to fruition in terms of a lot of the junk science that we're given today you made a couple other claims and i'll just address this last one before i go but you saw you said to david you leveled the accusation against david that um he is not willing to listen to other sources and that he only is willing to listen to quacks um and he offered link after link and i'm sure he sent them to you and uh you probably wrote them off as quote unquote conspiracy theorists well my challenge to to you would be how is your position any different because all i heard you talk about uh at the times where you weren't totally ignorant like for instance of the the pfizer vaccine and the way that it's supposed to be transported etc apart from those instances where you were totally ignorant and had no idea you only appealed to mainstream media and you openly admitted that you would only trust those sources because they weren't quote unquote conspiracy theorists and i would again just challenge you um to really to really give a fair shake if you haven't already to a lot of the um not right-wing just you said it yourself this is not about politics i'm not a i i hate politics myself um i'm not left or right i just want what's true um but but find some really good sources find dr robert malone for instance the one of the founders and discoverers of the mrna vaccine look at these different people see what they have to say don't just take what cnn or fox or msnbc is telling you um and and what david said is true you know the cdc um the the world health organization a lot of these vaccine companies now that we have the uh ukrainian uh russian uh issue going on a lot of people's attention is diverted and they're starting to drop a lot of things that we supposed conspiracy theorists have been saying all along that cloth mass don't work that um you know massive ass vaccination in the long run is not going to do anything that people with the vaccine are still spreading the virus they're still getting the virus they're still getting sick even after one two three shots plus they're still uh they're still virus machines and that's not bad you know um not necessarily so you know these are all types of things you made a lot of blanket claims um that i think really stand out as being uninformed and like you said to your credit because you're not that interested in it that's probably why they were uninformed but if you're ever interested in talking perhaps we can do that i would like to really talk about philosophy with you if you're interested um definitely the philosophy undergirding the um the issue of abortion because i don't think it's a woman's right to choose like david i do think that um you know i'm not so interested in the legality of it but um you know in the end even if it weren't a legal issue a woman does not have the right to choose to kill her offspring it's wrong um and you you said it yourself this is another human being's life there are many cases where yes sure you said that the legality of it states that it's not murder so it's not murder well there's many legal cases where the killing of an unborn fetus inside the womb of a mother who did not want to get an abortion is now considered um a second killing or a murder for whoever the perpetrator is and they use that against them in court so i want to get away from the court of law i want to i want to talk about philosophy and um you know kids are dependent on their parents until they're 18 years old do we have the right to kill them you know when they're still suckling upon their mother's breasts or something no we don't but they're still using the woman's body in order to gain nutrition and safety and comfort and life and so the logic that because it's in a woman's body she has the right to kill it doesn't follow it simply doesn't follow and um there's very small cases where it would be not considered from a christian standpoint to be um you know a murder the ectopic pregnancies are a great case where the baby's not gonna survive anyway and if you don't remove the baby the mother will die that's not murder but this is a very small percentage right so uh anyway i'm rambling but i love you i i loved hearing about your birthday i put a really nice human spin um on on who you are as a person because i found myself getting a little angry at you at certain points and then to have the the blow softened by um you know your your talk about your birthday anyway i love you take care god bless is [Music]