we are live we're here with kieran and brenda it's up to you to to run the discussion so about now have a good one all right awesome hey brenda uh good afternoon good evening yes evening whatever how are you doing um i'm doing okay i'm doing okay good so um i guess we were gonna talk about abortion yes i guess so okay um so i did listen to your talk with uh joe and then um i don't know i made a response to you forever ago um that i don't know you probably didn't listen to it was it's more just kind of ramblings after hearing your discussion with joe because i was pretty surprised to hear your take on a in particular it might have been the discussion you had with david actually before with uh then then with joe or you guys discussed abortion and you had talked about the fact that it's a human being from the point of conception have you uh maintained well yes it's um it's human it's human tissue right my blood is human right my fingernail is human so uh i'm not sure i know what you mean when you add in human being but well are all of the necessary components for a fully matured adult human being within that little zygote or that single celled organism no they're not there it has to develop over time all of the dna is not there and present replicate okay the dna is present in my blood okay your admission to david was not that this was human tissue but rather that this was a human being from the point of conception your only qualm with it was that even though this is a human being this is a human life if you don't like the word being or something like that this is a life from the point of conception is that it should still be or maintained to be the woman's right to abort the child or murder the child yes okay well it's not murder since it's legal well that's not how you judge what's what's yes no it's not if the law were to change tomorrow that says that abortion is not murder or is murder excuse me would you then concede that abortion is murder i i would say that yes legally abortion abortionism is murder and i always murder someone um i would argue that the law needs to be changed but if it were illegal if it were if it were legally considered murder at that point and murder is wrong is murder wrong uh yeah okay so if it were legally considered to be murder let's let's not let's not even let's leave out the whole you know we can petition to have this law changed at that in point of fact at that time before the law is changed if it's considered murder would you then concede that it's murder and that it's wrong if murder is is wrong uh yeah but i think that people can um it's legal it's illegal that's what i mean by wrong it's just against those social norms at the time yes and i would advocate that i can advocate i would yeah it is i would simply advocate that people um this will either disobey the law if they wish to in civil civil disobedience or else uh lobby um to get the law changed to one that is um but murder is wrong but murder is wrong yeah okay so you're gonna advocate to have something that is wrong that's being uh that that that's not being protected so something that's wrong that's not being protected by the law you're saying well i want that thing that's wrong to be protected well if the speed limit is 70 miles an hour and i think that it should be 55. um who cares what you think why would i care about that uh because that's how society reaches laws by by a democratic process right so if if i'm speeding in our society sure yeah if i'm speeding um i'm breaking the law even if i think okay we're not talking about we're not talking about speeding we're talking about we're talking about taking a human life let's keep it on the topic of yeah i don't i would consider natural law i would consider this natural law you don't get to kill another person i i think that they're saying is natural law i know you don't i know you reject natural law i think that's silly but i think there's plenty of things i think i think you intuit the idea that natural law exists because you think that things are uh your personal preference and that they ought to be followed so i think that you do actually adhere to a form of natural law you just deny it um while simultaneously trying to persuade people of your of of what your inclination towards um your preference might be but but but again it's arbitrary it's ad hoc it doesn't matter what you want if you can't set up a formal standard for why it is your opinion is better than another's then it's just that it's just your opinion i can give reasons why i think i can give reasons why i think michael well reasons are different than justification reasons are different reasons are just that's what reasons are that's not what that's not what justification is yeah it is no no no it's not not necessarily i think they are what do you think they are you can have a reason that is totally unreasonable i mean i could be like a friend yeah yeah sure you can sure you can reason i could say brenda why do you why do you like the color blue and you say oh well because applesauce tastes good and that applesauce i had has a blue lid on it that's why i like the color blue that's not like that's not a good reason that's not a justification i don't think it's a perfectly good reason i think it's gonna be hard i think it can have any arbiter yes it would be but for your personal you're forgetting that you set up that you you stated at the outset that murder is wrong um yeah it's it's against it goes against my social norms of the country where i live yeah okay so is murder is murder wrong here just as it's wrong in china 500 years ago uh probably not there's probably differences about what's what's uh moral or immoral or against the laws of uh brendan reporting according to brenda there would be things that i would disagree with but if i was in china i would have to observe the um the the the normative customs of the land unless i chose to either be in civil disobedience or to convince the people that i live with that i have a better way of doing things but all of this all of this is obvious all of this is obfuscating and not actually getting to the issue as to whether or not something is actually ontologically wrong or not i don't think there's any such thing as ontological wrong okay so then why so then why do you care if people say that uh that put laws i do care restrictions on abortions okay but why because what's the point what's the point well i have reasons for for opposing uh other people because it's um it's a woman's choice um to control her pregnancy it's her body it's her body and it's not her body it's not her body it's not her body pretty sure that it is it's not her body okay stop interrupting stop interrupting guys just have a back and forth so a woman has a right to control her pregnancy it's her body and it's her choice and if she does not consent to uh holding the pregnancy then it's her right to terminate it okay so two points are you finished yeah okay two points num first of all um it's my body i have a three-year-old son he's fully dependent upon my body 100 yes i do he's fully 100 yes i do he's fully hold on i didn't interrupt you he's fully dependent upon my body if i were to leave him in the room by himself for a day or two with no supervision whatsoever he'd either stick his finger in a light socket and kill himself or he would die of starvation because my son is totally incompetent and doesn't know how to take care of himself he's 100 percent dependent upon my body and my wife's body still at this point no do i have the right to kill do i have the right to kill my son so he's not no you don't so you he's not dependent on your body he is dependent he's 100 dependent on my body not in some way not in the same way he's not living he's not living off the nutrients from my body specifically right that's what i mean by being dependent on your body okay he's still dependent on my body is he not he's not no he is did he depend on the paycheck that i bring home from work that would be being dependent on your paycheck not your body and does my body go to work for me i would think that you go to work yeah okay does my body is my body uh encompassed by me does my body i would say i would think that you would include your your body as as a part of you yes okay so if my body is the means for my income and my son is dependent upon my income then that is only one instance in which my son is fully dependent upon my body that's no that's not a logical argument it is a logical one because it doesn't follow from the fact that you have a body and that your son is dependent on you earning a paycheck that therefore he's dependent on your body that's not uh um that's not a that's not a uh a sound argument that's just not sound okay i fully 100 disagree i think it's a completely sound argument i think that my son has been dependent upon my wife's body since conception until now he still is and if we were to um exclude our bodies from the equation and we were to not do anything for our son and nobody else were to come and substitute their body or their um their help or nurturing with my son that he would die because he is a three-year-old and he does not and and but so here's again here's the logical step then you would say that i don't have the right to get rid of my son i want to know is it only because the baby inside the womb is dependent in a different way on the woman's body that that somehow means they have no right to life is that is that where you're drawing that distinction well the reason that you are um morally and legally responsible for your child is because after he's born i don't care about i don't i don't care about legalities we're talking we're talking about philosophically here there's plenty there's plenty of there's plenty of societies in china again let's go back to china where it's okay it's okay to leave your unwanted child abandoned and you will not get penalized for it okay there have been plenty of there are plenty so you brenda if you were to see that because it's legal in that country it would be okay to do that to abandon that child uh not for me no i would i would disagree with that very expensive that's a psychological state that's a psychological state i don't care if so i would just like that and i would so i would disagree with that and i would try to convince the people around me that it's it's that's not a good solution to a problem so that's what i would do um but they think it is a good solution yeah okay and i would try to convince them otherwise just like if i was in um in in a country where they practiced slavery i would say that that was wrong and that i would disagree with it i would not cooperate with that society and i would try to convince the people that they should change the laws and forbid slavery are you still there brenda yes i'm still here nothing happened not in my mind it okay it broke up on my end it's probably my computer i have a poor connection um yeah i mean again i i don't think we're going deep enough i don't think that i i don't i don't care personally and i'm not saying that to be mean i i don't care what your personal want or desire or what your opinion on what you think is beneficial for society is that's how i i want to know is something i know that's how you do it but i'm saying that's not a justification because any person any no it's not because any person can come and pause that you need an objective you need an objective standard by which to judge that so there's plenty of things i don't think there is any objective standards i know you don't and i think that's silly i think that's absolutely silly because you're talking about youtube you're talking in absolutes you're talking i'm not talking in absolutes i've been pretty clear that that what i consider moral is relative to to my uh my preference and then you continue and then you continue to input your preferences in other societies why would you why would it be a good thing why would it be a good thing to posit your preference into um a society that disagrees with because the majority of your worldview because that would please me so your pleasure i always pleasure your pleasure is is what is most if that's your that's that's the basis for what is good your pleasure i think because i i i it's preferable to me right you said pleasure it's preferable to you okay yeah it's it's preferable it's preferable to me to live in a society to live in a society where slavery is not practiced children are not abandoned on the streets and and women have access to safe and secure uh abortions okay it's preferable this is what joe said it's preferable for hitler to kill jews yeah okay yeah i don't think that's a good idea i don't care uh well uh i would advocate that he not kill jews i would have um i'd like to think that i would have fought against his his regime i think i would have tried to convince the people people that if this is a bad idea um all of those things and i would not have participated i think i think i would have uh much more likely um that's a very good case that i would not have um i would engage in whatever civil disobedience i could or left that society okay most likely i would have had to leave and then i would have joined in in the war against him to stop him because i would feel very strongly that what he was doing is is is just not right it's it's not preferable it's not a good thing so so if i can like kind of trying to concisely get your your side of things down so this is this is what i'm getting so morality is not absolute correct would you agree with that like from your world view morality is not absolute well i don't even know what the word absolute means i would say it's it's mutable it's mutable so you can change it it can change over time morality can change over time i think it obviously has i mean but like not just in a legality or a societal way i mean like yeah i think there are times there are times when you can lie and there are times when you probably shouldn't lie but there are times when you would be morally obligated to lie and there would be times when you'd be well that's more obligated to that's true that's ethics that's more ethics that's the application of morality that's not actually morality itself that's that's well if it's applicable to lie like if or steal if let's say stealing from the rich to pay you know to give to them is it absolutely or not is is morality absolute or not it feels like you're you're you're being hypocritical there i don't think so i think it's absolute absolutely is it absolutely wrong is it a categorical i think it's absolutely wrong to steal all the time yes no matter the circumstances correct but you just said you just said that there were cases where you would uh state or lie no no no no i'm staying i was stating in instances and where it would be applied ethically i'm not stating that i would do those things i don't see how your ethics can conflict with your morality i would think that that would be saying you're morally hypocrites that would be you gave me an instance where you said that morality changes and you said i think there are instances where lying would be okay and where lying would not be okay and i actually and i correctly pointed out to you that that's not strictly dealing in moral absolutes or moral unabsolutes that's dealing in ethics ethics is the application of morality and i'm stating that in any situation if something is stated by god to be immoral we are not to partake in it so if it requires me to bear false witness in order to i don't know do other some type of virtue it's no longer a virtue okay so is it is it a moral absolute to lie or not which is it it's an it's a moral absolute it's an absolute wrong to lie because there are times you would lie no i'm saying i mean of course i lied i just said there were times i've already i've won no no no i don't think you're good brenda i don't think you're understanding i'm not saying that i personally that me kieran would i'm stating that people when applying ethics or when applying morality to their ethics would engage in things and justify it by saying well if i lie in this instance it's for this greater good here i me personally i'm saying that i do not believe that there is an application of such a thing by which that action of lying is is is good i'm stating that it's a it's a moral wrong i i just want to know whether or not whether or not you there are circumstances under which you would lie in spite of believing that lying is a is a is morally prohibited i'm giving you the standard i'm giving you the objective standard by which i operate on or try to operate on but of course i'm imperfect so if i were to sit here brenda and say to you i've never ever lied before obviously that would be a lie i've lied before i'm an imperfect human being i commit sins i am i'm only immortal yeah i have two i have two i i i'm in perfect but the standard the standard is something that is immutable so just because i am mutable and just because i violate the standard does not mean that the standard is not immutable well it means that you don't believe in it no it doesn't yeah it does no it doesn't it absolutely does not if if you have you do plenty of things you do you do plenty of things that you don't believe in you're you're having a conversation with me right now you're using the laws of watcher where do you get that from um i i don't know if i want to get into epistemology that would be it seems to be derailing the conversation it's not derailing the conversation because you can't get you can't you can only you can only go back and forth on morality for so long you and i are talking about this and your basic your basic um your basic presupposition is well i have a standard for morality that's just preferable to me and i said the same thing that joe said and the same thing that david said which is well who cares no one cares if you have a personal preference for it we're asking for a standard of morality a justification something that you can point to now i admit that mind is circular at bottom on the paradigmatic level mine is circular because my presupposition is that god exists if god exists and god is good and these things come from god then the standard of god is what i'm going to try and follow now i'm upfront and honest with that you don't believe in god that's that's all well and good but at least i'm giving you a justification for my moral code even though i don't follow it perfectly all the time but but throwing in throwing an ad hominem of well you've lied before so you don't believe it that's not an argument it's not an at home it is it is because it's not what the word means yeah sure it is what the word means an ad hominem is just an attack on somebody's character has nothing no it's not it has nothing to do with the actual argument itself no that's that's wrong it's not an at home yes it's okay then explain it to me because it's a non-sequitur saying because i because i don't perfectly follow the moral code that means therefore i don't believe in it that's not an argument there's plenty of things it's not an argument it's not a good argument it's not a good argument no it's not it's not i just pointed out to you that you don't that you do the same thing and then your thing was well that's a two call clearing fallacy so so the point is is that an at home is if you say uh the cat is on the mat and i said well you give me an argument and i say um your argument is fallacious because um you have brown eyes that would be an at-home or because i don't like you because because uh of some feature of yours i don't like you you wear glasses people who wear glasses never tell the truth so your argument is false all right so that's an at home it's not an insult it's just an insult it's not an at home i stand corrected but you that that is what your argument was though it was no you you commit you commit you commit uh you commit crimes or or or um you commit um actions against what your standard for morality would be therefore you don't believe in it i don't that's not a coherent argument do you do yes because you do things that you in which you believe right or do are you don't do things that that you don't believe i don't know i i asked you that in regards to um so if you believe if you if you believe that lying is is an absolutely morally prohibited and you lie since lying is a willful act on your part it seems to me that that contradicts what you've said before because i haven't because i have a fallen name critical no no no because i have a fallen nature and because i have a proclivity to the things that are not of god are sinful can you and i actually that's the christian life that's the hope that's what repentance is that's what turning away is that's what turning towards christ and turning away from sin is so so that is the christian life but if you're going to sit there and say that uh every christian needs to be perfect and blameless before the law when literally our exact um theology says the opposite that no one is blameless no not one i i i agree i you are blam you you can be held responsible for the lies that you commit right sure because lying is is an absolute moral prohibition correct and so therefore i can rightly criticize you for those times that you have willfully lied no i'm not i don't care about you i don't i don't care about your criticism of my lying you're an eight i i don't care you're a human being i care about god's god god's criticism is not going to be ha ha i got you in an argument god's god's criticism of me if i lie and i die unrepentant of it is hey guess what you're separated from me for all eternity so i i don't care i don't care about the standard of brenda this is what we're back to again so it doesn't it doesn't just just haven't hold on hold on i haven't demonstrated you haven't demonstrated that because i because i mess up and um choose the wrong over the good that that thus means that i uh don't believe in it in fact i can criticize you for that and i think you can it just doesn't mean anything regardless regardless of whether or not you take my criticism seriously i don't i have a i have a right to do an internal critique and say that you are not living up to your own moral precepts agreed right and so that that is that is a at the very least a level of hypocrisy agreed right so i am not hypocritical because i say from the outset that it's about that my moral percepts are about my preferences and that they are relative to my wants needs and desires so my moral is is is a is a relative morality i don't believe in objective morality i don't think i don't think it even makes sense okay so um and so we've gone a long way from abortion too well we have to talk about morality in order to talk about abortion from the beginning logic too because well i was just bringing that up as a point to say that you operate with things that you don't at uh you just a priori accept like you don't you don't actually i i don't think it works i don't think that you would have i don't think that you would have a justification for um following the laws of logic consistently like i just don't think that you would be able to do it and i was pointing that out because you were stating because i violate the moral code that i believe in that means i don't believe it and i was using it to show that you believe in the laws of logic even though from you or you use the laws of logic even though i don't think you have a way to justify them how can i justify uh my my presuppositions when it is my presuppositions that i use to justify things with well that's the presuppositional approach but from a theistic point from from from from a theistic worldview where the presupposition is that uh these metaphysical truths are able to be present and to be understood by god's creation because of god in logic in logic in in logic we have uh the accent axioms are accepted a priori that means that they are accepted simply on their face or as being self-evident they are not justified presuppositions are unjustified assumptions that we make that are necessary to do any kind of reasoning in the first place so i can't use reason to justify my reasoning correct it's just it's logically impossible so we accept we accept certain properly basic beliefs which uh form the the foundation or the bottom of our reasoning and we reason we start there and we reason outward from there you can't reason to your presuppositions they are accepted a priori correct my question i guess is what are you a strict materialist um i'm a naturalist yes so i think that we live in a natural world yeah okay and so that's your starting presupposition meaning meaning that um the yeah if you could flush that out a little bit it just means that i believe i don't believe in any um super any supernatural world or entities i think that the world is full is sufficiently described by our best empirical sciences can you can you empirically prove the laws of logic uh no those uh logic is is a is a language that humans made to describe the the patterns and regularities that we perceive in nature so we see persistence over time and we think that that's identity um and so we say that there is a law of identity or we perceive um you know certain certain regularities and we might call that um one thing you know like we if p then q that seems to be based on observations or our regularities that we see in the world right i think that logic like where would you put where would you put something like like um where would you put something like math or language or or logic itself like in terms of your natural the naturalistic framework are those things immutable i guess those are not i do not believe there are people who believe that um abstract um entities like uh logic is just a branch of mathematics anyway so mathematic things abstract quantities or or properties or objects or whatever you want to call them those are just um i'm anomalous in that in that regard i think that they're just the names that we give to to things right so i i don't think that there there are some people who uh believe that there is a world of abstract entities um that exists from that from the mir from the materialistic standpoint you mean or like the naturalistic standpoint the these abstract entities there are people who think that there are there is the material world and that there is a um abstract world the world of abstractions um and that these have no they have no ontology and they have no causal um they have no causal effects on our world i don't believe that i i'm not that would be i'm an anomalous well there's plenty of philosophers who believe that i'm an anomalous i think it's just like a label that we give to things that we and the language um mathematics are the things themselves are the things themselves existent no they're the labels that we give them no it's just it's just like the labels that we give to things it's simply a a language invented by humans so so like so if we were to we if we were to be able to observe the law of non-contradiction which we can do but we didn't have a name for the law of non-contradiction you're saying that how do we do that how do we observe the law of non-contradiction well i guess if you can't separate it from language or from your thoughts but like let's say that nobody ever spoke anything before or something like that and you and i were i i was looking at reserve observing something and i saw that oh that's a that's a tree or whatever that that is in my head like um and then i said oh okay well um you know that's that i don't know if i'm explaining it correctly well you could say so you could for instance point to say a rabbit and correct and know that it's a rabbit without having go ahead finish yourself i don't think i know that that's what you said i think it's i think it's not it's not 100 clear to me that the the sound the word that you uttered necessarily correlates with the uh uh thing that you pointed at i i'm not i don't know does that think itself exists but does that thing itself exist yeah the thing itself is the rabbit exists but i i'm not saying i'm not asking if we can move that into if we can move that into the abstract entities where we're talking about where we're at i know no no no no i'm not i'm not talking about rabbits i'm saying if we can get away from the rabbit for a second and replace rabbit with uh the law of non-contradiction or math like or like the number seven or something like that you can't do this do these things right is seven concrete though is what i'm asking no it's abstract okay but this isn't it's the seventh do we do we what i'm asking do we invent seven or do we decide number seven well we do we discover math or do we invent math um we give mathematicians say that we discover it they said they don't say that it's like not like we're like inventing different equations these are things that are discovered supposedly i'm not a mathematician hey would you guys object if uh someone came and joined the discussion just for fun okay yeah sure okay it's going to be my friend chris so cool so people observe that they're like seven stones um right and they count them one two three four five six seven and they attach the label seven to this concept to the idea sorry that i have of a collection of a collection of seven objects so i have this collection and i've just given it the label or the name hence nominalism then i've just given this collection of seven objects the name seven right so i can't observe seven i can't observe abs um abstractions i mean i believe in abstractions um they're just entirely within my head their concept um and numbers and mathematics and and these things are are concepts in my brain right there's people that think that they exist independent of me but i don't think that's true oh can you hear me yeah i can hear you hello hello yeah i'm i'm here sorry oh we're getting some crosstalk yeah i don't know what's going i think there's like a latency or something uh sorry i've got i've got the uh whatchamacallit the i've got the stream on on my other phone oh yeah you should probably turn that off because it will get i i did i turned it down it's good we're good we're good so we seem to have traveled a long ways but basically i think that there's um nothing wrong with a woman terminating a pregnancy because um it is part of her body and she has a right to uh terminate a pregnancy if she doesn't consent if she doesn't consent to the pregnancy and again okay so i did i i take i i understand i understand your position my i think again it really comes down to number one is it human is it a life so is it number one is it a human is it is it is it a life is it a life and number three it's alive it's a number three is it truly is it truly and solely the woman's body it's from her yes but um it's from her but my son is from me too again these things apply and you say you don't like the logic or the outcome of where i'm taking it but it's the logical conclusion if you're if your criteria for what is okay to terminate a pregnancy as you call it i would call it murder for murdering a child if your criteria is simply is simply that it's it's it's the the woman doesn't want it it's yeah i guess that's akin to something of her property and then uh it's placement within her body those aren't those aren't legitimate reasons i think you don't you don't afford the same bodily autonomy to that person that wants an abortion as you do with the person that doesn't want to take uh a jab an experimental medication yeah so it's not no you don't no you don't you criticized david yeah entire talk with him okay because it is just why it's because it's bad science that's why it's bad science to not admit that a baby from the point of conception is a baby that's bad science no but baby until it's born it's it's a confusion being a human being it's not a person it's not a person it is not a person it is a person well that's what you say that's i don't you you've admitted all the dna necessary for human life is there it is alive it is a living organism from the moment necessary it is a living organism from the moment of conception uh no it isn't yep baby's body is its own not part of the mothers bam well i mean it it i mean brenda i i'm not trying to be a dick it it it literally is it's from the point of concept that's that's been you this whole time that's been you this whole time from the point of conception it from the point yes i have from the point your whole your whole argument is you don't like the level of development of the baby and it's placement it's no that's not my argument that is your argument that's what it comes down to yes it is no it doesn't boil down to that my argument is is that the woman has a right to bodily autonomy right and having a fetus um taking her bodily resources against her will or against her consent is not moral and again oh moral let's not even get into that realm again dude when we're talking about using somebody else's body when we're talking about somebody else's body i gave you the legitimate response that a baby is perfectly and 100 dependent upon their mothers and in most cases where there's a functioning family their father's body too that's not the issue your inability to understand concepts that was just your inability to understand concepts i don't think so i think it's quite i think i think that i i just don't think that you like the the logical outcome of your argument because it's a dumb argument you can watch it you can apply it you can yes i have i showed you where you don't want to be consistent with it i just showed you where you don't want to be consistent with it absolutely i have you said you all you've said is that it's in the woman's body and it's dependent upon her body and so therefore she can do what you must do but i haven't refuted that number one the baby's body is their body of course it's about their bot okay so what about their bodily autonomy um did they not get any because they're not conscious yet yeah so the woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy due to her bodily autonomy she does not maybe you have bodily autonomy it's a simple yes or no question no the the fetus the embryo does is not a person and it does not have rights according to you're not a person until you're born where do you get where's that where's that defined it's the legal definition you are a person when you are born again i'm not before that you are not a person okay so your fetus is again a fetus or an embryo that's what you are before you were born so a baby so so you're willing to allow for a baby to be killed in the womb up to the day of birth uh no i don't care if you don't like the preference i'm asking from your logic is it okay to kill that baby because it's still an embryo it's not a human there are conditions there are conditions under which don't care is it okay i don't care there are conditions under which it would be acceptable but i i think that i agree with the original with the original uh ruling which is you know the first trimester the woman can abort for any reason and this and then you need um the same the safety of the mother and things like that for after after that right if the if it's to choose between the life of the mother um and and that of the fetus then then you choose the life of the mother well sure i've i've unfortunately been in that situation before where both were would have died um and it's very difficult it's a very difficult thing um but that's not what we're talking about this is what we're talking about now we're talking about we're talking about the majority we're talking about the vast majority of people go ahead there have been cases for instance in ireland where a woman was in sepsis and the baby was actually dead and inside of her and was going to kill her and they refused to do an abortion because they had laws against abortion and the woman and the woman died it was as a number of years ago i don't remember when but it was in ireland in the in in this in this because they had laws because they had yes in this decade so they had laws against they had laws laws against abortion right and so the fetus well i would before if the baby's already dead i would be i would be for that sure but that's like that's not properly speaking so you're in favor of abortion no no i'm in favor of that that's what that is terminating the pregnancy the pregnancy she's still pregnant the baby is in her and aborting and that was what was needed is it isn't it isn't an abortion technically even just a miscarriage it can be a miscarriage i don't think a miscarriage isn't that doesn't that i i'm pretty sure that there's a there's an actual term for that i could be wrong but uh i'll have to look that up then but i'm pretty sure that god do you think that uh a miscarriage is a crime scene i don't understand the question what do you mean do you think that it's possible if a woman miscarries should be should she be investigated for a possible manslaughter if she miscarries yes oh because she could have done something to prevent the miscarriage potentially is that what you're asking she could have she could have induced the miscarriage it could have been induced right i'm still not understand i mean that would be united if she intentionally if she intentionally induced a miscarriage so that she would she would miscarry the baby is that what you're asking no i'm confused by your question maybe [ __ ] has been how you can continually interrupt and talk over me i don't understand you've done it the entire time it's really quite frustrating so i think you're frustrating i think you have no logic whatsoever i don't think you're consistent but go ahead yeah good job so let's say a woman comes to the emergency room she says she's had a miscarriage should she be investigated by the police as a possible homicide oh i see what you're saying uh i guess it depends on the circumstances i guess it depends like has she been having has she been having prenatal has she been going to her prenatal appointments did they have any reason to suspect that hey she didn't really want this pregnancy to begin with she's but she actually she's been going to all of her prenatal appointments she's been getting her ultrasound she's been taking her vitamins she walked she walked into the emergency room you don't know any of those things that would that would come out in the investigation should the police investigate every miscarriage by uh pregnant women um i don't know if you would say full-blown investigation but if if not go ahead pikers you take it because apparently you've heard this question before i think this is a ridiculous scenario but go ahead uh i i have and i've and i actually have an answer for it go ahead no unless there's uh extraordinary circumstances which led to the miscarriage as such as uh drug abuse uh purposely trying to you know throw yourself down you're just you're just assuming that we already have knowledge that we have various things you're just assuming that there's knowledge present that we don't that we i mean is any of this gonna change the fact is any of this gonna change the fact though like this stupid little scenario that like if i summon if oh if securing somehow admits that we should investigate every miscarriage as a potential homicide yeah and that's that's i mean okay so then all there's all this body so then i'll just throw my there's put it in a box and then i would just so then i would just throw my hands up and be like okay fine if that's what's going on if that's there's a guy the whole scenario is absurd but but i mean even even if that if that's the best you have against why abortion is is is considered okay um okay fine i'll eat it i'll just say fine go ahead uh um then let's investigate every single one but then you have to admit because you don't really you don't really give a crap about that and you have to admit that no no you don't no then you have to admit you have to admit no you don't don't be duplicitous you have to admit then that the real thing is that you you just want to justify abortion because you think that women should have the right to choose it's not actually about don't give me the system no reason don't yeah okay so then this whole scenario of this whole scenario of okay well then kieran you should admit that uh that we should investigate for homicide okay fine if you're willing to admit that it's actual murder are you willing to admit that it's murder what's murder abortion no no it's not it's okay then i'm not willing to okay then i'm not willing to grant you the fact that we should investigate it as a homicide i i'm being petulant i'm not being petulant it's a stupid scenario it's a stupid scenario it has nothing to do it's not it's not that there's a dead body should the police ignore situations in which there's a dead body present according to you they should no yeah according to you they should abortion huh according to you the police should have their nose out of abortion a dead body is present and you don't think that it should be against the law to do that so according to you it's already been decided that under those conditions and i'm saying it's not it's not a one-to-one correspondence in the opposite direction there are clear there is there would be no circumstance under which a woman would come come to a doctor and say i've had a miscarriage by which looking at the nature of just that woman and the state she's in seeing that something is either extraordinary or not extraordinary about the miscarriage there's plenty just like [ __ ] said okay what if somebody if they overdosed et cetera and you're saying you're just assuming that you know all of those things well this is real life right we're talking about real life the very fact that there's a miscarriage is indication that there's a possibility a crime has been committed because i'm assuming that that we're living in a world where um abortion is illegal right so under those conditions right every miscarriage is a crime scene it's a possible homicide okay and i'm and i'm and woman if the woman mis uh deliberately miscarries uh should she get the death penalty well do you know we could talk about the death penalty if you want but i do think i do i i think that's so so here's here so here's so here's maybe you don't believe maybe you don't believe in capital punishment so here so here's here's where we have to draw distinction so with today's world and people like yourself that voice propaganda that abortion is not actually killing a human life and they're taught that from a very young age i think that a woman a woman has less well a woman is less culpable a woman is less culpable i think that definitely honestly definitely definitely definitely homicide definitely homicide of some kind yes uh but but murder but murder needs to have malicious intent at least of some kind or it needs to yeah she wanted to to kill that baby well maybe maybe she was taught by people like you that it's not actually a baby it doesn't it's not going to come up in the trial it should it's just no that absolutely should she be should she get the death penalty or how many years in prison should a woman get for for having an abortion it would depend on the case brenda just like it would depend on the case for anybody okay that's not for for for murder yes of course it would depend but in general what do you think 10 years it would depend on the case wouldn't it brenda and i personally i personally do i believe in penalizing the doctors who took an oath to not harm anybody that's who i believe in penalizing i think that women's just contrary to what you think i think women who get abortions are largely victims too okay we don't that's not how that's not how the law is done that's not how things are done well sometimes she is no she but she's could hardly be thought of as the victim because she sought out the the doctor paid him the money and had the abortion done so she's not a victim she's she deliberately she sold a bag she was sold in a bag of ill goods so this obviously is going to this is going to matter this is um from everything i've been reading on the internet over the years is that the woman who founded planned parenthood planned parenthood was actually a big proponent of eugenics yeah margaret sanger uh that's false yes at eugenics um that's just that's just again uh poisoning the well that's all you're doing right i don't see what that has to do with anything uh poisoning the well i've i've heard all of this before i mean the point the point the point is with everything the point is you consistently use bad art he was a creepo who i don't care this discussion isn't about margaret sanger so thank you for your contribution pico so the discussion is about abortion right yeah and so murder abortion abortion you're just presupposing that it's about that it's murder it has not it has nothing to do with it yet margaret sanger yeah yeah yeah i i really don't appreciate you bringing in this this this is just this is just obfuscating the topic the topic is i'm not obviously i'm not whether or not i'm not talking to you so i uh the topic is about abortion and pros or cons i'm pro because it preserves a woman's bodily autonomy because i'm calling it because and i'm because it eliminates the bodily autonomy and of the baby and the baby itself no it's not the baby yeah it's not a baby it's not a baby the human the human the human life the life the living organism that's inside the woman i'm i'm yeah if it's a living organism then yeah it is it is it is a life it's it's living tissue it's lemon tissue oh my goodness no no no no brenda brenda brenna this is simple this is like this this is so basic nobody even proponents of abortion will not say that this is not a human life from the point of conception this is what i'm trying but you did not you deny psr you deny you deny so many things you deny natural law you deny all these things you throw out basic logic and then you say something as unscientific as a uh um an embryo is not a human life from the point of control because because i understand when you say human life is it living is it living is it living so when you say is it living just disgusting that was that was get this piece of [ __ ] out of here is it living brenda i'm just gonna get him out get him off is it living get him out i can't i don't have the controls how am i supposed to do that the call is gonna end in two minutes anyhow i'm just asking you a question is it a liv is it living is the organism yes living tissue it's living no no no is it living i said so yes it's living human tissue okay and when you say it's a human life is it the totality of a person in that role in that human okay issue okay i would really like it if you would stop doing that stop interrupting me in the middle of my sentences you're acting very immature so it is a living human being it is a living human being in the sense that it is human tissue right but it is not a person when you say it's a human life i take that as you meaning it is in some way equivalent to some to a fully grown human being and it is not equivalent in dignity indeed in dignity absolutely and this is why i asked you the question as to whether or not because you said that it's inside the womb therefore no personhood and i asked you the question and i asked you the question if a third trimester fully formed baby with inside the womb is suddenly off and is is is not a person does not have personhood inside the womb and then six inches through the birth canal all of a sudden magically is conferred personhood and you said yeah that's yes yes so true so so going through going through the birth canal is what confirms persons yes so what about c-section babies what about c-section babies that's the other way to be a person yes so you're a person because you're not dependent on your mother yes on their body okay so my son's not a person yes he's dependent on my mother that's just you not understanding basic words but can somebody jump in here is this not is this not a logical argument your son it's the whole idea i have just i i have just i have just demonstrated to you that myself no you haven't yes you just demonstrated your inability you already you were already you already admitted that if i were to leave my son alone he would yes yes so i need to do something my body needs to use something in order for him to survive he's depressed he's not my body no he's not dude everybody listening to this can hear that you're just not taking you're just not taking the argument seriously or to its logical conclusion there's nothing else for me to do you're not understanding simple words okay all right holy crap dude it's a simple argument bro it's a simple this is probably a good good spot to end because we probably got 30 seconds left we got 30 seconds left but uh just uh shake hands be friends and be nice and all that stress no i think kirian is an [ __ ] hey that's not even how you rather not talk to him again i told you this would get heated whoops are you still there by chris yeah he left or not pikers pikerton leave listen i told him it would get heated if the topic was about abortion he picked abortion that's what it is and he didn't like the logical conclusions of the arguments i'm still here brother man it it is what it is so and pikas i appreciate your jumping in oh [ __ ] i guess that