CVS Meta - 2022-06-14 - Kieran Responds to Brenda Part 2

Author Recorded Tuesday June 14th, 2022

There are 20 episodes in the Meta:Rants series.

Kieran and Brenda recently discussed their differences on the question of abortion. The conversation didn't go too well and so Kieran put together a little response audio. Brenda is free to respond, as always. God is good; God alone.

Under Construction

Under Construction

These YouTube transcripts are generated automatically and are therefore unformatted and replete with errors.
[Laughter] is [Music] so as i'm driving home here i'm just thinking of some of the points brought up in the conversation yesterday between brenda and myself and before i address any of the points that were made by either one of us i wanted to point out the obvious that david makes very clear in his discourse with almost anybody when talking about areas of morality it's not a matter of the intellect but a matter of the will and as david says where there's a will there is a way and i think that this is an obvious explanation as to how somebody who claims to have logic like brenda does can also simultaneously deny basic logical conclusions from totally valid arguments this explains how somebody like brenda can just ignore vast swathes of the scientific communities which he purports to follow very closely as an empiricist and deny the definitions that they give for when say something like a human being begins this is an explanation as to why they can utilize language level the accusation that their theistic opponent doesn't understand basic words or concepts but then admits from their own position that things like words concepts language are in fact mutable and can be changed over time this is the absurdity and the schizophrenia of atheism as a whole it's a complete throwing up of the hands and saying i want things my way and i will say and do anything even if it's inconsistent with how i behave and things that i've said in the past in order to justify or give a reason for my position i will equate reasons with actual anchored justifications i will level accusations against my opponent that i myself have committed time and time again and i will refuse to take basic syllogistic arguments to their logical conclusions now i dropped in the comments a number of definitions for things such as ad hominem spontaneous abortion when human life or a human being is begun or created all of these things are points in my favor of course but brenda doesn't really care about that brenda doesn't brenda doesn't care about the definitions of those things because brenda is only interested in propping up his own position at any cost regardless of what kind of logic reason or integrity he has to throw out the window in order to do so he has made himself his own god he has made himself the final judge of what is right and what is wrong this moral relativity is really just that at the end of the day it doesn't matter if brenda prefers some societal some societal norm or abnormality it makes no difference because at the end of the day if moral relativity is all there is then i don't care what he has to say now the argument all that to say really boiled down to this when you really cut through all of the red tape and get into the arguments of what we talked about yesterday it can really be boiled down to two points that brenda likes to make in favor of abortion it's not so much that life begins at conception that this is in question he admitted at least to some extent that this is the case and i think now even if i were perhaps a little bit more of a smart aleck and decided to google when life begins i would have had brenda concede a little bit more heavily that life does in fact started conception and although he might have been reluctant to grant that being personhood he certainly would have granted them status of human being in the family of homo sapiens so that's not really the issue what it comes down to that brenda thinks gives the uh pro murder or pro abortion side the upper hand is number one bodily autonomy for the woman and number two the level of dependence that the child has on its mother now with before we get into those two things i want you to to notice that there's an internal contradiction between these two upheld positions to try and bolster the pro-abortion side on one hand brenda wants to say that it is the woman's body and so therefore it is her choice but on the other hand she acknowledges that the baby is there inside the body and is dependent on the woman and so therefore they have the right to terminate it but wait a minute brenda i thought that this was solely her body and yet you're telling me that there is something else there that is foreign to the woman's body so right off the bat we have an internal contradiction now my only my argument against the idea that it was that it is the woman's body is simply that it is also my body i have a son he is three years old and he is fully 100 dependent upon me just as a fetus is dependent upon its mother brenda didn't like this because i drew a connection between the dependency of a viable pregnancy that has a fetus in it and the already born child who is still 100 dependent upon their parents brenda didn't like this he drew some sort of weird arbitrary distinction between the kind of dependents i guess one being that the baby inside the womb is dependent upon the nutrients and the other being that it's not dependent on the nutrients and so therefore there's a lesser form of dependency but i would actually argue i'm not a woman and only women can get pregnant and i i would have to talk to my wife about this but i would venture to bet that even though my wife has been pregnant three times and it has been strenuous on her body all three of those times before during and after the pregnancy that my wife would also say that there is a type of pressure that gets put on her as the mother after having given birth that was not there or afforded to her or or pressed upon her while she was pregnant so if i can just kind of elaborate a woman has all types of physiological problems that come along with being pregnant maybe uncomfortabilities etc but the woman's body is meant to take on this pregnancy and although it might be uncomfortable they're meant to survive this and also to provide for themselves and the baby in a sense my wife kind of had it easy in being pregnant with her son because although she was uncomfortable and she was you know sweaty and perhaps had odd cravings you know had stomach cramps back hurt etc she could go and rest and not have to worry about anybody else bothering her in fact she could have not only her own time to herself but she would have people doting on her hand and foot to take care of her myself as the primary one to do such a thing making sure that she has enough to drink enough to eat making sure she's comfortable she's relaxed making sure she's not doing too much strenuous lifting making sure that she's taken care of in every single way possible while she is pregnant and then what happens she gives birth to our son and he is so physically demanding on my wife not only is she still out of sorts physio physiologically from giving birth in the after birth but now she is also deprived of the basic needs that she had met while she was pregnant like sleep like food like water like comfort like attention from other people around her now all of this is being directly sacrificed and given away for her child and she's still giving her body and she's still giving her nutrients and this baby is still a hundred percent dependent even more so than they were when they were simply in the mother's womb and so that's all i was saying and i think it's a direct correlation it can be put into a syllogism like such a my son depends on the paycheck i make at work in order to survive b my body does the work to earn the paycheck therefore c my son is dependent on my body to survive this was a very basic premise that i gave to brenda that he didn't like because it totally refutes his position that what is an acceptable reason to get rid of a baby is because it is dependent upon the person and i've shown that that applies in many different instances not just when a baby is inside the womb i'm sorry brenda if you don't want to be consistent with that then that's okay but don't expect people to buy into your bull crap okay it's a very simple argument it's a very logical argument and there is absolutely no reason why you can't draw that conclusion from it you agreed with the first two premises of that syllogism and yet you deny the very real and logical outcome of it it's very simple brenda you have no justification for any type of morality you have no justification for any type of logic giving an ad hoc or arbitrary reason for something is not a justification you can have bad reasons for things and it's not a justification now when i said this you made the claim that it's okay to be arbitrary okay well then it's okay for me to be arbitrary and then at that point it's just a battle of the wills which is ridiculous nobody operates like that and you don't operate like that likewise i don't have to fully understand the anchor of my position or the justification of it in order for it to be a legitimate justification i do not have to plumb the depths of god or understand god fully in order to know that he is a justification for the things that i experience and take as a presupposition so brenda let's not confuse these things you then talk about how the woman doesn't give consent to pregnancy i mean these are all small little things that i could have refuted in the moment and even now i i wonder if i should refute them part of me thinks it's not worth it um and i i told you that i would get worked up but these are all just really simple really simple things to refute you know consenting to pregnancy well i would i would think that when somebody eats a ton of food they're consenting to the possibility that they might get overweight or or fat or obese whatever you want to call it i i would venture to guess that if somebody decides that you know they want to go sunbathing every day of the summer that they're consenting to potentially getting some form of melanoma or cancer right it's a logical outcome of that type of action right and even more so with pregnancy it's not hard to get pregnant it's miraculous but it happens pretty regularly and so a logical outcome regardless of whether or not you're using contraceptives or plan b or any of these other things that are immoral you know when you go into that action that you are consenting to the potential of having a kid and that's just the simple fact of it and if you want to throw in the point zero four percent of all women that are made pregnant due to rape or incest well fine okay if you're willing to admit that every other case besides those is wrong then maybe we can talk about that but until you're willing to admit that any other type of abortion that's opted into or is elective is wrong then you're just really playing this hypothetical game and i think it's nonsense same thing with the crime scene thing i would be willing to grant you that we should we should uh investigate a crime scene for every miscarriage if you're willing to admit that it's actually murder otherwise you're just playing stupid hypothetical games and you don't want to deal in reality and this is a real situation women get abortions for no more than not wanting to be bothered with a baby and they want to have sex and they want to control other human beings lives because it benefits theirs it's nonsense so all this being said after having rambled on for almost 20 minutes there's much more i could say perhaps david will give some type of an analysis for it the the the real crux of the issue is that brenda you've made yourself god and you're a very puny god you're a very illogical god you're very inconsistent in compassionate and petty god and i think that um you know you're in a lot of trouble if you're going to rely on yourself for salvation and may christ have mercy on both of us forgive me for my attitude and my aggression although i will not apologize for dispassionate aggression when talking about the murder of innocent children although i myself am unable to display aggression dispassionately i think that there's justification in righteous indignation when talking about the lives of innocent children um nevertheless i ask for your forgiveness if i offended you in any way which i'm sure that i did and hopefully we can be cordial from here on out but i i would guess it's probably unwise for us to venture into another conversation like this take care god bless you and thank you for anybody who listened to the debate just remember it is a life at the moment of conception christ loves everybody with the same amount of dignity we are all equal in our dignity though we might not be equal in every other area god bless you all and pray for is [Laughter] [Music] see [Music]