Debate Teacher Reacts to Abortion Arguments | Feat. Ben Shapiro & Steven Crowder

Don't know what that statement serves to accomplish here.

You know what I mean?

Like so here at you know, like Ben my question is this what is your stance on this specific situation, right?

And then Ben says well, here's my stance on that situation.

And then the follow -up is well that doesn't happen now.

Okay, so therefore what?

Welcome back to another debate teacher reacts video.

My name is Nate Sala.

I'm the president of a Christian nonprofit organization called wise disciple and here at wise disciple We're all about

living effectively as Christians in today's culture.

Now if you're brand new to this video to this entire series or the whole channel, welcome, welcome.

I'm very glad that you're here.

Look.

The reason that we do this specific series is to elevate the level of discourse when it comes to

debates when it comes to Exchanges between two people on opposite sides of a particular

issue now, we've been plugging away Doing things in the area of theology and apologetics, you know religion

and non religion this time around I want to look at abortion.

All right, because I think that we can benefit from making some observations and parsing out

Some good things that are happening in these kinds of discussions and some bad things that are happening.

So what I'm gonna do, it's a quick exercise.

I'm gonna type in YouTube Abortion debate and we're just gonna look at some of the most viewed

videos of all time in this specific Category of search.

So without further ado, let's go ahead and jump in right now.

All right now having done the search now I found about four exchanges some of the most viewed videos of all time on abortion debates

on YouTube and it really centers around Two figures two political figures that are very controversial depending on

you know, what side of the fence that you fall, right?

So we're looking at two video Exchanges from Ben Shapiro with others and then

Steven Crowder with some others.

So this is the very first video here now.

Combined the videos that we're looking at I think makes a grand total of like 20 million views on YouTube.

So hopefully this best represents what people are sort of seeing when they think about and

watch Exchanges about abortion between two people on opposite sides of the fence.

Let's go ahead and take a look.

Okay.

I do care.

Okay.

So there are a couple of questions in there all wrapped up into one, you know.

Did you catch that.

This is why it's very difficult to have a productive conversation.

Particularly about like emotional boilerplate issues like abortion, you know, because people tend to wander and it's not a

knock on people.

You know because a lot of us tend to do this.

It's just that we start talking about something and then our mind shift and then whatever comes to mind just falls out of our mouth.

You know and sometimes that's nerves.

Sometimes.

It's just untrained thinking, you know.

But the effect of all of this is the questions themselves will not get answered.

This young lady just asked more than one question.

And watch what's gonna happen.

Only the last question is gonna get answered.

Why.

Because people cannot typically track multiple questions in like.

Seven seconds.

I care about the mother being poor.

I do care about foster care.

Why did you have to pay for that vote?

Because Planned Parenthood is supposed to prevent abortions.

Because I well Planned Parenthood doesn't prevent abortions.

They perform hundreds of thousands of abortions a year.

They perform 300 ,000 abortions a year.

They're leading abortion bill in the United States.

That they perform 300 ,000 abortions a year from Planned Parenthood.

That's my evidence.

So she changed the subject again here.

Okay, she started off by asking.

Well, why put the focus on the life of the baby and not on mother's rights?

Okay now from the pro -choice stance, that's an important question to ask.

Okay, but instead of waiting for an answer She immediately asked another question.

Why don't you care about babies after they're born?

And now she just made a statement.

Which is Planned Parenthood prevents abortions.

Okay, so she just asked two questions and made a claim which is not great.

And I'm not knocking her skills.

I mean, she's probably not a debater.

But if you really care about engaging the other side effectively.

You need to stick with one question until you've either made your point, you know exposed errors

from the other side or both.

I'm not anti birth control.

Birth control is extraordinarily cheap.

Okay, they're not the only people in America who provide affordable birth control.

You can go get a pack of condoms down at the local CVS for 12 bucks.

Yes, and it's true that most forms of birth control are also extraordinarily cheap on an annualized basis unless you have a severe

problem.

Though most birth control is very cheap and readily available.

And I'm not against people going and getting that from Planned Parenthood as you may have noticed.

I'm mostly against abortion.

If you want to go to Planned Parenthood and get a contraceptive go for it.

I don't care.

I do care when you start killing babies.

This is a problem for me.

But what about in rape and incest situations?

Okay, so this is okay.

So here's the question.

I mean, this is a long conversation.

I'm enjoying it actually.

Which is why I'm allowing you to stay but it's it but it's but the the question of rape and incest.

First of all important to note rape and incest are not only a vast minority of Abortion cases.

They're an extraordinarily low percentage of abortion cases.

So you can first stipulate that all the other abortions are bad.

Then we can talk about that other one.

Can we do that are all the other?

Okay, those ones.

Okay, and you're just look at that.

So she asked about rape and incest which again from the pro -choice perspective is it's a legitimate question to address,

right?

But even actually for some pro -life folks.

Those are legitimate exceptions.

Rape and incest.

All right.

I mean if you're pro -life and you think that the unborn should be aborted because of rape and incest I don't think you've wrestled with

your arguments very well.

But the point is she asked about rape and incest and Shapiro recognizes the maneuver here.

Okay, because if you keep your door open a few inches based on certain exceptions Then maybe you can keep

pushing the door open even further with even more exceptions later, right?

So and so it looks like Shapiro is asking her to concede that all other abortion cases

are Unjustified probably to identify her real motives behind this question.

And I'm not saying that she's doing she's being manipulative or doing this on purpose.

But nevertheless a lot of people go into these conversations, they don't really realize what they're doing it but the bottom line is

the effect of all of this is this is a maneuver and So Shapiro is trying to do something

here to identify.

The the motives behind it.

Are you willing to stipulate that all the other abortions are bad?

Just rape and incest bother you.

It's an excuse right.

So it's an excuse that we can say that so that we can we can take the marginal case and then Say that the marginal case applies to all cases.

Okay, that's that's again faulty thinking.

But if you want me to answer specifically on rape and incest.

Here is my basic answer.

Rapists should be castrated or killed.

You shouldn't kill babies.

End of story.

Agree and that's usually the left side of the aisle because I don't I don't I don't know what that statement serves

to accomplish here.

You know what?

I mean?

Like so here, you know, like Ben my question is this what is your stance on this specific situation?

Right and then Ben says well, here's my stance on that situation.

And then the follow -up is well that doesn't happen now.

Okay, so therefore what?

All right, so this is the next video it's called Ben Shapiro shreds now.

It's an all -caps shreds just like the other one was in all -caps to like what what is going now?

I'm thinking like did I have I ever done that like if I ever titled?

Something in all cap.

I mean like the thing is but if your goal is to Rally the base then go ahead and do this kind of

stuff.

You know what?

I mean?

But if you really are seeking to change somebody's mind on the other side of the aisle

I I really wouldn't be titling headlines this way.

You know what I mean?

So anyway, let's go ahead and see what happens.

Yeah, I've um an issue with your stance on abortion.

Okay, right.

So you define life as starting at conception.

Through biology, right.

Pretty much.

But I think you take the stance that life is intrinsically valuable because it's life and that's where I disagree.

I think there's two things that make life valuable.

I think consciousness the ability to experience pain senses and stuff like that and personal identity in

particular.

Psychological continuity identity.

So the fact that we have memories we have relationships people have relationships to us.

I think what you need both of those is in either or I just want to clarify your position either or okay.

So it's either or then people with Alzheimer's have real continuity problems.

You can't kill them.

No, because people still have relationships with them though, right?

Well, I mean you have a relationship with them.

But what with people with advanced stage Alzheimer's.

They really don't have really.

Okay, right.

So this is interesting.

And here's the thing.

These aren't debates, right?

You know.

These are people who got brave enough to get up in front of others and engage somebody who likely has Participated in

formal debates and a number of formal debates and he's real quick on his feet.

Okay, so kudos to these people for you know, being brave to like get up and do this kind of thing the number one fear

I believe still is Public speaking right getting up in front of people large crowds and

speaking and stuff.

But you know, these are not formal debates.

So we're not gonna see like serious clash like in a true cross -examination, right?

But this is interesting this highlights the two sort of philosophical Presuppositions that each side

of the abortion debate they have it like going into this argument.

They already possess it.

On the one hand the pro -lifers will claim that the value of human Persons rests in the

kind of thing that they are at conception.

Okay, they're they're human.

That means humans have intrinsic value.

Okay.

Now a lot of pro -choice advocates will argue that you're not human at conception that you're for a lack of a

better Characterization you're you're not fully assembled yet.

You're a collection of parts.

Or maybe another word for that is properties and you only become a human person.

When you've enough of those properties or parts have been manifested.

This means that really what you have is extrinsic value, but here's the problem with looking at human value.

Extrinsically, you know for every property that the unborn does not have.

And from the pro -choice side then you making the claim that well They're they're a non person because they do not possess this

particular specific property or capacity or whatever.

You can point to a grown person that also does not have that property or capacity and so then it leads you into

some bizarre and perhaps.

Grotesque.

Scenarios if you want to remain consistent in this argument and hopefully Shapiro points this out.

The family gets to decide what you do with the body.

It's because I know what you say.

When you say someone says Oh just consciousness and then they're brain -dead.

You say well.

Can you stop them?

No, you can't because that's the family's decision what to do with the body.

It's a person's decision what they want.

The family decides to stab them.

It's okay to stab the when they're brave.

Yeah, they want to know.

Not not not brain -dead.

Let's say that you're comatose for a for a specifically and predictably.

Short period of time say nine months.

Say that.

Well, what is the person?

So so I would say on that's clever, you know.

But but but this is what happens when you take the position that that human value is only Extrinsic that it

hinges on possessing certain properties or capacities like like possessing memories, which is what this young man is

talking about here.

Well, what about those with alzheimer's?

You know, what about those with amnesia?

What about somebody who's in a coma and cannot recall any memories while comatose, you know, should we

abort these people?

That's the kind of you know absurd and Grotesque situation that you place

yourself in if you want to remain consistent the legal grounds.

It would depend if the person put on their will if the person has made clear statements.

Like hey, don't pull the plug on nine months.

Then don't do that because I think the first choice is right.

But let's say the person has not made such clear statements.

Say the person can't make such clear statements.

So that and he's just in a complete coma.

Let's say the person has not drawn up a living will or had conversations like this.

They go into their car crash.

You know that in nine months they're going to come out of the coma and they're going to be fine.

Are you allowed to stab.

Stab the dude.

Wait, so they're fine.

So they're gonna get their memories back.

Um, let's say they don't get their memories back.

Then I would say then that person is dead.

And yeah, if the family wants to pull the plug, that's fine.

I'd have no problem with that.

Yeah, no, I would have no problem with that.

Because I don't I don't think that this person understands the question,

uh.

If someone is going to be walking around alert and awake after nine months being in a coma for

nine months.

But they don't possess any of their old memories.

We should kill them because why.

Like I.

Because they don't remember like You know where they live or ever having their first kiss like

we should kill these people.

I don't think this guy has thought about this position all that much.

I think what he's trying to do is remain consistent, but he's not really thought it all the way through.

That like that person.

You're getting some dicey territory dude, no, I think that person's dead.

Right and that's the best way to define life is personal identity and consciousness.

That's what makes life.

Right.

So I think that again if you were to say both that's too much.

And if you're even to say either I don't think either one of those legs stands on its own.

Okay, because what you really mean this is the thing about having a baby.

It's a process of development.

And this is the point that i'm making.

There's a period In this human life when that child does not have or fetus or embryo whatever you want to call it

when this living thing Does not have consciousness and does not have a sense of identity

but In nine months, it will have consciousness.

Babies don't have a sense of identity for at least for at least a certain number of months after they're born.

The babies can uh recognize their parents' voices after they're born.

That's not a sense of identity rats can.

I say it is because it's no.

It's a form of memory though, right?

And that's what I was.

So are you a janus.

Because animals also have consciousness?

Yeah.

No, I would say that killing animals is wrong.

You have no problem with that.

So just to get this straight.

Killing killing fluffy the hamster deeply wrong.

Killing a dude who wakes up from a who's going to wake up from a coma in nine months with memory problems.

Totally cool.

Right.

And you know, so so here's the problem with this kind of discussion, you know, and i'm only seeing this clip.

So, I don't know if if there's more than that or if this was discussed before but the bottom line is You see

how this exchange trades on your presuppositions.

That's why it's very important to begin conversations on the issue of abortion specifically.

With key definitions and ontological arguments for or against the unborn.

Okay, you really need to answer the question What is the unborn?

Is it a human being?

Is it a person?

Is it a non -person and why why is an important question as well?

Because that's that's a justification question, you know.

These are these are philosophical Questions and in my opinion they should be answered with philosophical

arguments.

All right this next video.

It looks like it's steven crowder and he does his uh thing with the change my mind series of videos,

which is pretty clever.

Uh, let's go ahead.

So this is i'm pro -life, uh change my mind and he's engaging students at what appears to be a university campus.

Let's take a look.

What's your name?

Mitch mitch steven.

Nice to meet you.

Um, I have no idea whether you're familiar or not with the segment that we do but it's basically An opportunity to rationalize

one's position.

I'm pro -life, uh and all that that would encompass here.

I guess you probably understand where I line up if you disagree with me if there's anything wrong with my position You're more than welcome to change my mind.

I do think there's a lot wrong with your position if you're going to try to tell more than half the

world's population.

More than half of america's population that they Are not allowed to decide to do with their

bodies what they want to do.

But a dead body if they're not an organ donor, they're not going to get harvested.

For organ donation, then I think that's really messed up and frankly, I think that

women should have the option Legally and otherwise to be able to get an abortion if they want to.

Okay, there are a few presumptions there.

Um, no, I would never tell 50 percent of america as you put it about half of america what they can

and can't do with their own bodies.

But that's exactly what the pro -life argument is.

You're going to make abortions illegal.

So i'm not familiar with steven crowder and uh, i'm not really familiar I've not seen a lot of these kinds of videos or

whatever but uh, you know.

You hear this a lot these slogans like well, you know Don't tell me what to do with my own body from the pro -choice side and then you have pro

-lifers.

Steven crowder is saying well i'm not trying to tell people what to do with their own bodies.

I think what steven crowder is getting at and hopefully he unpacks this is.

From the pro -life side the unborn is not the female's body.

It's not the mother's body.

The unborn is its own distinct entity with its own distinct dna and all that stuff.

So that's where I think that's what he's trying to say.

When he says i'm not trying to tell people what to do with their Bodies, he's probably just saying i'm trying to protect the body of the unborn child.

Which then is going to force the women of america to either find a way to get an illegal abortion.

Which has its own host of problems both medical, uh legal, etc as abortion does.

Abort a safe abortion doesn't sure it does.

What what uh.

What.

What what what things are?

Medically wrong with a medical abortion.

Uh for the baby being killed.

Okay, i'm not talking about the baby.

Why not?

Because the simple fact of the matter is is the baby is not An autonomous living being really how simple

because it cannot fend for itself.

Okay, so would a right right and there it is again, right?

And now you see that it really does come back to your presupposition.

Surrounding the status the ontological status of the unborn.

What is it?

Is it a human being because of what kind of thing it is like going all the way back to conception?

I mean this is by the way the pro -life side.

And that whole view is otherwise known as the substance view of human persons, you know.

Um, it's it's a it's a human being at conception and it has intrinsic value.

The for the pro -choice side, you know, uh, the question is is the unborn the sum

total of its parts that it only Uh becomes a human being after manifesting certain properties,

you know certain essential capacities or whatever like fending for oneself.

You know or whatever you say it is.

But here's the thing as soon as you treat the unborn as having extrinsic value.

You know and and that value hinges on certain properties or capacities.

Then you have to bite the bullet and say that well you're fine killing grown -ups.

You know who also have those same properties or capacity?

Well, it doesn't have to be a grown -up either like it could just be a toddler.

Right or or a newborn infant?

But if you want to be consistent.

You have to bite that bullet and say that you'll do the same thing on both sides of the womb.

Old baby not being autonomous human being.

We're not talking about a two -month -old baby.

We're talking about a fetus.

Well, no i'm using your definition.

You said cannot fend for itself.

So it's fending for itself the standard of what constitutes a human being.

No.

Okay, so what constitutes a human being.

Uh, the fact that it is born, right?

Okay.

So, uh what makes the difference between a human being and not a human being is seven inches about the birth canal.

Uh.

Yeah, okay.

So kudos to Crowder because this is the fundamental question that everyone needs to ask on the abortion issue.

What is the unborn.

You'd be okay with abortion all the way up to nine months?

In certain uh circumstances.

Yeah, okay.

Uh, what do you mean in certain certain circumstances?

Uh, if the birth would be fatal to either the mother or the fetus then I do think that abortion should be legal.

Well, sure.

If let's say if the birth would kill the mother I don't know any major pro -life.

Advocates who wouldn't agree with that?

Yeah, i've met quite a few actually.

Oh, I have yet to meet one.

So maybe you can give me your rolodex, but um, I certainly would say if you're looking at the direct direct

threat to the life of the mother.

Yes, I understand that.

Okay.

But let me say it sounds to me like that doesn't really matter because you would support abortion.

Regardless.

Yes.

Okay.

So why bring it up?

Yeah, because people Especially in america have the freedom to make choices.

And right now the and right now the pro -life argument is trying to infringe

upon one of the choices.

And quick question for all the women.

Can you all raise your hand real quick?

Thank you.

No, no, seriously, seriously, can I get all the women to raise your hands real quick and keep them

raised?

I don't care if it's one -on -one of all of those women that have their hands raised.

Which one of you would rather be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Whoops, uh that didn't go his way.

That's the danger of using mob rule as your moral compass.

Sometimes you don't like how it turns out.

Um, and I could have actually told you that there are significant amount of pro -life women here.

A couple of things.

A couple of things I want to clarify.

I would never tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body.

That's not what I am doing.

Okay, that's not what she is doing and I would never force a woman to carry a child.

Okay.

Okay, but that's exactly what the pro -life stance is.

No, it's not.

So what.

What about the pro -life argument and pro -life Laws and

regulations and all that is going to allow women the choice.

Because that's the whole basis of the pro -choice argument, right.

Yeah, that's a false premise.

What laws would allow the choice to kill another human being.

But it's not a human being.

Well, it is a human being.

How do you define a human being?

You said fend for itself.

That's not a consistent.

Yeah, and that's seven inches of birth canal as you said.

Well, you said you you didn't agree earlier.

No, no fending for itself.

So in other words, no, no.

It's not a living human being until it crosses that birth canal.

Okay, why?

Why?

Because it's still in the womb.

It is still a fetus.

So well, hold on a second.

So we're talking about right now a nine month old baby.

Let's say eight month old, right?

It's not a baby until it's born.

It's not a baby until it's born.

So the only difference right now I'm using a nine month.

Let's pick an eight month old.

Okay, eight months inside the womb.

Eight months outside of the womb.

Mm -hmm.

One is a life and one is not.

Yeah.

Okay.

So what determines human life is.

Location.

If a woman has an eight month old fetus Versus an eight month old child

that is a huge difference because one is inside the woman one is outside.

The only difference is let's call it geographical location, but it's not the same as geographical location.

Okay, it's a location inside of womb or outside of womb, but you're oversimplifying it.

You're trying to understand.

I'm okay.

Why is one a life and one is not?

Because the fetus itself Is wholly and totally dependent upon the mother

that it is attached to via umbilical cord.

Sure, right but wholly dependent.

Just like an eight month old.

However.

The eight month old child the infant at that point.

That's the important distinction fetus versus infant.

Is it's your important distinction, I don't think it's a consistent one but continue.

Is.

The fact that a fetus Which has not been born yet And an

infant which has been born.

In my opinion it shouldn't matter whether or not.

Uh, the mother wants to keep it or not.

Whether it's uh, but I only okay.

I mean look this guy is essentially having a conversation based on claims that he's making to crowder.

And then when crowder asks him to justify those specific claims He shuffles his deck of claim cards around and he pulls another claim out.

Right.

I mean, that's the long and short of this.

You know and I I think this kind of conversation betrays what happens a lot in

regular conversations about abortion in everyday life, you know, which is it we

we got some people here that are.

They have a bunch of thoughts that haven't been wrestled with all the way through philosophically or logically consistently.

And you know, this is this is what we got uh, which is Not great next and now we

reach the final video here.

It's the same sort of category of video with stephen crowder.

I'm pro -life changed my mind, by the way.

I'm wondering if you caught this but the premise of these videos is pretty clever.

In a debate on a given topic particularly how the topic is worded both Interlocutors have a

burden of proof to support themselves when they go in making arguments right here crowder has given his stance

up front and then he he shifts the burden of proof onto his Interlocutor and he gets to sit

back and chime in with cross -examination questions whenever he wants to.

So, I mean that's that's pretty clever, but let's go ahead and jump in.

Well, I mean if you want to get into adoption, let's look at the let's look at the thousands of babies.

Who are in the foster program right now?

I mean, I understand not having late -term abortions unless it's medically necessary, but my whole my

whole point.

Is.

Women who are pro -choice make this decision and anybody who wants to argue on a religious basis at the end of the day.

I haven't not you not you i'm just saying.

A majority like not a majority a portion of people who do want to make that religious.

Oh, they're not here.

That's irrelevant.

So let's just talk about the the science.

Well then in that case well on adoption.

Let's go back to that adoption.

So.

Those children are still in the foster care program right now.

Theoretically speaking.

Let's say abortion was completely taken away.

What happens with the influx of births that are going to occur?

What's going to happen with the women who don't want those children who initially didn't want that child and do give them up for adoption?

And we have a huge surplus of more children in the foster care program.

Who then will not be adopted just as the many thousands that are in it right now.

So.

Can I answer that it sounds to me first off like a lot of absolvement of responsibility.

Um, but.

Just because someone is a burden.

Is that is that how we place value on human life if someone is more burdensome because they're unwanted?

They are not they have no intrinsic value.

No, no, I want to.

I want to determine what let's i'm saying like in the sense of burdening.

Yeah, we don't want to take the burden.

I know it's a different topic, but it's just something similar.

We don't want to take the burden of Some of our mistakes on a day -to -day basis.

But yet it's not as polar opposite as this right now.

So this whole thing about you know, what are the consequences of adoption rates in foster

care if we stop?

Aborting the unborn.

It's not a justification to abort the unborn because we haven't yet discussed or

these two haven't yet discussed.

The ontology of the unborn you see how that's so vital to the discussion.

What is the unborn you know, if the unborn is a human being with intrinsic value.

Then you see how asking these questions about the rise of the adoption rates or foster care.

It's irrelevant.

Right if the unborn is not a human being until some some sort of Property or

capacity manifest itself.

Well, then yeah, it makes more sense to talk about adoption and foster care along these lines.

So that's where the conversation needs to start with your presuppositions I'd say like every single time you get into this kind of a

conversation about abortion.

That's where it needs to start as in the sense of like I can't bring up other topics because then we're going to get off.

Topic.

Yeah, we'll get off.

It sounds like we're absolving women both women and men by the way.

Um, I don't know if you consider yourself.

Oh, sorry a feminist at all or uh, but I certainly wouldn't let.

I certainly Wouldn't let men off the hook as you are right here.

Listen, both women and men have responsibility to either be abstinent use proper contraception.

It's 2018.

I don't believe for a second that people are not aware of the contraception methods available to them uh.

And then also be parents or provide a baby For adoption and there are plenty of services out there.

It sounds to me like absolving people from a lot of responsibility and again, none of this is okay.

If it's a human life some of those government services that should help like should help

deter Women from wanting to have an abortion are not as easily acceptable as

everybody thinks that they are.

Just because you make a certain amount of money per year Means that you don't qualify for the

government aid the health care programs that are available.

You don't.

I don't qualify for them.

I slipped through the cracks because I am right in the middle.

So because I had nobody to help me.

And yes, I can be an another another person on government subsidies as well as my

child.

But do you really want to pay if you have a child.

I don't have a child i'm saying theoretically, okay.

Do you want to pay for my subsidies that I need?

Requiring I would be requiring from the government.

No, so again talking about these kinds of things Sort of downplays the

real emotional involvement that's going on in these kinds of discussions.

And I don't want you to get the wrong idea because it's all there the emotions and they're all valid.

Okay, people are trying to figure this out.

You know, I think a lot of us if we're on one side of the issue We get mad at the other side because we really treat the other side as

if they know better, but they're they're being Somehow manipulative or something like that.

That's not what's going on.

Both sides of the debate really believe What they're saying?

Okay, and so but what i'm so what i'm talking about style here I don't want to sound like she's being manipulative, but she's

doing a really good job of personalizing the issue.

That's effective.

When you go into a conversation like this and you personalize and use personal language like what she's doing That is effective to get

your point across.

Of course not you don't.

No.

No, and I know where this is going now.

We're going to go and say well, you're not really pro -life unless you support insert socialized program here.

The difference is i'm pretty consistent across the board.

I'm pro -life meaning you cannot kill another human being inside the womb or outside of the womb.

So I think the pivotal question becomes you talk about the choice the choice the choice.

Now we've provided four choices.

You just Believe that it's you believe it's a human right to provide a fifth choice.

So in that case, um, it's I think it's very important for you to I guess explain to me

why that's not a human life.

That's not necessarily something that that's the fundamental question.

Okay, and kudos to crowder for bringing it back to that to that question.

You can explain according to biology.

Sure, technically you can say that it is a human life, but i'm not tech.

I'm not going to get into that conversation because you can tail dog me all day long on it.

No, I think.

Well, hold on a second.

Hold on a second.

Doesn't that matter?

Doesn't it isn't the most important question if you are potentially killing a human being.

Believe that the start like when do you believe that the point?

Let me continue on.

I will answer that question.

But let me continue on this this this logic trail here if you are advocating for abortion.

And we both acknowledge that it could be potentially ending a human life.

Isn't it important for you to be able to prove that it's not okay to end human life only when the government says that we can.

It's not okay to end human life changing the subject.

You know what the army does every day.

Listen, we're talking about wars.

We're talking about wars and we're talking about self -defense and millions killing.

This is something that I see a lot of people slip into in conversations and again, it goes back to the first thing I said, which is

you know, we get into a discussion right.

Our Heart starts beating a little bit faster.

Our nerves get going, right?

And whatever pops into our mind falls right out of our mouth.

The problem is she's changing the subject.

So when he brings up an issue that it appears that she properly can't respond to.

She shifts and changes the subject and starts bringing up something else.

Oh, look at this over here.

Look at that over there.

And so the strategy in this regard is to keep it back to the one issue like no.

We're not gonna we can talk about that in just a moment.

But first let's finish talking about this specific issue and crowder appears to be doing a good job.

You know trying to keep it on the one issue.

Innocent child killing an innocent child.

Do you are?

Okay.

Let me ask you this.

You approve of that.

No, I don't.

Okay, so then you wouldn't approve of it happening in a womb, correct?

I.

Don't approve of you saying that a child in a womb is going to be the de facto

of what Happens in my life because if I decide to be if i'm i don't appreciate.

I don't appreciate a person killing another human being.

So it does I get that you say I don't want.

Listen I don't want you to have a say in my life.

But I don't I don't want to have a say in your life.

I only want to have a say in that by changing the legalities of the laws that I live.

The laws that affect me and the millions of other women that have to have the abortion.

Because let me tell you right now Half a lot of a lot of like have to have half

have to have.

The abortion so you only support abortion if it's medically necessary.

No, I didn't say that.

You're you're putting words in my mouth, okay.

So what do you mean have to have the abortion then as in?

It's a choice.

If I don't have the abortion then I have to quit school.

I have to go back home.

I have to imply there's no choice.

I don't there is no choice whenever it comes to sitting there and weighing your options and actually

having to carry determine deal with the already Extreme

changes that happen in your body.

Like until you have physically carried something in you until you have had to face the decision.

I'm not saying it's something that's beautiful.

I'm, not saying that people are out here having tea parties and getting an abortion afterwards.

No, it's not pretty.

People are they were doing the shout your abortion campaign.

It's the it's the really ugly truth.

Of what we had to do what we had to do.

There's plenty of if you just set the emotions aside for a second and just look at the issues

themselves.

There's a dance going on and I don't think this this young lady understands.

What she's doing here, but the effect of all this is she's skirting the real issue of the unborn's ontology and bringing up

all these other issues that May or may not make sense unless you first

determine what the unborn is.

That is the fundamental question that everybody needs to ask first before talking about, you

know hardships.

Uh that are real.

I mean those are valid, you know, um, uh adoption rates foster care abuse like whatever

it is.

Right.

We talk about all of those things after we determine and agree on what the unborn is and she refuses to do

that.

Earlier, she said she didn't want to talk about it.

So at this point crowder can either press in and risk pissing her off essentially.

Or just give some kind of concluding remark and move on other men in history who will say

those same words.

We had to do what we had to do whether it be pretty or not.

I can understand the moral obligations that you feel.

No not feel and will that we all have a moral.

No, we all have a moral obligation to not kill other people against their will period.

That's not an opinion.

Have a will because they don't have a thought process.

They haven't learned they haven't they haven't been born.

And you know.

Here we go, right.

Human value is extrinsic to certain key properties or capacities.

In this case.

It's the ability to have thought processes.

Right, but then you open yourself up if that's your position to the same problem of grown -ups.

Or toddlers or newborns or whatever lacking the same properties or capacities and what are you going to do with

those examples?

What about a four -month -old baby.

They've never learned anything at that point.

What about a person in a coma.

What about someone who's brain dead.

Those those who say That no answer if like the law says that a fetus is not

a baby until it is viable outside of the womb.

Okay those those same laws and regulations that still constitute someone to be charged with

murder or even.

Manslaughter if there was an accident.

The difference between what's law and what's moral.

Something can be legal and entirely immoral.

Okay, and.

There's so in the sense of who does it benefit though?

Who is it benefiting?

Okay, a good example would be let's say.

Slave owners it was legal at one point and it benefited slave owners, right?

They could control the bot.

Can I finish.

They could control the bodies of other human beings?

Abortion only benefits the people who are killing other lives often out of convenience.

It certainly is harmful to the baby inside of the womb.

So I do think it's very important here uh for you to define What constitutes a human life?

Why is that baby?

Let's say in the so I mean.

This is probably another video for another time, right?

Because you know our focus tends to be in this series.

Anyway tends to be more on more formal debates and the issues themselves the arguments themselves, right?

But look at uh, the body language that's going on here crowder is leaning in.

He's very persistent.

Trying to engage this particular person, but look at her.

She's leaning away from him her non -verbals are Showing she's got her guard

up and she's not liking what she's hearing and so even her repeating under her breath, you know.

For convenience, right?

Just goes to show that if the goal here really is of crowder's attempts here It really is to

persuade somebody to change their minds.

In this particular instance, he's not doing it and we don't have to be psychic to know that he's not persuading this person.

So the then it becomes a matter of well, do you continue?

Do you further press in even knowing that the guard is up with this person and.

And they're going to probably keep that guard up, you know, like or do you just go hey.

Thank you so much for the conversation.

I hope that you think about some of the things that I said it says it seems for you your definition is viability.

What constitutes a human life when is it?

Okay when the child is viable outside of the womb and that does not happen.

Okay, when's that until about five to six months?

Pregnancy and we've already talked about late -term abortions occur in the third trimester.

I believe if you've had that baby for six months have the damn baby.

So you're against late -term abortion?

Yes, if it's if it's you know women who do have late -term abortions.

They're not out here.

Walking around at eight months pregnant saying.

Oh, you know what?

I don't feel like having this baby anymore.

Let's just get rid of it.

Sure.

They are.

No, they're not.

That's almost all late -term abortions.

I've seen basically the gist of this but you know, it also is missing from this conversation.

Is why there are a lot of what questions happening?

Um, you know, the the unborn is not a human being until it's viable outside the womb.

Okay, although i'm not sure like what that means exactly because a newborn cannot take

care of itself outside the womb either.

So the baby still requires, you know, someone to take care of it inside or outside the womb.

But we're hearing a lot of what right but not.

The why and that's important to to request as well in these kinds of conversations, right?

Why is viability outside the womb the criteria to be a human being or whatever?

She's saying right like whatever your criteria is.

Why is that the criteria?

That's a justification question.

You know because it's one thing to just make claims all day long.

But it's another thing to back up your claims with some good evidence and some good reasons.

And by the way that also applies to the pro -life side as well.

So if you're a pro -life person and you make some claims the onus is on you to also support yourself.

When you make those kinds of claims, so look the big takeaway here is this and I hope you caught it, right?

The average person on the street.

Hasn't really thought through their positions not all the way through they haven't really wrestled with it.

There's a lot of sloganeering going on probably on both sides but like.

There's not a lot of thought process going through and in dealing with logical consequences.

And consistency when it comes to the abortion issue.

So it's probably best as a strategy or a tactic not to make statements.

But to ask the right kinds of questions in debate.

It would be more like treat your conversations in the vein of a cross -examination.

But do it with a tender heart and do it with a lot of patience and care for the person that you're talking to.

You know now obviously we watched a video a couple videos of ben shapiro where he's making a lot of statements.

But in his case, he was at a podium.

In front of a large audience and people were asking him questions with crowder.

It was more one -on -one.

Which is how typically it goes for the rest of us in normal situations, right?

And so in those cases asking questions the right kinds of questions is key.

Also identifying the ontology of the unborn.

What is he got to ask her that question?

What is the unborn?

Is it a human being a conception or is it not and why do you say that?

That needs to be dealt with first before we talk about anything else.

That ultimately is the fundamental question that determines where you go next in in the conversation about abortion.

So I hope this exercise was fruitful and then it gets you thinking along the right lines when it comes to this kind of discussion if you are more

interested in persuading folks and seeking to be persuasive when it comes

to Talking about abortion, but also theology and apologetics.

Well, then definitely check out our other series first state evangelism.

We have a signature method of communicating that is persuasive.

It actually follows the proper order of persuasion and it goes all the way back to jesus.

So definitely take a look at all those videos and more in the meantime I'm going to take a break and I will return soon with more videos

for your consumption and for now I will say Bye -bye.