wow a lot of smart people making comments here. i would like to better understand some of what i am reading here. it has made me want to rethink some of my thoughts. i wrote a paper in college about euthanasia and had to support both pro and con . so i do understand the dangers of placing value of any living person. i support abortion in early term but i still say i do not think it is right , i also yes it is a human being but feel it is a choice i would not want to be without.
6) the implementation of eugenic practices is more than probable and realistic in a society where the belief that absolute morality is non-existent. I know that I may be oversimplifying but ideas like these can lead to Nazi Germany all over again. In godless universe, anything and everything is permissible.
5) His basis for his abortion argument presupposes that human life is not equal. Because it were equal both the woman and the unborn child would have equal rights and he would not believe that the assassination of an young baby is inferior to the assassination of a grown human being. This is a slippery slope because it begs the question for disabled people or those with lower IQ's. And although I accept Darwinian theory eugenics is logical consequence of it and.....
4) They would ask, 'how did you get from an absolute and objective moral law to an moral law giver?' Why is a moral law giver necessary?' Maybe you can make a video on this as it is an controversial topic.
On other note, Singers opinion on the inequality of the life of a baby in comparison to a grown human is a very very dangerous assertion, in my opinion. The minute an individual asserts this, it opens to the door to eugenics.
3) So your counter argument to the Singer argument is a good argument however when you extended the observable truths of natural law to the existence of a supreme entity this is where your counter argument collapses for many atheists such as Peter Singer. A lot of atheists do not believe in an absolute mortality and the ones that do believe in an absolute mortality do not believe that it is necessary to have a moral law giver. Some would view this as an extrapolational jump.
2) that the rights of the mother supersedes the rights of the unborn child. Because of this he concludes that abortion is morally permissible. Singer also contends that killing a baby is never equivalent to killing a grown human being. This is because a baby lacks the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness''
Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher and a professor who mainly teaches ethics at Princeton University. He is also a staunch atheist. The question as to whether the fetus is a human being is traditionally the bone of contention for the abortion argument. Singer on the other hand believes that the fetus is a living human being, however he denies that it is necessarily wrong to take the life of an innocent human. For Singer this purely a utilitarian based calculation as he also maintains
@missysmithy25 I'm gonna need an elaboration as I've never even heard of this guy....but hey, that would be a testament to reason...many of the things I've said, I've found out years later someone like Socrates said...when a person uses reason, they can possibly come to universal truths. but again, elaborate on Peter's argument.
Since all of that seems kind of abstract and theoretical anyway, the idea I came to which is more about reality is that one should ask someone who was under consideration to be aborted but their mom decided not to, and ask them their opinion. Then I realized, they're most certainly going to say they're glad they weren't aborted. What I still feel is that when the zygote becomes a real baby, it shouldn't be aborted, but if it's still a mass of cells, it can be aborted. I'm open to change, though
In my opinion, a zygote reaches the level of humanity once it becomes/looks like a baby. This is maybe just a sentimental rather than scientific approach, but whatever. A zygote has the potential to become a human being. But if you think about it, potential is broad. Every time we have sex using protection, we're blocking the potential of having a baby. It's almost like saying every time we don't have sex, we're giving up the creation of a potential human being. Not sure if I'm making sense here
The zygote is the epitome of the PURSUIT of LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
come on guys you can't tell the potential human it can't PURSUE life but you can tell someone that they can't take someones life away after the person has already gained access to their life
If the state of nature already contained morality then Locke's idea of original or free society would be possible.Who was ridiculed by Hobbes who claims morality and human rights exist as a need of human society.Society needs structure and there is no such thing as "original morality",because the society of the free would be war of everyone vs everyone. A human who has never met another human doesn't have the freedom of speech. Do you have the right to kill dragons?Not taken or given. Not there.
You are presuming that having an abortion is "not dealing with the consequences". Abortion is a consequence itself? Are you presuming that action and reaction principle aligns itself towards right and wrong of human society?
You make a distinction between personal ethical and political morality, yet you place your personal ethics onto a supreme being?
Why are you equalizing abortion and assault? During assault, the victim is not using the attacker. When the victim is, it's called self defense.
What did you say? An atheist does not believe in human rights because they do not believe in the supreme being. Can you explain this reasoning. P.S, I would like you say this in some Muslim countries that are governed by Islamic law? The religious minorities in these are constantly persecuted. What happen to the "rights" minorities in these religious countries?
This video made complete sense to me Aman! So please stop beating yourself up over it! I am 18, and your views on pre-marital sex never fail to intrigue me because I still have mixed feelings about it, but moving on to your video, I think it can be accurately summed up that an abortion is politically ethical due to many socially deemed reasons, but your need to point out the obvious flaws in the author's case is commendable because the biggest mistake is pointing out that an abortion is MORAL.
2) Although I beg to differ, I need to play devil's advocate.
I have a question for you, do you believe that by virtue of reasoning it is possible to objectively decipher between what is good or bad independent of the idea of a moral giver? Please explain. This seems to be the hutch of the atheist ideology of many atheists. Because they contend that is idea of a moral giver is unnecessary and false, they conclude that the existence of God is untrue. P.S I love your videos btw keep them coming
1) Aman, very interesting video. I'm glad that you logically extended the observable truths of natural law to the existence of a supreme entity. I had two separate discussions with a friend of mine who is an atheist as well as one of mine philosophy professors who is also a staunch atheist. They contend that they do not need God as an impetus for the what is right or wrong. People can live moral, good lives independent of a conception of God as a moral law giver.
what if the fetus is viewed as a parasite? from libertarian point of view, you have every right to do what ever till the point u harm someone else. the fetus (parasite) drains resources from the mother for his own good, does that still follow the principal of morality? i know the mother has no right to abort the fetus, so what is the solution here? the fetus cant be killed and the but it cannot live inside the mother?
@AmanJohnX Good video. I would say that if you dont believe in natural law and the rights that come from natural law, then you get your rights from either political standards or selfish reasons that suit you as a person and therefor are very subjective. And if you are just looking out for yourself, then you will place your rights above the baby's rights even to a level that the baby's rights dont count anymore. And that is immoral.
I think alot of the comments are taking you a little to seriously. Aman is saying that abortion is immoral. And that just the way it is. He is not stating if his opinion is that abortion should not be legal, he's just trying to break down the authors arguments. Just cause he is open minded enough to see things from different angles, doesn't mean they are different opinions.
I'm still not sure how I feel about abortion... On one hand, who are we to determine if another possible person should live or die. Even if we don't think the circumstances for a baby is right. On the other hand, sometimes the circumstances are so unfair for a human to be born into, such as raped young women, incest or just young foolish women etc.... But still... We are doing god's job by determine if they should live or die... and that is just not right.
Amen! I followed you through the whole thing and you're point is on point! btw, I didn't here you mention anything about rape, what is your opinion on that (just wondering if that changes anything lol)?
what you also dont seem to know is the law and the LAW STATES THAT BOTH PARENTS HAVE TO BE A PART OF THE CHILDS LIFE IF THEY ARE DEVORICED and the only way that law changes is if one parent is unfit and it is split as even custody so your argument about the parents not being an equal part of the childs life is debunked
when abortions are done its because the baby is able to be physically dependent you forget that there is a reason why a female unless her life is in danger CANT get an abortion SAFELY after 3 months and i do realize that some females might stupidly do illegal abortions after 3 months even if abortion was completely legal but that would be super rare
it seems that you dont really know what you are talking about you are seem to probably be fine with abortions if a female was raped or if she was going to die if she had the baby or if the baby was already a still born
those are the MAIN REASONS why any female has an abortion some times age is a factor but for the most part it is health problems
if you are saying that god exists then why the fuck did he create abortions in the first place and in the bible give the poision to that women so her baby/fetus would die (i dont know how far along she was but at 3 months in the womb it is concidered a baby because it can live out side the womb just not very likely and it would have to be on incubaitors)
thats not true because all animals are born with rights and it doesnt matter what animal you are the rights in the law of nature are different but they are still rights and that is why most other animals share food and things like that humans are actually more barbaric then wolves they take care of other wolves and make sure they are okay unlike humans we have the republicans saying lets let people die on the streets the right to live doesnt just apply to people
heres an intersting fact that i just remeber and i think i heard it from the vlogbrothers but i am not 100% sure about that
this is the fact that i heard people arent the only animals to get abortions geriaffes actually eat a certain type of plant that would make it so they have abortions
i just thought that might be an interesting fact for you to know i know it doesnt have to do with anything really but random facts are fun
your thing about taxes you forget how many rich people are begging to be taxed there for you cant talk about how people dont want to be taxed and i know that isnt really about your arguments but you need to keep that in mind that millionares want to be taxed right now
the constitution has protected the right for a women to have a safe legal abortion for years until the chirstians came and fucked things up in america abortions used to be legal as well and then at one point the chirstians made it so abortion was illegal females sued their states and in the end females won and now have to re fight that battle for some reason
the reason why most abortions happen is because the mother WILL DIE if she doesnt have one and thats what that guy is talking about with the right to life liberty and things like that
usually conciousness is reason that is why a lot of people cant kill because their reasons/conciousness wont let them if they dont have reasoning then nothing will stop them from killing because they dont have a concious as well at least thats how i see it
the difference is a conjoined twin is just a deformity and they almost can always live differently they just need to be seperated a fetus cant and if it could then it wouldnt need a host/be in a womens body to live
the sperm is alive so males shouldnt be able to masterbait then and if they do they should get thrown in jail (thats what i want to tell the males who want to throw women in jail for doing what they want with their bodys) i also want to tell them lets just make vactomys manditory so abortions stop then
the males dont like it when the females tell them what to do but they love to tell the females what to do
all i want to do is to state some facts before i watch this 1 is that nobody is for abortion they dont just wake up one day and say i am going to have an abortion or tell somebody they should get an abortion because its fun 2 the abortion rate NEVER GOES DOWN when abortion is illegal 3 moral is hard to say because either way if that baby is born it will most likely die and in a pointless war as things are going
I think it was a really good video Aman! And you should honestly stop doubting yourself or what ever you're doing, you do make sense. With that being said I totally agree with you on this topic, abortion is immoral. But lets say for arguments sake that the baby is killing its mother? Would it be moral for the baby to be aborted if its taking its mothers natural rights? And if its immoral, what would/should happen?
As for your point about the requisition of a supreme entity, personally I feel that the human experience is arbitrary. Pre linguistics, obviously there was no law. Post linguistics (neolithic revolution) the concept of morality arose through ones ability to express pain. Please expand on this.
I enjoyed your argument! And Peter Singer is an idiot!
GhettoEnterprises 2 weeks ago
wow a lot of smart people making comments here. i would like to better understand some of what i am reading here. it has made me want to rethink some of my thoughts. i wrote a paper in college about euthanasia and had to support both pro and con . so i do understand the dangers of placing value of any living person. i support abortion in early term but i still say i do not think it is right , i also yes it is a human being but feel it is a choice i would not want to be without.
sweetkittytwine 3 weeks ago
6) the implementation of eugenic practices is more than probable and realistic in a society where the belief that absolute morality is non-existent. I know that I may be oversimplifying but ideas like these can lead to Nazi Germany all over again. In godless universe, anything and everything is permissible.
missysmithy25 2 months ago
5) His basis for his abortion argument presupposes that human life is not equal. Because it were equal both the woman and the unborn child would have equal rights and he would not believe that the assassination of an young baby is inferior to the assassination of a grown human being. This is a slippery slope because it begs the question for disabled people or those with lower IQ's. And although I accept Darwinian theory eugenics is logical consequence of it and.....
missysmithy25 2 months ago
4) They would ask, 'how did you get from an absolute and objective moral law to an moral law giver?' Why is a moral law giver necessary?' Maybe you can make a video on this as it is an controversial topic.
On other note, Singers opinion on the inequality of the life of a baby in comparison to a grown human is a very very dangerous assertion, in my opinion. The minute an individual asserts this, it opens to the door to eugenics.
missysmithy25 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3) So your counter argument to the Singer argument is a good argument however when you extended the observable truths of natural law to the existence of a supreme entity this is where your counter argument collapses for many atheists such as Peter Singer. A lot of atheists do not believe in an absolute mortality and the ones that do believe in an absolute mortality do not believe that it is necessary to have a moral law giver. Some would view this as an extrapolational jump.
missysmithy25 2 months ago
2) that the rights of the mother supersedes the rights of the unborn child. Because of this he concludes that abortion is morally permissible. Singer also contends that killing a baby is never equivalent to killing a grown human being. This is because a baby lacks the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness''
missysmithy25 2 months ago
Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher and a professor who mainly teaches ethics at Princeton University. He is also a staunch atheist. The question as to whether the fetus is a human being is traditionally the bone of contention for the abortion argument. Singer on the other hand believes that the fetus is a living human being, however he denies that it is necessarily wrong to take the life of an innocent human. For Singer this purely a utilitarian based calculation as he also maintains
missysmithy25 2 months ago
this is not a novel argument for pro-abortion. this is the Peter Singer argument.
missysmithy25 2 months ago
@missysmithy25 I'm gonna need an elaboration as I've never even heard of this guy....but hey, that would be a testament to reason...many of the things I've said, I've found out years later someone like Socrates said...when a person uses reason, they can possibly come to universal truths. but again, elaborate on Peter's argument.
AmanJohnX 2 months ago
Since all of that seems kind of abstract and theoretical anyway, the idea I came to which is more about reality is that one should ask someone who was under consideration to be aborted but their mom decided not to, and ask them their opinion. Then I realized, they're most certainly going to say they're glad they weren't aborted. What I still feel is that when the zygote becomes a real baby, it shouldn't be aborted, but if it's still a mass of cells, it can be aborted. I'm open to change, though
randomaccount39 2 months ago
In my opinion, a zygote reaches the level of humanity once it becomes/looks like a baby. This is maybe just a sentimental rather than scientific approach, but whatever. A zygote has the potential to become a human being. But if you think about it, potential is broad. Every time we have sex using protection, we're blocking the potential of having a baby. It's almost like saying every time we don't have sex, we're giving up the creation of a potential human being. Not sure if I'm making sense here
randomaccount39 2 months ago
I really wouldn't add anything to your argument if I could. Very well done. And do not worry if you feel off track. It happens
WilliamReinschmidt 2 months ago
You should check out QualiaSoup's 3 Video's on morality.
There not easy to understand, but I think you can manage.
Let me know on which point's u disagree.
VellianoRosso 2 months ago
i understood it! It was an interesting argument.
cobainbride 2 months ago
The zygote is the epitome of the PURSUIT of LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
come on guys you can't tell the potential human it can't PURSUE life but you can tell someone that they can't take someones life away after the person has already gained access to their life
squirrelspown 2 months ago
If the state of nature already contained morality then Locke's idea of original or free society would be possible.Who was ridiculed by Hobbes who claims morality and human rights exist as a need of human society.Society needs structure and there is no such thing as "original morality",because the society of the free would be war of everyone vs everyone. A human who has never met another human doesn't have the freedom of speech. Do you have the right to kill dragons?Not taken or given. Not there.
miki5xD 2 months ago
You are presuming that having an abortion is "not dealing with the consequences". Abortion is a consequence itself? Are you presuming that action and reaction principle aligns itself towards right and wrong of human society?
You make a distinction between personal ethical and political morality, yet you place your personal ethics onto a supreme being?
Why are you equalizing abortion and assault? During assault, the victim is not using the attacker. When the victim is, it's called self defense.
miki5xD 2 months ago
What did you say? An atheist does not believe in human rights because they do not believe in the supreme being. Can you explain this reasoning. P.S, I would like you say this in some Muslim countries that are governed by Islamic law? The religious minorities in these are constantly persecuted. What happen to the "rights" minorities in these religious countries?
uzoma0024 2 months ago
This video made complete sense to me Aman! So please stop beating yourself up over it! I am 18, and your views on pre-marital sex never fail to intrigue me because I still have mixed feelings about it, but moving on to your video, I think it can be accurately summed up that an abortion is politically ethical due to many socially deemed reasons, but your need to point out the obvious flaws in the author's case is commendable because the biggest mistake is pointing out that an abortion is MORAL.
seethabean 2 months ago
2) Although I beg to differ, I need to play devil's advocate.
I have a question for you, do you believe that by virtue of reasoning it is possible to objectively decipher between what is good or bad independent of the idea of a moral giver? Please explain. This seems to be the hutch of the atheist ideology of many atheists. Because they contend that is idea of a moral giver is unnecessary and false, they conclude that the existence of God is untrue. P.S I love your videos btw keep them coming
missysmithy25 2 months ago
1) Aman, very interesting video. I'm glad that you logically extended the observable truths of natural law to the existence of a supreme entity. I had two separate discussions with a friend of mine who is an atheist as well as one of mine philosophy professors who is also a staunch atheist. They contend that they do not need God as an impetus for the what is right or wrong. People can live moral, good lives independent of a conception of God as a moral law giver.
missysmithy25 2 months ago
I understood 80% of the video, I'm gonna have to watch it again to understand the other 20%
=)
IsabelLovee 2 months ago
I was able to follow through and you really nailed it.
fawaakeh 2 months ago
what if the fetus is viewed as a parasite? from libertarian point of view, you have every right to do what ever till the point u harm someone else. the fetus (parasite) drains resources from the mother for his own good, does that still follow the principal of morality? i know the mother has no right to abort the fetus, so what is the solution here? the fetus cant be killed and the but it cannot live inside the mother?
DougieSomeMo 2 months ago
@AmanJohnX Good video. I would say that if you dont believe in natural law and the rights that come from natural law, then you get your rights from either political standards or selfish reasons that suit you as a person and therefor are very subjective. And if you are just looking out for yourself, then you will place your rights above the baby's rights even to a level that the baby's rights dont count anymore. And that is immoral.
7eloua 2 months ago
Nice Vid
AmirsDilema 2 months ago
This video is not as confusing as you seem to think. I didn't have too much trouble following your train of thought.
JIYkp 2 months ago
What are your thoughts on abortion after rape, is what I would like to know.
Thanks for all of your videos, mate.. they're all awesome!
SxEJohnDoe 2 months ago
I think alot of the comments are taking you a little to seriously. Aman is saying that abortion is immoral. And that just the way it is. He is not stating if his opinion is that abortion should not be legal, he's just trying to break down the authors arguments. Just cause he is open minded enough to see things from different angles, doesn't mean they are different opinions.
sjuttioelva 2 months ago
My favorite video!!!
GuidetteExpert 2 months ago
I'm still not sure how I feel about abortion... On one hand, who are we to determine if another possible person should live or die. Even if we don't think the circumstances for a baby is right. On the other hand, sometimes the circumstances are so unfair for a human to be born into, such as raped young women, incest or just young foolish women etc.... But still... We are doing god's job by determine if they should live or die... and that is just not right.
aichawr 2 months ago
Amen! I followed you through the whole thing and you're point is on point! btw, I didn't here you mention anything about rape, what is your opinion on that (just wondering if that changes anything lol)?
jerrylittlemars 2 months ago
what you also dont seem to know is the law and the LAW STATES THAT BOTH PARENTS HAVE TO BE A PART OF THE CHILDS LIFE IF THEY ARE DEVORICED and the only way that law changes is if one parent is unfit and it is split as even custody so your argument about the parents not being an equal part of the childs life is debunked
kazooga1234 2 months ago
when abortions are done its because the baby is able to be physically dependent you forget that there is a reason why a female unless her life is in danger CANT get an abortion SAFELY after 3 months and i do realize that some females might stupidly do illegal abortions after 3 months even if abortion was completely legal but that would be super rare
kazooga1234 2 months ago
it seems that you dont really know what you are talking about you are seem to probably be fine with abortions if a female was raped or if she was going to die if she had the baby or if the baby was already a still born
those are the MAIN REASONS why any female has an abortion some times age is a factor but for the most part it is health problems
kazooga1234 2 months ago
if you are saying that god exists then why the fuck did he create abortions in the first place and in the bible give the poision to that women so her baby/fetus would die (i dont know how far along she was but at 3 months in the womb it is concidered a baby because it can live out side the womb just not very likely and it would have to be on incubaitors)
kazooga1234 2 months ago
thats not true because all animals are born with rights and it doesnt matter what animal you are the rights in the law of nature are different but they are still rights and that is why most other animals share food and things like that humans are actually more barbaric then wolves they take care of other wolves and make sure they are okay unlike humans we have the republicans saying lets let people die on the streets the right to live doesnt just apply to people
kazooga1234 2 months ago
heres an intersting fact that i just remeber and i think i heard it from the vlogbrothers but i am not 100% sure about that
this is the fact that i heard people arent the only animals to get abortions geriaffes actually eat a certain type of plant that would make it so they have abortions
i just thought that might be an interesting fact for you to know i know it doesnt have to do with anything really but random facts are fun
kazooga1234 2 months ago
your thing about taxes you forget how many rich people are begging to be taxed there for you cant talk about how people dont want to be taxed and i know that isnt really about your arguments but you need to keep that in mind that millionares want to be taxed right now
kazooga1234 2 months ago
the constitution has protected the right for a women to have a safe legal abortion for years until the chirstians came and fucked things up in america abortions used to be legal as well and then at one point the chirstians made it so abortion was illegal females sued their states and in the end females won and now have to re fight that battle for some reason
kazooga1234 2 months ago
the reason why most abortions happen is because the mother WILL DIE if she doesnt have one and thats what that guy is talking about with the right to life liberty and things like that
kazooga1234 2 months ago
a baby at 3 months old is concious because it can think it can feel and it is learning
kazooga1234 2 months ago
usually conciousness is reason that is why a lot of people cant kill because their reasons/conciousness wont let them if they dont have reasoning then nothing will stop them from killing because they dont have a concious as well at least thats how i see it
kazooga1234 2 months ago
the difference is a conjoined twin is just a deformity and they almost can always live differently they just need to be seperated a fetus cant and if it could then it wouldnt need a host/be in a womens body to live
kazooga1234 2 months ago
the sperm is alive so males shouldnt be able to masterbait then and if they do they should get thrown in jail (thats what i want to tell the males who want to throw women in jail for doing what they want with their bodys) i also want to tell them lets just make vactomys manditory so abortions stop then
the males dont like it when the females tell them what to do but they love to tell the females what to do
kazooga1234 2 months ago
all i want to do is to state some facts before i watch this 1 is that nobody is for abortion they dont just wake up one day and say i am going to have an abortion or tell somebody they should get an abortion because its fun 2 the abortion rate NEVER GOES DOWN when abortion is illegal 3 moral is hard to say because either way if that baby is born it will most likely die and in a pointless war as things are going
kazooga1234 2 months ago
some humans choose not to use reason and therefore are animals...hahahah LOVE it!!!
joedog3333 2 months ago
I think it was a really good video Aman! And you should honestly stop doubting yourself or what ever you're doing, you do make sense. With that being said I totally agree with you on this topic, abortion is immoral. But lets say for arguments sake that the baby is killing its mother? Would it be moral for the baby to be aborted if its taking its mothers natural rights? And if its immoral, what would/should happen?
sjuttioelva 2 months ago
As for your point about the requisition of a supreme entity, personally I feel that the human experience is arbitrary. Pre linguistics, obviously there was no law. Post linguistics (neolithic revolution) the concept of morality arose through ones ability to express pain. Please expand on this.
Wowblogger 2 months ago