tiny[dot]cc/ytviews #UN# check out tube toolbox to automate posting youtube comments, subscribe to channels, and gain contacts. easily gain tons of views.
Does it really matter if you're religious or an atheist when it comes to Life? Outside the obvious arguments, we're talking about a human life. I mean seriously, fuck you if you think that depending on a belief in "God" makes abortion viable or not. Stabbing someone to a bloody pulp isn't right, is it? How you could possibly do that to something that you created and actually live it down? But, whatever, maybe I'm totally wrong..
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH The neocortex is developed in the third trimester, making a fetus able to feel physical pain and thus creating sentience. Beyond that, fetal nerve cells (which form between two weeks and a month after conception) are able sense and interpret trauma which some (although I don't) interpret as pain. Nice try; next time rely on an education and not pro-abortion standards.
Yes, the third trimester. Notice that is over halfway during the pregnancy.
"Nice try; next time rely on an education and not pro-abortion standards"
1) Education? I rely on more than that, I rely on professional experience. I am actually a biomedical scientist and I have even worked with aborted fetal material in trials.
2) I'm arguing pro-abortion. You realize how stupid it is to point that out to me as if it some sort of crime? i'm pro-abortion so my arguments will be too...
Notice that is over halfway the pregnancy. 75-89% of abortions take place in the first semester. Also, I didn't argue that you shouldn't abort life because it's sentient or not, I argued that you should distinguish between human life (which is a vague term to define anything starting from a single cell onward) and sentient life.
Cells experiencing trauma doesn't mean you experience trauma. If you as a human don't have a CNS you don't experience stimuli.
"Nice try; next time rely on an education and not pro-abortion standards."
This is the dumbest sentence I have read in a while. Apart from the fact that I am not only educate in life sciences but also employed in them, and have even worked with aborted fetal material, you make point out that I have pro-abortion standards as if that's a fallacy. They are called arguments mate, i'm pro abortion, so obviously my arguments and "standards" will be likewise. Thanks Captain Obvious.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH You must be one terrible scientist (not too mention unprofessional) to freak out on a youtube video like this. And once I read "I'm pro abortion" I shall not even try to reason with you, and will calmly dismiss you as an obtuse moron.
"And once I read "I'm pro abortion" I shall not even try to reason with you, and will calmly dismiss you as an obtuse moron."
I love how this sentence is basically an admission that you won't rationally discuss abortion simply because you have decided not to listen as soon as you find out someone is trying to argue against you. I've seen this before. Creationists spring to mind. Are pro-lifers the new creationists perhaps? Have fun persisting in that ignorance.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH You must be one terrible scientist (not too mention unprofessional) to freak out on a youtube video like this. And once I read "I'm pro abortion" I shall not even try to reason with you, and will calmly dismiss you as an obtuse moron.
I think the problem with Penn's argument is that beginning and endings are by their nature not symmetrical; the ending is where present actions have no future effect, and the beginning is only a matter of historical interest. Whether brain function has yet begun or not has no impact on the future of the fetus if brought to term, and really, future impact should be the measure of present decisions.
Also, I like how he uses "anti-choice" and "anti-life." Classic Penn.
While I certainly appreciate and respect another installment of Penn's brave honesty on a touchy subject, his argument doesn't quite work because, would you pull the plug on someone without brainwaves if you knew that brainwaves were imminent?
I always wondered why they never had a Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode on the subject, but at the same time, I'm glad they didn't, as he seems indifferent about the whole thing anyway.
But I don't think pro-life atheist are as rare as he might think...Christopher Hitchens is one, so am I. But there are a great deal more "believers" who are on that side though.
I am a liberal atheist and I am prolife along with a whole bunch of my atheist friends some are conservative and some are not others are into the whole vegan and vegetarian thing as well.
I forgot the victims of child abuse, domestic abuse, victims of war, victims of corporate greed, etc. What we are dealing with is a pervasive culture of death that treats the human person as an object, something to be trampled upon and walked upon to get to whatever suits my current ends and purposes.
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end. ”
—Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
One reason why I am against abortion is I wouldn't want anyone to come along and abort me! :)
@doombuggy123 Utlitarian Ethics places the worth of the human being on external factors such as the ability to be self aware, to anticipate one's future, and to feel pain.Also Utilitarianism seeks to "provide the greatest good for the greatest number." I however disagree with this, for the worth of a person is not based on numbers. Each person is special and valuable and worthy of respect simply for being human.
The law has always recognized the legal rights of a fetus. When a woman and her unborn baby are murdered, the perpetrator of that crime is charged with double homicide, and In real property and probate law a fetus is considered a legal person who can legally inherit property and other assets. The law is so inconsistent this way. For we recognize the legal personhood of a fetus in one aspect and in another aspect deny his/her very right to existence.
No, I don't think that's any more logical. It's not any more logical than keeping someone on life support when they have multiple organ systems failing, just because they have brainwaves. A fetus starts developing it's nervous system around 9 weeks. It doesn't make sense to prioritize a fetus with no chance of viability over a woman just because it has brain waves. A fetus at 30 weeks has a memory span of 10 minutes, so I can only imagine the cognitive abilities at 9 weeks.
Even if it's a full person, it doesn't have a right to use a woman's body any more than I have a right to your kidney. The only argument that really matters, please enjoy. Look up "A defense of Abortion" by Judith Jarvis Thomson
@redblue18700 So a fetus doesn’t have the right to use a woman’s body for nine months but a woman has the right to destroy the fetus’ body? Isn’t that just a little one-sided?
No it's not one sided. Please read over the original argument by the author. It takes time to read. The woman is not "killing" anyone. She is removing an unwanted guest. The fetus has no right to use another person's body. The fetus only has rights to the degree it can live on it's own. It's just a primary fact of life, the woman owns her own body first and foremost. Case solved. Please read the whole argument. Very insightful
@redblue18700 The fetus does have a right to live though, doesn't it? And even if it isn't YET, it WILL, right? So isn't taking the opportunity of life the same as taking the life? Even if it's not a living human, taking away it's chance to be seems just as wrong...
I understand your point & concern. My point is, your right to life does not come at another person's expense. IE the mother's expense. That is the responsibility and faith we must put in women. That is what makes women special, it is for them to choose if they will bring a child into the world, not the child's or your government's choice.
If babies could/can survive without the use of a mother then by all means you would not have the right to end that life.
on consequences...Also the suffering that women go through and the consequences of making abortion illegal far outweigh the "maybe a fetus is a person" concern. more suffering and more death (not less) is a guarantee that things will be worse off for all if we make abortion illegal. to be sure, it's best to have faith in a woman's choice and work from there through compassion and love, and most of all trust in women's choice over their own body and reproduction.
@redblue18700 I'm on a different account, but i'm the same person as Iamthedoorwaymusic. Thank you for your respectful response (that's so rare in the case of this particular subject)
I normally would give a response, but yours was so thought provoking it definitely bears some mulling over. So I may be back, I may not, but thanks either way!
@redblue18700 So according to your beliefs (if I understand you correctly) a fetus has the right to life once it becomes viable, meaning a woman can no longer abort at that point, right? So than a woman only has control over her body until the fetus becomes viable. Then the government CAN tell her what she can and cannot do with HER body.
And just wondering, why is it that a woman who is 12 weeks pregnant “owns her own body first and foremost” but a woman who is 32 weeks pregnant doesn’t?
I can not give you a pure solution. But you can run with that argument! A woman has the right to remove the fetus from her body at any moment. If the fetus dies as a result then that is not her burden. If it is able to be kept alive by technology then perhaps the fetus deserves that right-if technology can help. But it has no right to use her body to do so. I think overall we should have faith in women's wisdom and respect their burden of carrying a child. She will know best.
@redblue18700 the fetus does have the right to use the womans body. it has that right as soon as the mother let the man fuck her. a woman cant go around fucking and catching whatever mans seed and then decide she wants to undo the fact that she let someone fuck her via abortion.
@joeratti That's really a lovely world view, but it's not your job to police women and their sexual activity. It's not your place to tell a person what they can do with their body. Besides where does rape fit into all of this?
@doombuggy123 who said anything about policing womens sexual activity? you better go back and read the whole conversation that has been going on instead of butting in not knowing what is going on
@joeratti Oh, see when you implied that pregnancy should be used as a punishment for women who go around fucking too much, I assumed you meant that you don't like women who fuck too much. My bad.
Women can be raped against their will. And even if not rape, no one can be held to another person's will based on "your" ideals of behavior. People take precautions, people make mistakes. All of it is up to the woman. It's not up to you to determine someone else's conditions of behavior-because you can never know. Also, I find your attitude to be very immature and rude. It shows a lack of intelligence. Please read the article I posted before acting like a dip shit.
why brain function? that doesnt seem fair, as a babies heart starts beating before it gains brain function, right? is a heart beat not a sign of life? id find that more medically acceptable, or else wouldnt the retarded (born with nothing more than say, a brain stem) not count as being alive?
@TheGreatRL Dick Cheney had a heart surgery recently and there is now, within his body, a pump that keeps the blood circulating through his body. It pumps evenly, not with any sort of stopping-and-starting, so he has no pulse nor heartbeat. Look it up.
Nothing rare about pro-life atheists. It's called having a conscious. I find it ironic that so many Liberals are okay with abortion but against execution.
@shadowrun443 Indeed. Liberals are fine with taking away an organism's capacity to grow on the basis that "they're not humans", but the UCLA flips shit when a murderer gets a death sentence. *facepalm*
@shadowrun443 I'm for abortion and against execution. The reason is I don't trust the government to execute only guilty people, seeing as there have been many who have been executed who were proven to be innocent after death. I'm for abortion because I don't beleive you can consider someone a person with rights until they are able to be concious. Also, there are far too many people on Earth as is, and, right or wrong, we can't afford to deal with all those babies being born.
(con't) I guess for abortions, I would have to say that we need to have the option available. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I can only hope that I'm never in the position of having to choose. That can be a hard and scary place to be, society's opinions aside. I had an unplanned pregnancy once when I was younger and I just kept asking myself if I would have the heart to choose abortion. Fortunately or unfortunately, I miscarried, but I still wonder what I would have chosen.
I'm atheist and I don't know how to feel about abortion. If it's a choice between an abortion and giving birth to a baby with Tay-Sachs disease, or another disease where mortality rates are close to 75% or higher, I think I'd choose abortion for my sake and the baby's both. I wouldn't want to put anybody through that kind of suffering. But for girls who get pregnant to keep a boyfriend, or pregnancies that could have easily been avoided by safe-sex, I feel that abortion is frivolous.
Hi Penn fans. Penn Says videos have been discontinued, so you won't be seeing any new content on here. You can check out our Profile on our Channel Page for more info. We'll still be checking in, so hope to keep chatting with you all! Thanks!
I think it's important that we maintain the legal right to terminate a pregnancy at any point, otherwise we have legalized a form of slavery. We shouldn't have be able to force a woman to carry a child for the same reasons I can't force someone to give me a kidney, no matter how certain it is I will die without it. Without that right, bodily autonomy is a joke.
However, terminating a pregnancy doesn't necessarily mean killing the fetus. A C-section terminates a pregnancy, too.
(cont) Fetal brain waves and/or fetal viability might be a good legal line between when a pregnancy can be terminated via an abortion or when a pregnancy can be terminated via a C-section.
Not that it matters much. All elective abortions in the US take place well before fetal brain waves appear. Abortions after that point are already limited by law to cases of medical necessity. Many women who get late term abortions really want the baby, but sadly their pregnancy has gone horribly wrong.
@pennsays you should check out the atheist and agnostic pro life league they have a website. They're argument is that you get one life and there is no afterlife, so why should you rob someone of their one chance at life. Now, I support them, even though I am religious.
@legalbeagle26 Since Penn Says has been discontinued, we can't get anything to Penn. We recommend emailing his site's web master. webmaster at Pennandtellerdotcom.
@legalbeagle26 Because, the baby hasn't lived any of that life. So he never doesn't know of what he is being robbed of. I'm for abortion, I respect your opinion... but at the same time, I believe it's wrong.
@XXkAoTIcDo0mXX I believe you are one of the few people I have talked to on this matter who is actually honest with their viewpoint "You are for abortion." Most people don't want to admit this they say "Well I'm against abortion and I would never have one but..." I want people to be logically consistent with their beliefs. There is absolutely no way that you can deny that its a human life. Now if you believe that we should make it legal to kill that human life, thats another argument.
@legalbeagle26 Sorry about my spelling in that previous responce... I had typed several different arguments but couldn't think of how to word them. And alright, I'll admit it is life. But I few it different than an already born person. Like I said, it doesn't know what it's missing out on. And yes, I believe it's someones choice to have that life killed.
@XXkAoTIcDo0mXX hey kaotic, perhaps there is a better forum that we can discuss this in. I enjoy hearing people's opinions including those that disagree with mine. This is kinda hard to have messages back and forth here but maybe you know of a place we can talk back and forth maybe yahoo, paltalk, skype, email? you pick. Only if you want to.
@legalbeagle26 It is possible to be against abortion and still be pro-choice, it just involves a sacrifice for the greater good. Most pro-choicers don't like abortion but acknowledge the necessity of it being legal in order to protect the well-being and rights of women who need abortions.
@doombuggy123 Doom, I understand that is your viewpoint. However I do not buy into Utilitarian Ethics. The ends never justify the means. And I would argue strongly against this idea that women "need" abortions. It is at best an elective medical procedure that is highly unnecessary and often times down right dangerous. involving sacrifices for the greater good, cheapens the dignity of human life and turns the human person into an expendable object.
@legalbeagle26 You don't think there's a time when women need abortions? What about women who have illnesses and physical disabilities that could put them at risk of dying if they tried to carry the pregnancy to term? Would you rather a pregnant woman die with her fetus than she get an abortion? Is it worth it to you to put her health at risk to save the potential baby? Someone's life is going to be sacrificed either way, makes more sense for it to be the 'potential' person than the actual one.
@doombuggy123 no I do not think there is a time when a woman needs an abortion. Abortion implies direct killing of the unborn baby, if however in spite of the best medical efforts to save both, and one or both dies then this is sadly but morally acceptable because the doctors tried their best to save the lives of the mother and the baby. In other words you cant take actions that would cause the direct death of the baby but it might happen to save the life of the mother. Get what Im saying?
@legalbeagle26 In other words for instance say a woman has an ectopic pregancy and as a result the doctor must remove the fallopian tube and as a result the fetus dies, this is not a direct abortion. It has to do with intent. You might look up what is called in philosophy, the "principle of double effect." Similarly if a woman needs chemo and as a result the fetus dies, this too is morally acceptable because you are trying to save the mother not kill the baby.
@doombuggy123 The ends never justify the means so it is never okay to take a great evil hoping that some good will come about as a result. If that were the case then we could kill starving children because well at least they wouldnt be starving anymore. It doesn't work Morally and ethically. Secondly, I object to you characterizing a fetus as a "potential person." What a fetus is, is a person with great potential. Just like all human persons.
I think equating the worth of a sack of cells to a functioning member of society is especially ridiculous. Unnecessary cruelty is evil, but the fact is that abortion is a necessity in society. Telling women that they should just risk dying, abandonment, financial strain, being kicked out/disowned by their parents and to sacrifice their own free will and body for the sake of an organism that isn't even sentient is unfair and irrational.
@doombuggy123 "Telling women that they should just risk dying. adandonment, financial straing, being kicked out/disowned etc." Is an attempt to argue from emotions, not facts. The facts are that a fetus is a living breathing developing member of our species with its separate own DNA/Brain wave function/heart function etc. This makes the fetus biologically human. Call it what you want but abortion terminates and kills the life of the fetus which is a developing human being.
@doombuggy123 Just because women have problems in their lives doesn't mean they should take a tragedy and make it two tragedies. We all have financial strain, we all have risks of abandonment. The goal is to address these issues in society and this is how we can actually come together pro abortion and Anti Abortion people. We can both make it so abortions arent even necessary. Women need help, whether financially, emotionally, medically, whatever.
@doombuggy123 I would start by giving Universal Health care to all people, job training and high school education programs to young women, poverty eradication programs, parenting classes, all sorts of help for young women who find themselves pregnant or at risk for being pregnant before they are ready. Women deserve better than abortion. They deserve better than a "procedure" that will just mask the problem. Not to mention all of the emotional scars and depress that go along with abortion.
@doombuggy123 I have said alot and will let you read over my many many comments. I actually have to get to class this afternoon. May we continue this later. I have appriciated your level of civility and charity in discussing this oft emotionally challenging and trying topic. When people can get passed the rhetoric, real inroads can be made at solving one of America's most tragic things, the disregard for human life. ALL human life. Be they the poor, the unborn, the eldery or the condemned.
@doombuggy123 The dignity of the human person is immutable, inviolate, and inherent; it is not an earned status, nor is it something that is bestowed at some point. It always is. Also I am not saying the E/Z/F has more moral worth than the mother, I am saying that they are equal in worth. Every human person has the same worth morally, and that worth is immeasurable.
@legalbeagle26 Personhood, self-awareness and the capacity to feel and remember pain are pretty significant arguments in the abortion debate, but the most defining quality of a fetus that automatically appreciates the rights of the mother is that it is dependent on a human body for it's survival. Not metaphorically, but quite literally it needs a host. Everyone deserves the right to their own bodily autonomy, no one should ever be forced to give up their body for another human being.
Your argument is specious and emotional and while I do understand it, the "parasite" argument is flawed. Newborn children require complete and total care, they are completely dependent on the lives of those around them for their sustenance. Should we kill newborns because they happen to be an inconvenience to their parents? Should we kill the feeble minded and the person in a PVS simply because they are "inconvenient?" God help us all if this is what you are advocating!
@doombuggy123 People in persistent vegetative states may not be self aware and may not be able to anticipate their future the same way that non PVS people do, but this has no bearing on the fact that he/she is still a human being. We can't kill the elderly simply because they no longer serve a function in our society and just consume our resources, that would be barbaric. Likewise, a developing person in the womb deserves to be protected because he/she cannot protect him/herself.
@legalbeagle26 That is a horrible argument. Why ever wear a condom then? why rob those sperm cells of their chance at life? Why not try to get pregnant every time you ovulate? taking away a non-sentient organism's chance at life is not immoral or wrong, and certainly should not be controlled by the government
@pennsays I'm not, but I think the phrase "anti-choice" is a load of crap.; At least on paper, this country values choice over life; anyone who calls out the other side for using the phrase "pro-life" and turns around and says "anti-choice" is talking from the wrong end.
Libertarian, objectivism and atheism, I know well these three groups principles and the people that advocate them. They happen to be a large segment of Penn's audience. As a whole they're evenly split on the abortion issue.
IMO, he intentionally used the anti-life and anti-choice euphemisms to obfuscate that he was not taking a stand on either side. Because he didn't want to broach alienating one side or the other of his largest segment of audience.
@zonsb You claim to "know well" the principles of libertarianism and objectivism, and note that Penn speaks from a perspective reflecting those ideologies, but your argument is immediately flawed when you imply he's tiptoeing around a moral issue so as not to piss off some sort of fringe sect of libertarians. I think you should investigate objectivism a little more deeply, and realize that any personal stance Penn takes on morality centered issue is inconsequential to his political beliefs.
From what I can see, although his fame has socialized him well, Penn fits the DSM-!V (or V is it already?) criteria for Aspergers to a T. As such he and others like him, when given any issue of interesting debate, can ramble and speculate endlessly until the ears of his company bleed and their eyes roll into their skulls. Then, and only then he would know for certain that you weren't EVEN LISTENING!
@Scalarburn My opinion stands valid. Your re-framing of it is noted and not what I said. That you may not like it is YOUR problem -- not mine. Deal with it, or don't. Makes no difference to me.
@zonsb I'm simply saying that objectivism dictates that both a choice and its alternative are not for the government to legislate or act upon unless it poses unreasonable mortal risk to a person. Whatever he feels about abortion, it goes (or should go) without saying he supports the existence of safe facilities should someone deem it a necessary choice. He's like any rational person and bases their opinions on the experiences of himself and others, not ancient manuscripts and rally posters.
@zonsb And I do apologize. I seem to have taken offense to the use of the word obfuscate in your first comment, which seemed to imply he was trying to deceive people about his ambivalent, strictly personal feeling on abortion. I don't think there are too many rational libertarians out there who are "pro" or "anti" too much of anything when morality is the issue instead of safety.
and before anyone talkes any bullshit on me and what i said, let me tell you this, i am a male, and i have had 2 children taken from me by abortion, their mothers didnt want or felt like they couldnt handle children at that time in their lives, and it hurts, but it was their choice, it is their body, i wish every day of my life they hadnt made that choice, but i understand that freedom of choice is above all emotions i personally feel. go ahead and flame me if you want, i've lived through worse
this is the end all be all or the argument of abortion, ABORTION IS WRONG, BUT CHOICE IS NOT!, what makes america great is the FREEDOM OF CHOICE! coke or pepsi, kids of not, jeans or dockers, weed or beer, its all choice, every one has the freedom of choice and no one has the right to judge anyone on the choices someone else has made, wether good or bad, abortion should be legal, but people need to learn to make the right choice, FREEDOM OF CHOICE WINS OVER ANYTHING! but learn from choices.
There is no inherent value in a human life. The importance of life is something assigned by humans. Most importantly, humans highly value their own life, which is why the death penalty has such a strong opposition.
Fetuses, on the other hand, may be human, but there is still no real value to their life because they have yet to develop the mental capacity to value their own lives.
So Penn made a point saying abortion shouldn't happen if the fetus's brain is operating. I can agree with that and I don't in any way care if the person he talked to has a medical degree. The people against abortion altogether don't have medical degrees and they make clearly absurd arguments. The fact that anyone is trying to point out this woman doesn't have a degree to debunk her point is absurd as well. Keep it up Penn these people can't handle an honest debate.
Penn Jillette specifically repeats the lie that Sigrid Fry-Revere has a "medical degree." He does not say she is a doctor, but that she has a "medical degree," which she most certainly does not. She has a law degree & a philosophy degree. Not medical. One Cato Institute propaganda whore lying about the credentials of another Cato Institute propaganda whore is the whole point of this video. Penn Jillette and his crew got busted, so the video has now been mislabeled and basically buried.
He got caught in a stupid pack of lies about Cato Insitute propaganda drone Sigrid Fry-Revere, so this video was relabled and buried.
Same with his his stupid racist video about "Slumdog Millionaire," but that mess seems to have been deleted altogether. Something about laughing like a hyena over the victims in the Mumbai terrorist attack and saying black kids in Harlem are the US equivalent of uneducated, impoverished slum kids in Mumbai. Yup, Penn's handlers mercifully deleted that one.
This video is about abortion. It is mislabeled. In it he lies about fellow Cato Institute corporate propaganda whore Sigrid Fry-Revere's credentials. Penn Jillette lies and says she has a medical degree. She has nothing of the sort.
In his book 'Practical Ethics' Peter Singer discusses the point at which abortion is wrong. What I absolutely love about Peter Singer is he dares to say that cultures who committed acts of infanticide were not morally wrong and were acting in a very good utilitarian way by preventing the growth of a child with deformities that would cause the child to grow up to be weak and ostracized.
Many would disagree, especially the people posting below me (who must have absolutely thrilling social lives)
The Cato Institute launders corporate press releases, regurgitating them as "studies" by "scholars" (whores with PhDs).
Penn Jillette and Sigrid Fry-Revere are paid shills for Cato Institute funders like ExxonMobil, Walmart, Monsanto, Phillip Morris, etc., i.e., the usual suspects.
Sigrid Fry-Revere has no medical degree. Nothing even close.
And a Bull Shit episode debunking organic foods is coming up. No one has ever said organic foods are more nutritious, they said that organic foods have to be Cirtified organic to prevent one from consuming untested Genetically Modified or pesticide contaminated foods. Monsanto has been contaminating cows milk and causing human disease in it's wake for decades. Yes, I believe that Penn and Teller are paid shills. I like them, though.
Sigrid Fry-Revere is indeed not a doctor. Funny how Penn is very elaborate about describing her as a friend and how much he admires her for accumulating a "medical degree" along with her law degree.
Penn Jillette and Sigrid Fry-Revere both work for the Cato Institute, started specifically to undo Social Security and other programs that make life bearable for working people established during the Roosevelt administration. Cato is funded by ExxonMobil, Walmart, Monsanto, Philip Morris, etc.
Sigrid Fry-Revere would be surprised to learn she has a medical degree. Philosophy and law do not add up to years in medical school and an arduous hospital internship. Love how this fat fool goes on and on and on about how his Cato Institute "friend" is a doctor when she is not, never hoped to be, never will be.
If the government has to take care of you because you can't take care of yourself, then you can't take care of a child. If you can't take care of a child, then you shouldn't have one. That's why it makes me mad that some woman who was unemployed and had six kids had herself impregnated with eight zygotes. That's just pure irresponsibility! Who's going to take care of these kids? We know she can't. Of course it's the government. Before you have a child, you need to think about it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't want to make it sound like poor people can't be good parents, but I think you need to be financially stabe before you have children. For some people, it may never come. It's sad that life deals us an unfriendly hand, but we need to put children first. If you're not financially stable to have a child, you need to remember that you're bringing an innocent into this world and are responsible for this innocent. I
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Population control is a big issue with animals, and it would be a big issue with humans if we didn't have birth control and ,excuse me, legalized abortion. We would have a lot more people and a lot more people to have to take care of. I wish people would practice abstinence before marriage, but I know that's probably never going to happen. The only way we can prevent more abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and promote more family planning. Birth control is a good poverty preventer.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Most of these children would probably have to be taken care of by Uncle Sam, and he's currently in debt up to his eyes. We just can't afford to take care of that many children. That's also a big issue with animals. There are so many strays out there that they're put to sleep after spending so many weeks at a humane society. There's just too many animals and not enough food and homes for them. That's why Bob Barker was big into telling people to spade and neuter their pets.
I think this is a very difficult issue. I always look at myself in the middle road. Many pro-choicers look at abortion as a simple form of a birth control, and the pro-lifers look at it as murdering a child. I always looked at it as putting a pet to sleep. You don't want to do it, but you have to do it. Many of the pro-lifers say adopt adopt! Well, it's unfortunately not that easy. According to Planned Parenthood, one in three women have had an abortion. That's a lot of hungry mouths to feed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Penn is actually smarter then most libertarians. I find he's being too hard himself calling himself one as most libertarians can't make such coherent statements and simply are pro-choice. They'll make sure to ban you too for daring to dissent to their all enlightened opinion.
The truth is "I" do not base abortion off sense of time but rather principle. In principle, does a human being have the RIGHT to take life? Be it a human, animal or zygote? No. I don't believe that's a right.
Penn is fucking awesome.. I myself am pro choice, and have had an abortion and a child, and you cannot call someone getting an abortion irresponsible. I find it hilarious how many pro life tard muffins are males and have no conception of what pregnancy can do to a woman's body and how it changes her WHOLE life. Men, however, knock up women everyday and run out on them...I completely agree with Penn though, there needs to be a line. I've yet see a baby survive outside the womb prior to 20 weeks..
"potential life" a non conscious non self aware part of her body that she has every right to do what she wants with it. Murder is when you forcibly, against the wishes of one or more persons, end the fully conscious life of another self aware entity that exist independently of another body. A being with family and friends; a social existence.
Here's a better fucking time, Penn. BIRTH. I hate all these people who want to act like there's a way to say "Hey, it's okay to abort the fetus now, but not tomorrow. The ONLY time you can say that, in my view, is birth. It's okay to abort before birth because before birth it's still a fetus. Once it's born it's a baby. That is the ONLY line that should be drawn. Any other line is bullshit because it's a line drawn out of ignorance, not knowledge.
No. Drawing the line at birth is an arbitrary line drawn out of ignorance. I think it's pretty clear that a baby, fetus, whatever you wish to call it, is no less conscious the day before birth than the day after. And it really demonstrates a lack of empathy to disregard consciousness.
So either you're well deranged, or a troll. Which is it?
The military casualities of both world wars combines is around 40,000,000. The total number of abortions since Roe v Wade is over 46,000,000.
Even if you don't think of a fetus as life, it doesn't change the fact that if none of them had been aborted, there would be 46,000,000 people still alive today.
Get your statistics straight. Most low estimates of the casualties of WW2 alone exceed 50 million.
I didn't check the statistics on the # of abortions since 73 because I couldn't care less. Assuming that figure is accurate, yes most of them would still be alive. The question is would an additional 46 million people who had parents that were unwilling or unable to care for them necessarily be a good thing. Methinks not.
Penn Jillette lies here like he lies everywhere else. Sigrid Fry-Revere has no medical degree. She has a philosophy degree. Penn Jillette spends half the video telling us his propaganda whore colleague at the Cato Institute corporate press release laundering mill is a doctor, so that her opinion carries weight. Turns out she is not a doctor. never was, never hoped to be. Never knew that writing a thesis on Neizstche was the equivalent of 4 years of medical school.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
She has a doctorate in philosophy with a concentration in bioethics, in addition to her law degree. Tonzimala, It's possible that Penn was just mistaken. Certainly, it doesn't effect the validity of his claim.
I love how this monosyllabic stooge has professional interpreters (publicists) who jump on here and explain what fat uneducated bore was rambling on about, as if he were some sort of guru.
Tedious homilies, paid for by his corporate masters.
Ohh sorry, she has a Ph.D. in philosophy of bioethics, not a medical degree along with her law degree. Penn's slight mistake does not make him a liar. Please take your misleading and hysterical paranoia elsewhere.
Penn Jillette lies about his corporate shill propagandist colleagues at the Cato Institute just as he shamelessly promotes his Zionist errand boy and girl colleagues who toil with him for Zionist propaganda mainstream media conglomerates like Viacom, Sony, Fox, Advance Publications, etc.
Sigrid Fry-Revere has no medical degree. Never did. Nope.
Penn Jillette here not only lies, but lies in an extended folksy way calculated to make you believe and trust him.
Penn Jillette lies about his corporate shill propagandist colleagues at the Cato Institute just as he shamelessly promotes his Zionist errand boy and girl colleagues who toil with him for Zionist propaganda mainstream media conglomerates like Viacom, Sony, Fox, Advance Publications, etc.
Sigrid Fry-Revere has no medical degree. Never did. Nope.
Penn Jillette here not only lies, but lies in an extended folksy way calculated to make you believe and trust him.
Sigrid Fry-Revere is a whore with a PhD (oh excuse me, an "expert" or "scholar") at the Cato Institute. Cato takes corporate press release propaganda and rewrites it in the form of "studies" and "reports."
Penn & Teller are errand boys for the Cato Institute. They finally got their piece of the big money show biz pie after singing on, in the form of their Viacom TV and longterm Vegas contracts. Many "Penn & Teller: Bullshit" episodes are informercials for Cato Institute corporate funders.
Why does he lie about his supposed "expert's" credentials? Saying that Sigrid Fry-Revere likes to fuck dogs is just as accurate as saying she has a medical degree.
A law degree and a bioethics degree of philosophy do make her an expert actually and you would be hard pressed to find anyone more fit to judge a subject like abortion.
I think the issue is more about the baby inside them, rather than their vaginas. What they did with their vaginas caused the baby and we didn't really care about that part.
If you want a baby, don't use birth control or condoms.
I believe that a woman should be allowed to get an abortion of he wants to, but ONLY if the baby will hinder her life, be it physically or otherwise (or if they were raped)
If it's some girl who can't keep her legs closed then that's a different story
I'm agnostic and pro-life. You need religion to tell you abortion is wrong just as much as you need it to see murder, stealing, or making meat helmets is wrong.
Yes, and the rest. Why would religions be needed for determining codes of conduct at all. I certainly have a code of conduct without owing any of it to any religion. I think many things religions teach as right is wrong and many things taught as wrong is right.
Ok, sure, You said "You need religion to tell you abortion... meat helmets... is wrong". I say you do not. We do not agree. Did you mistype? Did you mean "You do not need religion...."
i dont know about how you referred to pro choice as anti life. makes us seem a little off. pro choice isn't anti life. i support a woman's choice to abort. but i do not support abortion. as in i would rather see a baby born and adopted into a loving family.
My personal thoughts on abortion are simply ethical. If you start allowing abortion, you then have to ask for what reasons you allow abortion. I belive if the woman is raped or if the birth might kill her, it is ok. But, is it ok to abort a child because it doesn't have the specific characteristics you want? Is it ok to modify your child until it is "perfect" and stop any births that might not reach this point? I have my doubts on that, but that, again, is just my own opinion.
Well when you put it that way it sounds kind of ruff... However i think few women would do that, and it my point stands that every woman have the right to deside the morale for them selfs, if a woman think it's okej to modify a child, a think she has the right to do so, despite that i dislike that particular idea.
Well, I would go in to a bit more detail, but sadly, I am limited by character count. What I mean is that you have to give defined reasons as to why you will allow abortion, along with when it is not longer legal to preform one. My big concern is that there is a clearly stated law that exists stating what conditions are necessary for an abortion, and under what time frame is it no longer legal to do so. I feel very strongly against anything after 4-5 months, yet such abortions currently occur.
On the heals of this, I also think that there needs to be some consistancey in our existing laws. Did you know that if you were to kill a pregnant woman, it is double homicide? Also, if you hit a pregnant woman in the stomach and it kills the unborn child, that it is considered murder? So basically, it seems that an unborn child switches from being human to useless tissue in our courts depending on the situation. Not that I want to see abortions through abuse legalised but something is off here.
This has been flagged as spam show
tiny[dot]cc/ytviews #UN# check out tube toolbox to automate posting youtube comments, subscribe to channels, and gain contacts. easily gain tons of views.
astarforev 2 weeks ago
Pro abortion, a seed is not a flower noobs
SpecterWSA 3 months ago
@SpecterWSA Indeed and a child isn't an adult. What's your point?
HumanRights4Everyone 1 month ago
i wouldnt say antilife penn thats just dumb
philipviele 5 months ago
Does it really matter if you're religious or an atheist when it comes to Life? Outside the obvious arguments, we're talking about a human life. I mean seriously, fuck you if you think that depending on a belief in "God" makes abortion viable or not. Stabbing someone to a bloody pulp isn't right, is it? How you could possibly do that to something that you created and actually live it down? But, whatever, maybe I'm totally wrong..
CainMeadows 7 months ago
@CainMeadows
You are talking about a non-sentient pile of cells.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH The neocortex is developed in the third trimester, making a fetus able to feel physical pain and thus creating sentience. Beyond that, fetal nerve cells (which form between two weeks and a month after conception) are able sense and interpret trauma which some (although I don't) interpret as pain. Nice try; next time rely on an education and not pro-abortion standards.
CainMeadows 4 months ago
@CainMeadows
Yes, the third trimester. Notice that is over halfway during the pregnancy.
"Nice try; next time rely on an education and not pro-abortion standards"
1) Education? I rely on more than that, I rely on professional experience. I am actually a biomedical scientist and I have even worked with aborted fetal material in trials.
2) I'm arguing pro-abortion. You realize how stupid it is to point that out to me as if it some sort of crime? i'm pro-abortion so my arguments will be too...
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@CainMeadows
Notice that is over halfway the pregnancy. 75-89% of abortions take place in the first semester. Also, I didn't argue that you shouldn't abort life because it's sentient or not, I argued that you should distinguish between human life (which is a vague term to define anything starting from a single cell onward) and sentient life.
Cells experiencing trauma doesn't mean you experience trauma. If you as a human don't have a CNS you don't experience stimuli.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@CainMeadows
"Nice try; next time rely on an education and not pro-abortion standards."
This is the dumbest sentence I have read in a while. Apart from the fact that I am not only educate in life sciences but also employed in them, and have even worked with aborted fetal material, you make point out that I have pro-abortion standards as if that's a fallacy. They are called arguments mate, i'm pro abortion, so obviously my arguments and "standards" will be likewise. Thanks Captain Obvious.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH You must be one terrible scientist (not too mention unprofessional) to freak out on a youtube video like this. And once I read "I'm pro abortion" I shall not even try to reason with you, and will calmly dismiss you as an obtuse moron.
CainMeadows 4 months ago
@CainMeadows
" You must be one terrible scientist (not too mention unprofessional) to freak out on a youtube video like this."
Pointing out that you should distinguish between sentient life and life or human life is freaking out?
"And once I read "I'm pro abortion" I shall not even try to reason with you, and will calmly dismiss you as an obtuse moron."
I used pro-abortion because that's the obnoxious term you decided to use. I call it pro-choice.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@CainMeadows
"And once I read "I'm pro abortion" I shall not even try to reason with you, and will calmly dismiss you as an obtuse moron."
I love how this sentence is basically an admission that you won't rationally discuss abortion simply because you have decided not to listen as soon as you find out someone is trying to argue against you. I've seen this before. Creationists spring to mind. Are pro-lifers the new creationists perhaps? Have fun persisting in that ignorance.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH You must be one terrible scientist (not too mention unprofessional) to freak out on a youtube video like this. And once I read "I'm pro abortion" I shall not even try to reason with you, and will calmly dismiss you as an obtuse moron.
CainMeadows 4 months ago
What someone does with their body in a free society is their business not yours.
uncompromising34 7 months ago
I think the problem with Penn's argument is that beginning and endings are by their nature not symmetrical; the ending is where present actions have no future effect, and the beginning is only a matter of historical interest. Whether brain function has yet begun or not has no impact on the future of the fetus if brought to term, and really, future impact should be the measure of present decisions.
Also, I like how he uses "anti-choice" and "anti-life." Classic Penn.
IoEstasCedonta 1 year ago
While I certainly appreciate and respect another installment of Penn's brave honesty on a touchy subject, his argument doesn't quite work because, would you pull the plug on someone without brainwaves if you knew that brainwaves were imminent?
dontbepushy 1 year ago
I always wondered why they never had a Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode on the subject, but at the same time, I'm glad they didn't, as he seems indifferent about the whole thing anyway.
But I don't think pro-life atheist are as rare as he might think...Christopher Hitchens is one, so am I. But there are a great deal more "believers" who are on that side though.
navvellines15 1 year ago
I am a liberal atheist and I am prolife along with a whole bunch of my atheist friends some are conservative and some are not others are into the whole vegan and vegetarian thing as well.
Godlim17 1 year ago
A few principles that I follow in life:
1. Don't let anyone impose their beliefs upon you.
2. Stand by what you believe and don't be a hypocrite.
3. Never impose your beliefs on other people no matter who they are.
Fleischrot666 1 year ago
I forgot the victims of child abuse, domestic abuse, victims of war, victims of corporate greed, etc. What we are dealing with is a pervasive culture of death that treats the human person as an object, something to be trampled upon and walked upon to get to whatever suits my current ends and purposes.
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end. ”
—Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
One reason why I am against abortion is I wouldn't want anyone to come along and abort me! :)
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
@doombuggy123 Utlitarian Ethics places the worth of the human being on external factors such as the ability to be self aware, to anticipate one's future, and to feel pain.Also Utilitarianism seeks to "provide the greatest good for the greatest number." I however disagree with this, for the worth of a person is not based on numbers. Each person is special and valuable and worthy of respect simply for being human.
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
The law has always recognized the legal rights of a fetus. When a woman and her unborn baby are murdered, the perpetrator of that crime is charged with double homicide, and In real property and probate law a fetus is considered a legal person who can legally inherit property and other assets. The law is so inconsistent this way. For we recognize the legal personhood of a fetus in one aspect and in another aspect deny his/her very right to existence.
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
No, I don't think that's any more logical. It's not any more logical than keeping someone on life support when they have multiple organ systems failing, just because they have brainwaves. A fetus starts developing it's nervous system around 9 weeks. It doesn't make sense to prioritize a fetus with no chance of viability over a woman just because it has brain waves. A fetus at 30 weeks has a memory span of 10 minutes, so I can only imagine the cognitive abilities at 9 weeks.
doombuggy123 1 year ago
Comment removed
doombuggy123 1 year ago
Agnostic pro-lifer here! hoo wah!
Iamthedoorwaymusic 1 year ago
Dear Penn,
Even if it's a full person, it doesn't have a right to use a woman's body any more than I have a right to your kidney. The only argument that really matters, please enjoy. Look up "A defense of Abortion" by Judith Jarvis Thomson
redblue18700 1 year ago
@redblue18700 So a fetus doesn’t have the right to use a woman’s body for nine months but a woman has the right to destroy the fetus’ body? Isn’t that just a little one-sided?
jennniles 1 year ago
@jennniles
No it's not one sided. Please read over the original argument by the author. It takes time to read. The woman is not "killing" anyone. She is removing an unwanted guest. The fetus has no right to use another person's body. The fetus only has rights to the degree it can live on it's own. It's just a primary fact of life, the woman owns her own body first and foremost. Case solved. Please read the whole argument. Very insightful
redblue18700 1 year ago
@redblue18700 The fetus does have a right to live though, doesn't it? And even if it isn't YET, it WILL, right? So isn't taking the opportunity of life the same as taking the life? Even if it's not a living human, taking away it's chance to be seems just as wrong...
Iamthedoorwaymusic 1 year ago
@Iamthedoorwaymusic
I understand your point & concern. My point is, your right to life does not come at another person's expense. IE the mother's expense. That is the responsibility and faith we must put in women. That is what makes women special, it is for them to choose if they will bring a child into the world, not the child's or your government's choice.
If babies could/can survive without the use of a mother then by all means you would not have the right to end that life.
redblue18700 1 year ago
@Iamthedoorwaymusic
on consequences...Also the suffering that women go through and the consequences of making abortion illegal far outweigh the "maybe a fetus is a person" concern. more suffering and more death (not less) is a guarantee that things will be worse off for all if we make abortion illegal. to be sure, it's best to have faith in a woman's choice and work from there through compassion and love, and most of all trust in women's choice over their own body and reproduction.
redblue18700 1 year ago
@redblue18700 I'm on a different account, but i'm the same person as Iamthedoorwaymusic. Thank you for your respectful response (that's so rare in the case of this particular subject)
I normally would give a response, but yours was so thought provoking it definitely bears some mulling over. So I may be back, I may not, but thanks either way!
Jerith03 1 year ago
@redblue18700 So according to your beliefs (if I understand you correctly) a fetus has the right to life once it becomes viable, meaning a woman can no longer abort at that point, right? So than a woman only has control over her body until the fetus becomes viable. Then the government CAN tell her what she can and cannot do with HER body.
And just wondering, why is it that a woman who is 12 weeks pregnant “owns her own body first and foremost” but a woman who is 32 weeks pregnant doesn’t?
jennniles 1 year ago
@jennniles
I can not give you a pure solution. But you can run with that argument! A woman has the right to remove the fetus from her body at any moment. If the fetus dies as a result then that is not her burden. If it is able to be kept alive by technology then perhaps the fetus deserves that right-if technology can help. But it has no right to use her body to do so. I think overall we should have faith in women's wisdom and respect their burden of carrying a child. She will know best.
redblue18700 1 year ago
@redblue18700 the fetus does have the right to use the womans body. it has that right as soon as the mother let the man fuck her. a woman cant go around fucking and catching whatever mans seed and then decide she wants to undo the fact that she let someone fuck her via abortion.
joeratti 1 year ago
@joeratti That's really a lovely world view, but it's not your job to police women and their sexual activity. It's not your place to tell a person what they can do with their body. Besides where does rape fit into all of this?
doombuggy123 1 year ago
@doombuggy123 who said anything about policing womens sexual activity? you better go back and read the whole conversation that has been going on instead of butting in not knowing what is going on
joeratti 1 year ago
@joeratti Oh, see when you implied that pregnancy should be used as a punishment for women who go around fucking too much, I assumed you meant that you don't like women who fuck too much. My bad.
doombuggy123 1 year ago
@joeratti
Women can be raped against their will. And even if not rape, no one can be held to another person's will based on "your" ideals of behavior. People take precautions, people make mistakes. All of it is up to the woman. It's not up to you to determine someone else's conditions of behavior-because you can never know. Also, I find your attitude to be very immature and rude. It shows a lack of intelligence. Please read the article I posted before acting like a dip shit.
redblue18700 1 year ago
Human life begins at cell division
jodiephipps 1 year ago
Yeah get ready to burn in hell......I pray for your soul man! You need to Repent with views like that! I'm serious dude!
bassdoggy1 1 year ago
my computers sound is not working so does he say he is for or against abortion
revansthemaster 1 year ago
my computers sound isnt working so did he say he is or is not for abortion
revansthemaster 1 year ago
This might be the first argument about abortion that has made sense to me.
littlteapot 1 year ago
why brain function? that doesnt seem fair, as a babies heart starts beating before it gains brain function, right? is a heart beat not a sign of life? id find that more medically acceptable, or else wouldnt the retarded (born with nothing more than say, a brain stem) not count as being alive?
hcig 1 year ago
@hcig Dick Cheney no longer has a heartbeat. Your argument no longer works.
10Extra01 1 year ago
@10Extra01 ummm what are you talking about?
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL Dick Cheney had a heart surgery recently and there is now, within his body, a pump that keeps the blood circulating through his body. It pumps evenly, not with any sort of stopping-and-starting, so he has no pulse nor heartbeat. Look it up.
10Extra01 1 year ago
@10Extra01 I know that. I thought you were making a euphamism for saying he is dead.
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
Nothing rare about pro-life atheists. It's called having a conscious. I find it ironic that so many Liberals are okay with abortion but against execution.
shadowrun443 1 year ago
@shadowrun443 Indeed. Liberals are fine with taking away an organism's capacity to grow on the basis that "they're not humans", but the UCLA flips shit when a murderer gets a death sentence. *facepalm*
ThesisOfRock 1 year ago
@shadowrun443 I'm for abortion and against execution. The reason is I don't trust the government to execute only guilty people, seeing as there have been many who have been executed who were proven to be innocent after death. I'm for abortion because I don't beleive you can consider someone a person with rights until they are able to be concious. Also, there are far too many people on Earth as is, and, right or wrong, we can't afford to deal with all those babies being born.
DevonWhorton 1 year ago
(con't) I guess for abortions, I would have to say that we need to have the option available. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I can only hope that I'm never in the position of having to choose. That can be a hard and scary place to be, society's opinions aside. I had an unplanned pregnancy once when I was younger and I just kept asking myself if I would have the heart to choose abortion. Fortunately or unfortunately, I miscarried, but I still wonder what I would have chosen.
JorgensZelda 1 year ago
I'm atheist and I don't know how to feel about abortion. If it's a choice between an abortion and giving birth to a baby with Tay-Sachs disease, or another disease where mortality rates are close to 75% or higher, I think I'd choose abortion for my sake and the baby's both. I wouldn't want to put anybody through that kind of suffering. But for girls who get pregnant to keep a boyfriend, or pregnancies that could have easily been avoided by safe-sex, I feel that abortion is frivolous.
JorgensZelda 1 year ago
Hi Penn fans. Penn Says videos have been discontinued, so you won't be seeing any new content on here. You can check out our Profile on our Channel Page for more info. We'll still be checking in, so hope to keep chatting with you all! Thanks!
pennsays 1 year ago
I think it's important that we maintain the legal right to terminate a pregnancy at any point, otherwise we have legalized a form of slavery. We shouldn't have be able to force a woman to carry a child for the same reasons I can't force someone to give me a kidney, no matter how certain it is I will die without it. Without that right, bodily autonomy is a joke.
However, terminating a pregnancy doesn't necessarily mean killing the fetus. A C-section terminates a pregnancy, too.
butchkitties 1 year ago
(cont) Fetal brain waves and/or fetal viability might be a good legal line between when a pregnancy can be terminated via an abortion or when a pregnancy can be terminated via a C-section.
Not that it matters much. All elective abortions in the US take place well before fetal brain waves appear. Abortions after that point are already limited by law to cases of medical necessity. Many women who get late term abortions really want the baby, but sadly their pregnancy has gone horribly wrong.
butchkitties 1 year ago
Anybody who's an atheist and anti-choice?
pennsays 1 year ago
@pennsays That's an interesting combination!
scorpionkings 1 year ago
@pennsays yup, i am.
you look more boss with the short hair, shaved face, and business suit. just saying.
zzyzybynsky 1 year ago
@zzyzybynsky I'm not Penn, btw, I just help out with the comments, but thanks for the response!
pennsays 1 year ago
Yes I am a pro-life atheist.
Noahthebeast09 1 year ago
@pennsays you should check out the atheist and agnostic pro life league they have a website. They're argument is that you get one life and there is no afterlife, so why should you rob someone of their one chance at life. Now, I support them, even though I am religious.
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
@legalbeagle26 Since Penn Says has been discontinued, we can't get anything to Penn. We recommend emailing his site's web master. webmaster at Pennandtellerdotcom.
pennsays 1 year ago
@legalbeagle26 Because, the baby hasn't lived any of that life. So he never doesn't know of what he is being robbed of. I'm for abortion, I respect your opinion... but at the same time, I believe it's wrong.
XXkAoTIcDo0mXX 1 year ago
@XXkAoTIcDo0mXX I believe you are one of the few people I have talked to on this matter who is actually honest with their viewpoint "You are for abortion." Most people don't want to admit this they say "Well I'm against abortion and I would never have one but..." I want people to be logically consistent with their beliefs. There is absolutely no way that you can deny that its a human life. Now if you believe that we should make it legal to kill that human life, thats another argument.
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
@legalbeagle26 Sorry about my spelling in that previous responce... I had typed several different arguments but couldn't think of how to word them. And alright, I'll admit it is life. But I few it different than an already born person. Like I said, it doesn't know what it's missing out on. And yes, I believe it's someones choice to have that life killed.
XXkAoTIcDo0mXX 1 year ago
@XXkAoTIcDo0mXX hey kaotic, perhaps there is a better forum that we can discuss this in. I enjoy hearing people's opinions including those that disagree with mine. This is kinda hard to have messages back and forth here but maybe you know of a place we can talk back and forth maybe yahoo, paltalk, skype, email? you pick. Only if you want to.
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
@legalbeagle26 It is possible to be against abortion and still be pro-choice, it just involves a sacrifice for the greater good. Most pro-choicers don't like abortion but acknowledge the necessity of it being legal in order to protect the well-being and rights of women who need abortions.
doombuggy123 1 year ago
@doombuggy123 Doom, I understand that is your viewpoint. However I do not buy into Utilitarian Ethics. The ends never justify the means. And I would argue strongly against this idea that women "need" abortions. It is at best an elective medical procedure that is highly unnecessary and often times down right dangerous. involving sacrifices for the greater good, cheapens the dignity of human life and turns the human person into an expendable object.
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
@legalbeagle26 You don't think there's a time when women need abortions? What about women who have illnesses and physical disabilities that could put them at risk of dying if they tried to carry the pregnancy to term? Would you rather a pregnant woman die with her fetus than she get an abortion? Is it worth it to you to put her health at risk to save the potential baby? Someone's life is going to be sacrificed either way, makes more sense for it to be the 'potential' person than the actual one.
doombuggy123 1 year ago
@doombuggy123 no I do not think there is a time when a woman needs an abortion. Abortion implies direct killing of the unborn baby, if however in spite of the best medical efforts to save both, and one or both dies then this is sadly but morally acceptable because the doctors tried their best to save the lives of the mother and the baby. In other words you cant take actions that would cause the direct death of the baby but it might happen to save the life of the mother. Get what Im saying?
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
@legalbeagle26 In other words for instance say a woman has an ectopic pregancy and as a result the doctor must remove the fallopian tube and as a result the fetus dies, this is not a direct abortion. It has to do with intent. You might look up what is called in philosophy, the "principle of double effect." Similarly if a woman needs chemo and as a result the fetus dies, this too is morally acceptable because you are trying to save the mother not kill the baby.
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
@doombuggy123 The ends never justify the means so it is never okay to take a great evil hoping that some good will come about as a result. If that were the case then we could kill starving children because well at least they wouldnt be starving anymore. It doesn't work Morally and ethically. Secondly, I object to you characterizing a fetus as a "potential person." What a fetus is, is a person with great potential. Just like all human persons.
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
@legalbeagle26
I think equating the worth of a sack of cells to a functioning member of society is especially ridiculous. Unnecessary cruelty is evil, but the fact is that abortion is a necessity in society. Telling women that they should just risk dying, abandonment, financial strain, being kicked out/disowned by their parents and to sacrifice their own free will and body for the sake of an organism that isn't even sentient is unfair and irrational.
doombuggy123 1 year ago
@doombuggy123 "Telling women that they should just risk dying. adandonment, financial straing, being kicked out/disowned etc." Is an attempt to argue from emotions, not facts. The facts are that a fetus is a living breathing developing member of our species with its separate own DNA/Brain wave function/heart function etc. This makes the fetus biologically human. Call it what you want but abortion terminates and kills the life of the fetus which is a developing human being.
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
@doombuggy123 Just because women have problems in their lives doesn't mean they should take a tragedy and make it two tragedies. We all have financial strain, we all have risks of abandonment. The goal is to address these issues in society and this is how we can actually come together pro abortion and Anti Abortion people. We can both make it so abortions arent even necessary. Women need help, whether financially, emotionally, medically, whatever.
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
@doombuggy123 I would start by giving Universal Health care to all people, job training and high school education programs to young women, poverty eradication programs, parenting classes, all sorts of help for young women who find themselves pregnant or at risk for being pregnant before they are ready. Women deserve better than abortion. They deserve better than a "procedure" that will just mask the problem. Not to mention all of the emotional scars and depress that go along with abortion.
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
@doombuggy123 I have said alot and will let you read over my many many comments. I actually have to get to class this afternoon. May we continue this later. I have appriciated your level of civility and charity in discussing this oft emotionally challenging and trying topic. When people can get passed the rhetoric, real inroads can be made at solving one of America's most tragic things, the disregard for human life. ALL human life. Be they the poor, the unborn, the eldery or the condemned.
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
@doombuggy123 The dignity of the human person is immutable, inviolate, and inherent; it is not an earned status, nor is it something that is bestowed at some point. It always is. Also I am not saying the E/Z/F has more moral worth than the mother, I am saying that they are equal in worth. Every human person has the same worth morally, and that worth is immeasurable.
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
@legalbeagle26 Personhood, self-awareness and the capacity to feel and remember pain are pretty significant arguments in the abortion debate, but the most defining quality of a fetus that automatically appreciates the rights of the mother is that it is dependent on a human body for it's survival. Not metaphorically, but quite literally it needs a host. Everyone deserves the right to their own bodily autonomy, no one should ever be forced to give up their body for another human being.
doombuggy123 1 year ago
Your argument is specious and emotional and while I do understand it, the "parasite" argument is flawed. Newborn children require complete and total care, they are completely dependent on the lives of those around them for their sustenance. Should we kill newborns because they happen to be an inconvenience to their parents? Should we kill the feeble minded and the person in a PVS simply because they are "inconvenient?" God help us all if this is what you are advocating!
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
@doombuggy123 People in persistent vegetative states may not be self aware and may not be able to anticipate their future the same way that non PVS people do, but this has no bearing on the fact that he/she is still a human being. We can't kill the elderly simply because they no longer serve a function in our society and just consume our resources, that would be barbaric. Likewise, a developing person in the womb deserves to be protected because he/she cannot protect him/herself.
legalbeagle26 1 year ago
@legalbeagle26 That is a horrible argument. Why ever wear a condom then? why rob those sperm cells of their chance at life? Why not try to get pregnant every time you ovulate? taking away a non-sentient organism's chance at life is not immoral or wrong, and certainly should not be controlled by the government
XKaliber2097 4 months ago
@pennsays I'm not, but I think the phrase "anti-choice" is a load of crap.; At least on paper, this country values choice over life; anyone who calls out the other side for using the phrase "pro-life" and turns around and says "anti-choice" is talking from the wrong end.
IoEstasCedonta 1 year ago
@pennsays nobody is "anti-choice;" it's an idiotic euphemism. But I'm an anti-abortion agnostic.
MaximusRelaximus 11 months ago
I'm just a random YouTube asshole commenting because I want people to see how much of a piss-fucker I am.
JoeDeceiver 1 year ago
Libertarian, objectivism and atheism, I know well these three groups principles and the people that advocate them. They happen to be a large segment of Penn's audience. As a whole they're evenly split on the abortion issue.
IMO, he intentionally used the anti-life and anti-choice euphemisms to obfuscate that he was not taking a stand on either side. Because he didn't want to broach alienating one side or the other of his largest segment of audience.
zonsb 2 years ago
yeah what he said...
deathwraith13 2 years ago
@zonsb You claim to "know well" the principles of libertarianism and objectivism, and note that Penn speaks from a perspective reflecting those ideologies, but your argument is immediately flawed when you imply he's tiptoeing around a moral issue so as not to piss off some sort of fringe sect of libertarians. I think you should investigate objectivism a little more deeply, and realize that any personal stance Penn takes on morality centered issue is inconsequential to his political beliefs.
Scalarburn 1 year ago
From what I can see, although his fame has socialized him well, Penn fits the DSM-!V (or V is it already?) criteria for Aspergers to a T. As such he and others like him, when given any issue of interesting debate, can ramble and speculate endlessly until the ears of his company bleed and their eyes roll into their skulls. Then, and only then he would know for certain that you weren't EVEN LISTENING!
Scalarburn 1 year ago
@Scalarburn My opinion stands valid. Your re-framing of it is noted and not what I said. That you may not like it is YOUR problem -- not mine. Deal with it, or don't. Makes no difference to me.
zonsb 1 year ago
@zonsb I'm simply saying that objectivism dictates that both a choice and its alternative are not for the government to legislate or act upon unless it poses unreasonable mortal risk to a person. Whatever he feels about abortion, it goes (or should go) without saying he supports the existence of safe facilities should someone deem it a necessary choice. He's like any rational person and bases their opinions on the experiences of himself and others, not ancient manuscripts and rally posters.
Scalarburn 1 year ago
@zonsb And I do apologize. I seem to have taken offense to the use of the word obfuscate in your first comment, which seemed to imply he was trying to deceive people about his ambivalent, strictly personal feeling on abortion. I don't think there are too many rational libertarians out there who are "pro" or "anti" too much of anything when morality is the issue instead of safety.
Scalarburn 1 year ago
and before anyone talkes any bullshit on me and what i said, let me tell you this, i am a male, and i have had 2 children taken from me by abortion, their mothers didnt want or felt like they couldnt handle children at that time in their lives, and it hurts, but it was their choice, it is their body, i wish every day of my life they hadnt made that choice, but i understand that freedom of choice is above all emotions i personally feel. go ahead and flame me if you want, i've lived through worse
kenmabie 2 years ago
this is the end all be all or the argument of abortion, ABORTION IS WRONG, BUT CHOICE IS NOT!, what makes america great is the FREEDOM OF CHOICE! coke or pepsi, kids of not, jeans or dockers, weed or beer, its all choice, every one has the freedom of choice and no one has the right to judge anyone on the choices someone else has made, wether good or bad, abortion should be legal, but people need to learn to make the right choice, FREEDOM OF CHOICE WINS OVER ANYTHING! but learn from choices.
kenmabie 2 years ago
Well this atheist is personally against abortion but still pro-choice.
And the term 'anti-life' is so stupid where the term 'anti-choice' is spot on. Don't do the false equivalence silliness.
debaser71 2 years ago
"like being a libertarian, you can piss everyone off at a party". lol
stperkin 2 years ago
Picking the "brain wave" function is arbitrary too. There really aren't any easy answers with abortion and I think Penn is right to equivocate.
dickson37055 2 years ago
There is no inherent value in a human life. The importance of life is something assigned by humans. Most importantly, humans highly value their own life, which is why the death penalty has such a strong opposition.
Fetuses, on the other hand, may be human, but there is still no real value to their life because they have yet to develop the mental capacity to value their own lives.
avp715 2 years ago
So Penn made a point saying abortion shouldn't happen if the fetus's brain is operating. I can agree with that and I don't in any way care if the person he talked to has a medical degree. The people against abortion altogether don't have medical degrees and they make clearly absurd arguments. The fact that anyone is trying to point out this woman doesn't have a degree to debunk her point is absurd as well. Keep it up Penn these people can't handle an honest debate.
spacecab1 2 years ago
Penn Jillette specifically repeats the lie that Sigrid Fry-Revere has a "medical degree." He does not say she is a doctor, but that she has a "medical degree," which she most certainly does not. She has a law degree & a philosophy degree. Not medical. One Cato Institute propaganda whore lying about the credentials of another Cato Institute propaganda whore is the whole point of this video. Penn Jillette and his crew got busted, so the video has now been mislabeled and basically buried.
tonzimala 2 years ago
He got caught in a stupid pack of lies about Cato Insitute propaganda drone Sigrid Fry-Revere, so this video was relabled and buried.
Same with his his stupid racist video about "Slumdog Millionaire," but that mess seems to have been deleted altogether. Something about laughing like a hyena over the victims in the Mumbai terrorist attack and saying black kids in Harlem are the US equivalent of uneducated, impoverished slum kids in Mumbai. Yup, Penn's handlers mercifully deleted that one.
bc9021010001 2 years ago
wow, not only are you ruthlessly spamming all these vids with your numerous shell accounts, you're even petty enough to give yourself thumbs up!
rtarbinar 2 years ago
This video is about abortion. It is mislabeled. In it he lies about fellow Cato Institute corporate propaganda whore Sigrid Fry-Revere's credentials. Penn Jillette lies and says she has a medical degree. She has nothing of the sort.
walterglanz 2 years ago 5
@walterglanz,
Wow, he made a mistake. He must be mortal! There are plenty of pro-life MDs too.
MegaAstrodude 10 months ago
LOL. Internet trolls calling other internet trolls internet trolls. LMBAO!
funboy7979 2 years ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
In his book 'Practical Ethics' Peter Singer discusses the point at which abortion is wrong. What I absolutely love about Peter Singer is he dares to say that cultures who committed acts of infanticide were not morally wrong and were acting in a very good utilitarian way by preventing the growth of a child with deformities that would cause the child to grow up to be weak and ostracized.
Many would disagree, especially the people posting below me (who must have absolutely thrilling social lives)
Fatimus 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"who must have absolutely thrilling social lives"
Zing.
dylantuzyk 2 years ago
The Cato Institute launders corporate press releases, regurgitating them as "studies" by "scholars" (whores with PhDs).
Penn Jillette and Sigrid Fry-Revere are paid shills for Cato Institute funders like ExxonMobil, Walmart, Monsanto, Phillip Morris, etc., i.e., the usual suspects.
Sigrid Fry-Revere has no medical degree. Nothing even close.
mmmrazor 2 years ago 14
And a Bull Shit episode debunking organic foods is coming up. No one has ever said organic foods are more nutritious, they said that organic foods have to be Cirtified organic to prevent one from consuming untested Genetically Modified or pesticide contaminated foods. Monsanto has been contaminating cows milk and causing human disease in it's wake for decades. Yes, I believe that Penn and Teller are paid shills. I like them, though.
truvelocity 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@mmmrazor Stop spamming you stupid piece of shit.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
Sigrid Fry-Revere is indeed not a doctor. Funny how Penn is very elaborate about describing her as a friend and how much he admires her for accumulating a "medical degree" along with her law degree.
Penn Jillette and Sigrid Fry-Revere both work for the Cato Institute, started specifically to undo Social Security and other programs that make life bearable for working people established during the Roosevelt administration. Cato is funded by ExxonMobil, Walmart, Monsanto, Philip Morris, etc.
tonzimala 2 years ago 14
She is a doctor, but not an MD. PhD is a doctorate.
helliott9 2 years ago
@tonzimala Fuck off troll.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
Sigrid Fry-Revere would be surprised to learn she has a medical degree. Philosophy and law do not add up to years in medical school and an arduous hospital internship. Love how this fat fool goes on and on and on about how his Cato Institute "friend" is a doctor when she is not, never hoped to be, never will be.
bumpyjjeans 2 years ago 15
If the government has to take care of you because you can't take care of yourself, then you can't take care of a child. If you can't take care of a child, then you shouldn't have one. That's why it makes me mad that some woman who was unemployed and had six kids had herself impregnated with eight zygotes. That's just pure irresponsibility! Who's going to take care of these kids? We know she can't. Of course it's the government. Before you have a child, you need to think about it.
ROB60190 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't want to make it sound like poor people can't be good parents, but I think you need to be financially stabe before you have children. For some people, it may never come. It's sad that life deals us an unfriendly hand, but we need to put children first. If you're not financially stable to have a child, you need to remember that you're bringing an innocent into this world and are responsible for this innocent. I
ROB60190 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Population control is a big issue with animals, and it would be a big issue with humans if we didn't have birth control and ,excuse me, legalized abortion. We would have a lot more people and a lot more people to have to take care of. I wish people would practice abstinence before marriage, but I know that's probably never going to happen. The only way we can prevent more abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and promote more family planning. Birth control is a good poverty preventer.
ROB60190 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Most of these children would probably have to be taken care of by Uncle Sam, and he's currently in debt up to his eyes. We just can't afford to take care of that many children. That's also a big issue with animals. There are so many strays out there that they're put to sleep after spending so many weeks at a humane society. There's just too many animals and not enough food and homes for them. That's why Bob Barker was big into telling people to spade and neuter their pets.
ROB60190 2 years ago
I think this is a very difficult issue. I always look at myself in the middle road. Many pro-choicers look at abortion as a simple form of a birth control, and the pro-lifers look at it as murdering a child. I always looked at it as putting a pet to sleep. You don't want to do it, but you have to do it. Many of the pro-lifers say adopt adopt! Well, it's unfortunately not that easy. According to Planned Parenthood, one in three women have had an abortion. That's a lot of hungry mouths to feed.
ROB60190 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Penn is actually smarter then most libertarians. I find he's being too hard himself calling himself one as most libertarians can't make such coherent statements and simply are pro-choice. They'll make sure to ban you too for daring to dissent to their all enlightened opinion.
The truth is "I" do not base abortion off sense of time but rather principle. In principle, does a human being have the RIGHT to take life? Be it a human, animal or zygote? No. I don't believe that's a right.
JimProfitandJulz 2 years ago
by your definition ... we "murder" millions of cows every year ... is killing a cow considered murder?
MastroCicio 2 years ago
Penn is fucking awesome.. I myself am pro choice, and have had an abortion and a child, and you cannot call someone getting an abortion irresponsible. I find it hilarious how many pro life tard muffins are males and have no conception of what pregnancy can do to a woman's body and how it changes her WHOLE life. Men, however, knock up women everyday and run out on them...I completely agree with Penn though, there needs to be a line. I've yet see a baby survive outside the womb prior to 20 weeks..
warmvanilla069 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
your a murderer ... gratz for ending a potential life
MastroCicio 2 years ago
"potential life" a non conscious non self aware part of her body that she has every right to do what she wants with it. Murder is when you forcibly, against the wishes of one or more persons, end the fully conscious life of another self aware entity that exist independently of another body. A being with family and friends; a social existence.
xeige7 2 years ago 3
Here's a better fucking time, Penn. BIRTH. I hate all these people who want to act like there's a way to say "Hey, it's okay to abort the fetus now, but not tomorrow. The ONLY time you can say that, in my view, is birth. It's okay to abort before birth because before birth it's still a fetus. Once it's born it's a baby. That is the ONLY line that should be drawn. Any other line is bullshit because it's a line drawn out of ignorance, not knowledge.
hotnuke 2 years ago
No. Drawing the line at birth is an arbitrary line drawn out of ignorance. I think it's pretty clear that a baby, fetus, whatever you wish to call it, is no less conscious the day before birth than the day after. And it really demonstrates a lack of empathy to disregard consciousness.
So either you're well deranged, or a troll. Which is it?
ufee 2 years ago
For anybody who wants to see how that conversation turned out:
tinyurl com/lth2d8
Obviously, you'll need to place a dot between "tinyurl" and "com"
ufee 2 years ago
hes both
MastroCicio 2 years ago
Yeah Im not terribly religious (not athiest, but no ned flanders either) but Im still extremely opposed to any abortion.
Abortion has killed over 36 million babies.. more than both world wars combined.
Taraalcar 2 years ago
Bad numbers. WWII killed 55 million, WWI killed 15 million. Total 70 million.
LoudGuitr 2 years ago
I meant military casualties but if you wanna throw civilians in there too then yeah the wars had more
Taraalcar 2 years ago
More than both world wars? ROFLMAO. Epic fail. nonethess. abortoins hasn't killed a baby yet. that would be infanticde. Fetusus, yes. babies, nope.
PoppaBahr 2 years ago 4
The military casualities of both world wars combines is around 40,000,000. The total number of abortions since Roe v Wade is over 46,000,000.
Even if you don't think of a fetus as life, it doesn't change the fact that if none of them had been aborted, there would be 46,000,000 people still alive today.
Taraalcar 2 years ago
Get your statistics straight. Most low estimates of the casualties of WW2 alone exceed 50 million.
I didn't check the statistics on the # of abortions since 73 because I couldn't care less. Assuming that figure is accurate, yes most of them would still be alive. The question is would an additional 46 million people who had parents that were unwilling or unable to care for them necessarily be a good thing. Methinks not.
PoppaBahr 2 years ago 5
If you include civilian casualties yes. Military deaths in WW2 were in the neighborhood of 25,000,000.
Taraalcar 2 years ago
Penn Jillette lies here like he lies everywhere else. Sigrid Fry-Revere has no medical degree. She has a philosophy degree. Penn Jillette spends half the video telling us his propaganda whore colleague at the Cato Institute corporate press release laundering mill is a doctor, so that her opinion carries weight. Turns out she is not a doctor. never was, never hoped to be. Never knew that writing a thesis on Neizstche was the equivalent of 4 years of medical school.
Penn is a lie-teller.
funboy7979 2 years ago 4
wow youre clever
Dizzzaniel 2 years ago
I'm an atheist and I frown on abortion...only because I think it's irresponsible.
Determining when brain function starts is tricky so if it's anywhere near that point, it's really murder at the end of the day.
Saying that life begins at conception though is fairly ignorant.
vidmanx0 2 years ago
Fat fraud shill is so out of touch he doesn't know that GOOGLE FUCKING EXISTS. Years ago he could have gotten away with his idiot lies but no longer.
His Cato Institute corporate propaganda whore colleague Sigrid Fry-Revere has no medical degree. Fat liar liar pants on fire.
tonzimala 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
She has a doctorate in philosophy with a concentration in bioethics, in addition to her law degree. Tonzimala, It's possible that Penn was just mistaken. Certainly, it doesn't effect the validity of his claim.
ThrobbingEgo 2 years ago
I love how this monosyllabic stooge has professional interpreters (publicists) who jump on here and explain what fat uneducated bore was rambling on about, as if he were some sort of guru.
Tedious homilies, paid for by his corporate masters.
bc9021010001 2 years ago 7
Ohh sorry, she has a Ph.D. in philosophy of bioethics, not a medical degree along with her law degree. Penn's slight mistake does not make him a liar. Please take your misleading and hysterical paranoia elsewhere.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Penn Jillette lies about his corporate shill propagandist colleagues at the Cato Institute just as he shamelessly promotes his Zionist errand boy and girl colleagues who toil with him for Zionist propaganda mainstream media conglomerates like Viacom, Sony, Fox, Advance Publications, etc.
Sigrid Fry-Revere has no medical degree. Never did. Nope.
Penn Jillette here not only lies, but lies in an extended folksy way calculated to make you believe and trust him.
Scumbag fatcat shill.
walterglanz 2 years ago 2
Penn Jillette lies about his corporate shill propagandist colleagues at the Cato Institute just as he shamelessly promotes his Zionist errand boy and girl colleagues who toil with him for Zionist propaganda mainstream media conglomerates like Viacom, Sony, Fox, Advance Publications, etc.
Sigrid Fry-Revere has no medical degree. Never did. Nope.
Penn Jillette here not only lies, but lies in an extended folksy way calculated to make you believe and trust him.
Scumbag fatcat shill.
walterglanz 2 years ago 2
Sigrid Fry-Revere is a whore with a PhD (oh excuse me, an "expert" or "scholar") at the Cato Institute. Cato takes corporate press release propaganda and rewrites it in the form of "studies" and "reports."
Penn & Teller are errand boys for the Cato Institute. They finally got their piece of the big money show biz pie after singing on, in the form of their Viacom TV and longterm Vegas contracts. Many "Penn & Teller: Bullshit" episodes are informercials for Cato Institute corporate funders.
funboy7979 2 years ago 4
Why does he lie about his supposed "expert's" credentials? Saying that Sigrid Fry-Revere likes to fuck dogs is just as accurate as saying she has a medical degree.
zooooooperdooooooper 2 years ago 5
A law degree and a bioethics degree of philosophy do make her an expert actually and you would be hard pressed to find anyone more fit to judge a subject like abortion.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
To all YouTuber: STOP TELLING WOMEN WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR VAGINAS!
georgehwbush 2 years ago 2
Uhhhh.... Vaginas?
I think the issue is more about the baby inside them, rather than their vaginas. What they did with their vaginas caused the baby and we didn't really care about that part.
If you want a baby, don't use birth control or condoms.
If don't want one, use those things.
Moronic lady is moronic.
CelGamer 2 years ago
But if we don't they don't use them right :(
Use them right= Have sex with us (yes, constantly nagging to a women for sex can get you laid)
HUBILUB 2 years ago
I believe that a woman should be allowed to get an abortion of he wants to, but ONLY if the baby will hinder her life, be it physically or otherwise (or if they were raped)
If it's some girl who can't keep her legs closed then that's a different story
LeonSKennedy828 2 years ago 2
I'm agnostic and pro-life. You need religion to tell you abortion is wrong just as much as you need it to see murder, stealing, or making meat helmets is wrong.
raunchbear 2 years ago
I disagree fully.
NyelaniousTour 2 years ago
With what? The meat helmet part?
raunchbear 2 years ago
Yes, and the rest. Why would religions be needed for determining codes of conduct at all. I certainly have a code of conduct without owing any of it to any religion. I think many things religions teach as right is wrong and many things taught as wrong is right.
NyelaniousTour 2 years ago
I think we agree, read my response again. That's pretty much what I said.
raunchbear 2 years ago
Ok, sure, You said "You need religion to tell you abortion... meat helmets... is wrong". I say you do not. We do not agree. Did you mistype? Did you mean "You do not need religion...."
NyelaniousTour 2 years ago
Why?
NyelaniousTour 2 years ago
hard to reconcile that with your proclaimed agnosticism...
rtarbinar 2 years ago
i dont know about how you referred to pro choice as anti life. makes us seem a little off. pro choice isn't anti life. i support a woman's choice to abort. but i do not support abortion. as in i would rather see a baby born and adopted into a loving family.
walkerorr 2 years ago
My personal thoughts on abortion are simply ethical. If you start allowing abortion, you then have to ask for what reasons you allow abortion. I belive if the woman is raped or if the birth might kill her, it is ok. But, is it ok to abort a child because it doesn't have the specific characteristics you want? Is it ok to modify your child until it is "perfect" and stop any births that might not reach this point? I have my doubts on that, but that, again, is just my own opinion.
Kefroth1 2 years ago
Well when you put it that way it sounds kind of ruff... However i think few women would do that, and it my point stands that every woman have the right to deside the morale for them selfs, if a woman think it's okej to modify a child, a think she has the right to do so, despite that i dislike that particular idea.
zozxyc 2 years ago
Well, I would go in to a bit more detail, but sadly, I am limited by character count. What I mean is that you have to give defined reasons as to why you will allow abortion, along with when it is not longer legal to preform one. My big concern is that there is a clearly stated law that exists stating what conditions are necessary for an abortion, and under what time frame is it no longer legal to do so. I feel very strongly against anything after 4-5 months, yet such abortions currently occur.
Kefroth1 2 years ago
On the heals of this, I also think that there needs to be some consistancey in our existing laws. Did you know that if you were to kill a pregnant woman, it is double homicide? Also, if you hit a pregnant woman in the stomach and it kills the unborn child, that it is considered murder? So basically, it seems that an unborn child switches from being human to useless tissue in our courts depending on the situation. Not that I want to see abortions through abuse legalised but something is off here.
Kefroth1 2 years ago