 Hey everybody, tonight we are debating pro life versus pro choice and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. If this is your first time here at Modern Day Debate, I'm your host James Coons and we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. And so I want to let you know no matter what walk of life you are from, we hope you feel welcome and we're glad you're here. Now if you're sick in the head like us and you like juicy controversial debates, want to let you know we are thrilled that Matt Dillahunty and Dr. Josh will be debating Stuart and Cliff Nettle, a real life father and son tag team debate team. And so that will be exciting. That's coming up this month. You'll see that at the bottom right of your screen. And so hey, if you like those controversial topics, hit that subscribe button right now. That way you don't miss any of them. And we are also on podcast. So if you like listening to podcast, well, hey, you're in luck. We're on virtually every podcast app. Check us out. And if you cannot find us on your podcast app right now, you can tell us in the live chat and we will work to get on there for you. So for tonight's debate, it's going to be a good one. Folks, we're very excited about this. We have two guests. You could say who are Titans or juggernauts from the world of TikTok. We're thrilled to have them joining us and want to start introducing them first with Victoria. They're both linked in the description, folks. So if you'd like to hear more from our guests, you can hear more by clicking on those links that are in the description right now. And so with that, Victoria, thrilled to have you here with us. If you'd like to share what can people expect to find at your link in the description? If you're interested, go ahead and click the link in the description to go to my TikTok. I talk about politics and whatever else I want to talk about. So go check me out there. Absolutely. Well, thanks for being here again, Victoria. We appreciate it. And Tyler, thanks as well for being here. What can people expect to find at your link in the description? Oh man, a whole bunch of no good on my TikTok. So still on political TikTok. Absolutely. You will definitely find more triggering topics on my TikTok and definitely the least amount of filter that I can have without getting banned on TikTok. So yeah, that's what you'll find over there. You got it. So thanks so much to both of our guests for being with us. We're going to jump right into it. Victoria is going to start and their opening statement is very flexible. So if they want to use as little as a minute or less, they can. That's up to them. And it can be as long as 10 minutes. And then we'll go right into the open conversation. If you happen to have a question, folks, feel free to fire that question into the old live chat. If you take me with at modern day debate, it makes it easier for me to get every question in that Q and A list. So with that, thanks so much, Victoria. The floor is all yours. Yeah, thank you so much for having us, James Tyler. Thank you for meeting with me again. My biggest hope for this debate is just that both of our followers are able to step out of their echo chambers for a bit and hear more about the other side. And yeah, so thank you guys both for being here on that now. I'll get right into it. As a society, we deprive various multicellular organisms of life and deem it ethical frequently, like plants, for example, we deem humans as beings of moral consideration because we're capable of consciousness and subjective experience. None of these defining attributes are present and fetuses with them a first trimester of pregnancy. We know this because their lack of development because of their lack of development and brain structures related to all of the things that I just mentioned. For this reason, fetuses at this stage of development being in the first trimester are not beings of moral consideration and depriving them of life cannot be considered murder or unethical. Legally, I do not think that a person should be required to use their body or their resources to host one of these non-sentient beings, which I personally do not think are beings of moral consideration. And with that, we will kick it over to Tyler for his opening statement as well. Thanks so much, Tyler. The floor is all yours. Sure. So yeah, so I'm basically pro-life for three reasons. One, I subscribe to personhood originating at conception. Two, I believe that all human persons, excuse me, have the equal right to life. And then three, if an individual's voluntary actions force another person into a state of physical dependency, it would be immoral to remove that dependency if the result ended in the loss of that person's life. That's it. I'm done. Thank you very much. We'll jump right into open conversation. And so, so long as it goes smooth, we'll just kind of let it go where it goes. Otherwise, if it starts to get a little bit too rocky, we'll just break it into two or three minute intervals. And so, thanks so much. The floor is all yours. So do you want to ask me a question or do you want me to ask you a question first? You know what? Let's get right into it. I'll go on your third point of why you are pro-life. Just this idea that if you voluntarily let someone into your home, you don't have the right to, or not your home, sorry. But if you willingly, why don't you restate that third point actually? I don't want to misinterpret what you said. Yes. So if an individual's voluntary actions force another person into a state of physical dependency, it's immoral to remove that dependency knowing that they would die. Okay. And I mean, are you comfortable with me referencing our previous debate? Yeah, of course. Yeah. Okay. So I remember in our previous debate, you mentioned like if a child comes into your home, maybe you welcome a child into your home, right? Do you have the right to then kill that child? And I was basically saying no, but you've the right to evict that child from your home. What I would like to say on that point as well is in all of these analogies from my perspective, it doesn't make sense to compare a sentient being and a non-sentient being because that is the reason I would deem someone being a moral consideration. That is what gives someone personhood to me is this consciousness. So while I do not agree that these situations would be morally equivalent, I want to kind of like work with you on that on that example and kind of explain why I don't think that you should be pro-life in this regard either. Because as I understand, you tend to subscribe to a lot of libertarian ideology, right? I've kind of gathered that from your content. More or less. Yeah. So so you're basically small government type of guy. Is that kind of fair to say? Yeah. So how do you feel in general about positive rights and positive obligations? What do you mean? So positive, basically there are two types of rights. Positive rights and negative rights. Negative rights are freedom from something. So our freedom of religion is the freedom we have to practice without interference. Positive rights on the other hand are our right to certain things, but it requires something of someone else. So whenever I say that healthcare is a human right, in a lot of ways that is a positive right because I would be saying like someone's right to healthcare is their right and they're going to need something from their community in order to have that right. So that's a positive right. And this idea that you have of, you know, like I remember in our last thing, if someone wanders into your home, do you have the right to deprive them of life? Let me interject for just a second. Yeah. So just because I don't think that like it's almost like we're going to go into like bodily autonomy or something like that. But the thing is, is that you don't believe that it's a person anyway, right? No, I don't. Okay. I do want to, I do want to level with you though. Okay. Well, we don't have to do that. So let's just, instead of getting there, why don't we just focus on the personhood first? Um, I mean, yeah, I would, well, I would like to kind of complete my point because I think would be helpful for your kind of like small government audience. So my biggest thing is that when you're asking a woman to host a baby in her stomach, you are saying that the right to life is a positive right. Is that fair to say the right to that fetus is, that fetus is right to life is a positive right. It's requiring something of the mother, right? Requiring what of the mother? Her body, her resources, food, nutrients. Yeah. A mother is, is obligated to provide those things for her child. Yeah. Right. But, um, again, this isn't, this isn't a child yet. This is a fetus. This is a separate entity. I thought you just said that you were gonna grant me leeway and say that it is a person. Okay. Personhood. But, but I don't think it's necessarily fair to say, um, you know, to assign like an age to that being necessarily because it's, it's not equivalent to a child. It says equivalent to a child as it would be to an adult if that makes sense. Okay. You could say like a pre, I mean, you could call it a fetus, but to me, that's a person. Are you, okay. So in this question that you're asking me basically is what I'm, what I'm asking you is, are you, are you saying that it is a person for your argument that you're about to make or it isn't? I'm saying that even though you believe that it is a person, you should not necessarily believe in forcing a woman to give up her resources for that non-sentient, non-conscious being. Okay. So, so you're talking about bodily autonomy. Okay. Bodily autonomy in a way, but I do want to clarify that I, I would treat a fetus differently than a child because of sentience and consciousness just for my future argument. I don't want to subscribe completely to the bodily autonomy argument because I don't think it summarizes my position fully enough, but I guess, I guess my point to you is that I find Victoria, Victoria, I'm so sorry, but like if it's not going to summarize it, then shouldn't we focus on, on, on personhood first then? Doesn't that make sense? Well, I mean, you asked me where I wanted to start. This is where I want to start. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. So I guess my point to you is I find it interesting. I'm not even like, I want to make this very clear throughout this whole debate. I'm not trying to debunk you here. I'm just trying to get an understanding of your ideology because from where I am standing, you don't typically believe in positive rights. You don't typically believe that a being is worthy of something if it requires something of another being. And so that's why I'm a little bit confused in your pro-life stance and the pro-life stance of many libertarians because it does seem to be very rooted in the idea of like rights, human rights, if that makes sense. Yeah. So when it comes to like bodily autonomy or whatever, I just believe that, you know, that a person has a moral obligation to accept the consequences of their actions if they consciously and voluntarily act on them. I mean, do you, do you disagree? Well, see a question that I would want to pose to you and I'm sorry, I'm having internet problems. I would bring up the name of the philosopher who posed this question. But in regards to your kind of like evictionism argument, let's say that there was an apocalyptic storm raging out there. I just asked you a question. You didn't answer my question. Well, I'm sorry. I don't mean to answer a question with the question, but I'm trying to just repeat your question. It was a yes or no. It wasn't even, it was just yes or no. Do you believe that, like what I said or no? Well, obviously I disagree with your stance on abortion and that's why we're here. Well, no, no. Well, it doesn't even have to be necessary to abortion. It's a general, it's a general question, right? So do you believe that people have a moral obligation to accept the consequences of their actions if they consciously and voluntarily act on them? I would say that that's just too general and too broad of a statement to make. Okay. If you're playing soccer in your neighborhood and you accidentally kick a ball through a neighbor's window, are you absolved from those consequences? No, not necessarily, but if someone wanders, if someone opens your unlocked door and comes into your house, are they now, or because you left the door unlocked, are they able to just live in your house? Well, that's disanalogous too. It's not disanalogous because that would be suffering. Let me finish my point. So it's disanalogous to abortion or pregnancy in general because when it comes to pregnancy, you force that person into your home. So if you were to say, yes, well, Tyler, can you force someone into your home and then kill them if they don't leave and be like, no, that's immoral. You cannot force someone into your home and then kill them. Okay. So let me bring up this analogy then. Do you agree with that, that I just said at least? Well, no, I don't necessarily, and here's why. I don't think that someone should be, because again, our view on pregnancy is very different too. For me, a more similar analogy to using birth control and condoms and then getting pregnant would be something more like leaving your door unlocked and having someone wander into your home because it's not intentional. It's not like these people were trying to get pregnant, just like you'd be trying to force someone into your home. Does that make sense? What? It wouldn't be the same. No, it wouldn't be the same. Because somebody, so somebody coming into your home, that would be, somebody made that decision to come through your home, right? Yeah, I guess in a way. Okay. So I would just would say that it's not analogous. Like if you want to make it like real, sorry, so I could say this. So this is what I'm saying. Like to get into like the bodily autonomy argument is I would really just be arguing that it is a person, kind of like you are, but it's not going to matter because you don't believe that it's a person. So I mean, even if I overcome this, you would just say, well, it's not a person anyways, so it doesn't matter. So like that's why I'm saying I think that we have to start at personhood before we get into bodily autonomy. Yes, I want to ask this one question. Last thing, I'm sorry, because if you're talking about bodily autonomy, which I mean, you said that in our previous debate, I want to know if you still hold this value, you believe that abortion should be legal up until the 18th week, right? Or the first try, I'm sorry, first trimester. First trimester, yeah. Okay. And everything after that, and I mean, unless there's like some crazy, rare circumstance, you would believe that it should be illegal. Is that correct? Right. Okay. So when you're talking about bodily autonomy, it's not going to matter, Victoria, because bodily autonomy is based off of property rights and the right to self, like you own yourself. I understand. So it wouldn't, so I can, so I can absolutely compare that to an actual person, so what you would believe is an actual person, because bodily autonomy isn't just, it extends to persons, right? Right, no. So I think that we have to start with personhood before we go to bodily autonomy. I agree, but the analogy, because here's the issue here is that you believe, you believe that it is a person, I believe that it's not, so if I preach my side, I'm only preaching to my audience. I want to kind of talk to you and your audience. I don't even know why it's a person. Why are you, I'm sorry, I want to know why you believe it's not a person. Okay. Well, I'm sorry, we started with your stance, we can go back to your stance, and we can start with my stance if you'd like, but I would really like to talk about the analogy I have where I kind of consider that it is a person for you and for your audience. Just an analogy I have for you, a question, just to test your logical consistency. Can I ask my question? Okay. Let's say, this is, okay, fun thought experiment, everyone. Let's all get a little bit less serious. Okay. Well, it's actually not a fun thought experiment at all. It's very sad. But let's say that there's like apocalyptic storm raging outside, death, despair everywhere. Sucks, right? Some would say that that's on the brink of happening today. I got to tell you, the more I read the news, the scarier it gets. But, okay, so that's happening, sucks, whatever. So, do you think, even if you invite a person into your home at first, do you think that you are required to, you should be legally required to keep that person in your home and share your resources with that person as opposed to kicking them out whenever you please? When would you be, so basically, as soon as you invite that person into your home, do you think that you should be forced to let them stay there, knowing that when they kick them out, they will die? But do you think that you should legally be forced to keep that person, that human being, in your home? Because once you kick them out, they will die, even though you have to share your resources with them. Do you think that that should be legally required? Okay, so I'd say that this now gets to abortion. I'm going to tell you why for two reasons. One, again, you didn't just invite them in, you forced them in. That there's a distinct difference, right? It's not like, oh, just come on in. It's like, you forced them in through the act of pregnancy. Now, whether you meant for that to happen or not is irrelevant. You still forced that life into being. You forced them into your womb and then you forced them into a state of dependency on you. So not only did you force them there, but then you forced them into a state of dependency. So in your analogy, to make it more analogous, you would have to say that instead of inviting, well, one, you forced them in. And then second, it's a baby, right? Or at least to make it the most analogous as possible, you wouldn't like say it's just a general person is like an adult or a teenager. It's an actual baby, which is important. It's an important distinction because like if somebody is trespassing on your property, you can hold adolescents, you can hold teenagers, you can hold adults morally and legally accountable for those things. But when it comes to a baby or a pre baby, you cannot hold them. They're not able to be held morally or legally accountable for any of their actions. So it's, it's completely disanalogous. Okay. And see, I think that this is our issue here. And this is why I can make it. I can make, I can make like a very, very clear analogy just to be sure that. Well, no, it's okay. I'm just wanting to explore your ideology because in my personal opinion, I view it as a bit of a special pleading fallacy to only view the right to life as a positive right for babies and children and not adults. Because as I understand, you do not view right to life as a positive right for adults and other human beings. I know what you're talking about as far as positive right or negative right. What I'm saying is that all It's a common, it's a common philosophy in the libertarian conversation. I'm not a libertarian, but second, like what I'm saying is that every person has the equal right to life. That's it. Right. Every, every human being has an equal right to life. Yeah. Every human person has the equal right to life. Yes. Right. And under your circumstances, this would be a positive right to life where it might require something. You could call it, yeah, you could call it whatever you want. It doesn't matter what you call it. What I'm saying is that as long as it doesn't change my argument. Here's another, here's another weird analogy. Stick with me. I promise it'll make sense. But let's say I'm sexually active female doing my thing, you know, and I am regularly taking the abortion pill. And so I'd never know if I'm pregnant, whatever. I'm just always taking it. So I might be giving myself abortions. Would you deem that an ethical and would you say that that should be illegal? Say your question again. I'm sorry. So basically I'm sexually active. I'm taking the abortion pill all the time. I never know if I'm pregnant. I'm just taking the abortion pill. And if I have an abortion, I have an abortion, whatever. I don't know if I'm having one, but I'm just doing it. Do you think that that should be illegal? And I promise it'll make sense. Taking an abortion pill all the time. I don't know if I'm giving myself an abortion, but I could be. I very well could be. Do you think that that should be illegal for me to do it? I don't think that it matters if you, well, for one, well, what does the abortion pill do? The abortion pill just expels it embryo from your uterus and kills it essentially. If you believe that life starts at conception, you should be against the abortion pill. Yeah, I would be. Yeah, I would be against that. I would say the abortion pill in general, though. So like, so for one, so when it comes to the abortion pill. Well, really quick, I'm so sorry. I'm a little indifferent, but go ahead. Okay. Yeah. No, I genuinely don't mean to interrupt you. The abortion pill isn't the most important part of this analogy. The point is, is that I could be giving myself an abortion and unaware. You would deem that morally unethical because I'd be depriving that being of life, whether I knew it or not. And you should. Well, you're intentionally doing it, right? Right. But because I know that I could be giving, I could be getting an abortion. Okay. Yeah. So my question then is why are you against a federal mask mandate when you know that you could possibly have coronavirus? I know this isn't going to make sense at first. I beg you to just stay with me. You know, I'm asking you. It doesn't have anything to do with abortion. No, but it does because again, I personally do believe that once someone is given personhood, the right to life is a positive right for me. If your life requires something of me like wearing a mask, I'm okay with that because it's a positive right to life. You seem to believe that the right to life is a positive right as well, meaning if it requires something of another individual, that's okay. So long as that person who has been granted personhood can have their right to life. So my question is knowing that the coronavirus is extremely deadly, knowing that you might have it and not know it, knowing that wearing a mask could save someone's life. You still don't think that the government should be able to step in and mandate a mask because in that instance, you are showing that you don't believe that life, the right to life is a positive right, if that makes sense. Yeah, but I also don't believe that the government should get involved when it comes to seatbelts, even if somebody decides to get into your car. Right? I don't believe that you should do that either. So I don't believe that the government should infringe on things like it's unnecessary. Exactly. When it comes to mask mandate specifically, I'm completely for private businesses, instituting, I'm completely for individuals that want to do it. I wear a mask when I go out there, I mean, mostly because they force me to do it. But still, yeah, I'm completely okay with them doing it. When it comes to the government not imposing it, I just feel like it's an unnecessary use of government force, right? So why would it be necessary? Because here's the thing. So hold on, I'm still, I'm thinking this out loud as I'm saying it. So if you don't know that somebody has the coronavirus, right? You don't know that unless they get tested, right? Or unless the government uses even more tyrannical force and then forces people to get tested. So you don't know that I have it. And the biggest issue that I have is that it's not even so much the force itself. I mean, it is, but what I'm more worried about is just that, or more, I don't know, like my issue with is that there's nothing stopping you from doing anything that you need to protect yourself. Like if there was some reason that the mass population couldn't do something to protect themselves, and I would say, okay, then maybe it makes sense for the government to step in and say, okay, you need to do mass mandates. But there's not actually anything stopping you, Victoria. There's nothing stopping you from getting a $5 mask. There's nothing stopping you from wearing long sleeve shirts, wearing gloves, using hand sanitizer. There's nothing stopping you from doing those things. So because that they're, I mean, like, practically speaking. So like, if there's nothing practically speaking that would stop you from doing those things, then it's an unnecessary use of government force to make me do something to end. But basically what you're saying, the whole point is, is that you don't want to inconvenience yourself more. So you need to inconvenience me. No, not necessarily. The issue here is that PPE is not 100% effective. And unfortunately, the reality- But again, I don't want to go too far off into this because this is a limited debate. This has nothing to do with abortion. This is something that I want to emphasize to you, though, because there are essential workers out there who, who, you know, even with PPE, they are running the risk of getting the coronavirus and dying from it. And so I guess my issue was with your logical inconsistency in terms of positive rights. Like you believe that a woman should be able to give up her body. Just saying that something's logically inconsistent doesn't make it so, Victoria. Okay. Well, you believe that a woman should be able to give up her body and her resources in order to, in order to give, in order to ensure that this fetus has life, but you're not even willing- The fetus that you force there, yes. Hold on. You're not even willing to put on a, I mean, maybe you personally are willing to put on a mask, but you don't think the government should be able to legally mandate masks for people who choose to go out, choose to be around other people. Do you understand what I'm saying? Again, again, tell me what's stopping you. Victoria, just answer my question very, very simply. What is stopping you from wearing a mask, wearing a long sleeve shirt, wearing gloves, or using hand sanitizer? I already explained that. Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, Tyler. But it's not a hundred percent effective. Then you're not, and then you're not pointing out, then what I'm saying is, what I'm saying is that you aren't pointing out a logical inconsistency. You're just talking for the sake of talking. All right, let's give, let's just slow it down. I'm sorry, it is what it is. I had to be blunt, like you're just talking. No, it is a logical inconsistency. Let's give Victoria about two minutes to respond, and then I promise we'll come right back to you, Tyler. All right, if we can reel this back into abortion, it would be great, but thanks. I appreciate that, James. My issue, Tyler, what I'm trying to emphasize, and I promise I'm not trying to take too much time away from the abortion debate, because it's important to talk about, but you and most, and most small government people who do believe in abortion restrictions tend to not advocate for a positive right to life, right? National healthcare, for example. And again, I don't want to bring up a million topics here all at once. I'm sorry. But just, it seems that for the most part, you guys are okay with people dying so long as it doesn't require anything. Okay, so for one, can you not generalize? Tyler, can you not generalize conservatives? It is about two minutes still. So, I promise I'll come right back to you, Tyler. Oh, yeah, but that's a fair point. You're not debating all conservatives. You're debating. Tyler, we do have, like I said, we're going to give it about two minutes. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Interval, and then we'll come back to you. I understand. My apologies. I apologize. I shouldn't have generalized all conservatives. I guess my issue here, when you're against the government making a mask mandate, but then you're also in support of the government putting restrictions on women's bodies, that is a logical inconsistency because you believe that the right to life is a positive right so long as it is the woman making the sacrifice for that life as opposed to you just wearing a mask. And I think a lot of pro-lifers do tend to agree with that as well. Maybe that's generalizing again, but I do see a lot of pro-life discourse talking about how it is important to wear masks just because PPE is not entirely effective. Like, if you're wearing a mask, it's not blocking coronavirus. It's just preventing your spit droplets from getting out. If that makes sense. And I could go on a whole speech about that, but I'm not going to. Yeah, so yeah, I'll just go ahead and end it there. Okay, two or three minutes from Tyler, go ahead. Okay, so again, so it's not a logical inconsistency. You just keep saying that over and over to try and gaslight the people in the comments into believing that it is a logical inconsistency doesn't make it so. When I asked you, what is stopping someone, this is my rationale for it, right? And I actually told you that as like, okay, well, if there was something practically speaking that was stopping the masses from obtaining mass or doing whatever to protect other citizens, and I'd say, okay, then we could visit that, right? I'd have to really, I'd have to really see what it was, but we could visit that. But when I asked you, okay, what is stopping you as a, if it's me and you, what is stopping you as a person from protecting yourself? Can you get a mask? Can you wear a long sleeve shirt? Can you wear gloves? Can you hand sanitize? Can you constantly do those things that you need to do to protect yourself? And when you said, well, no, there's nothing stopping me from doing it, that's it. You just, there's no reason for me to have to wear a mask or for, excuse me, for a government to force me to wear a mask if there is nothing practically speaking from preventing you of doing what you need to do to protect yourself. That's the point that I made. So it's not logically inconsistent, especially when you try to, you're being disingenuous. It's also like, oh, well, controlling women's bodies when you know that that's not my argument, like my argument is what it is, and we can get into it, is that that woman forced that person into a state of dependency. That is my argument, which you have not attacked at all during this debate. You've just been trying to go into other things like healthcare and like these things to try and, or just bring up your analogies that I've already proven multiple times are disanalogous. You don't know how to accurately even analogize anything. So I'm going to give you a proper analogy since you want to stick on bodily autonomy. And then I really want to get into personhood because it is what it is. Wait, really, really quick, you just said a lot of things. Hey, I still got my three minutes. That's what they say. That's what the rules are. It's about 47 seconds left. Okay, cool. So let me give you this thought experiment. So let's say that there are human cells in a jar. Now, you don't have to interact with these cells, but you want to, right? And you know that if you do, there is a chance that they will physically attach to you and create a new person that will be completely dependent on you for survival. Now, you decide anyway, go ahead, you're going to wear gloves, you're going to protect yourself, whatever you're going to do, but you decide to play with these cells anyway. Lo and behold, these cells, they attach to you and they create that new person that is completely dependent on you. Did you or did you not force that person or force that being into a state of dependency? Yes or no? Sure. Okay. So now you are saying that that is still, it would not be immoral to end that being's life even though you forced them to be there in the first place. If it's just an unconscious lob on me, like I don't understand how that would be different than if it was in my interest. Hold on, you, okay. So you're going, you're flip-flopping, you're going back and forth, right? So in the beginning, you're like, oh, well, I want to grant you some leeway here so that we can talk about, I'm going to argue it as if it is a person, but then when I actually give you an analogy that's really going to challenge you, then you just revert back to, well, it's not a person anyway. No, no, no. And I already, I predicted that in the beginning. I was like, Victoria, you're just going to say that it's not, you're just going to say that it's not a person. Tyler, Tyler, Tyler, Tyler. That's why we do want to do it. That's why we do want to do it. That's why we do want to do it. Tyler, so what we want to do is just because we had roughly those two or three-minute intervals and then we kind of went back into open conversation and I want to give Victoria a chance to respond to your last three-minute section and also the points that you've brought up since then. Right, so the issue here and what we're talking about now is that we're shifting to, I think it was your second point, dependency. I'm still kind of talking about just like the right to life and that is that a positive right versus a negative right. So that is where I am kind of comfortable discussing the bodily autonomy argument. But if we're going to only talk, if we're going to merge into other aspects of your argument, then I would like to talk about consciousness because that is my main argument. Additionally, back in regards to the conversation about PPE and wearing masks, I don't think that you understand how effectual. Don't, I mean, why, why this attitude? I genuinely want our audiences to get something out. I didn't say anything. I didn't say anything. Anyways, I don't think that you fully understand how PPE works. If you wear a mask, you're protecting others, it doesn't protect yourself. So anyways, so someone can be fully decked out in PPE and still not be completely safe. So in the same way that you view, you know, and having an abortion, it's forcing someone into your body and then killing them, I would argue that you leaving your house knowing that you may or may not have coronavirus, knowing that you may or may not be able to give it to someone who even someone who is wearing PPE, you could knowingly kill them and you don't believe that the government should prevent that from happening. So I do view that as a logical inconsistency because as you said, it also doesn't matter if you don't know for sure if you are killing or are not killing that person, you could be killing that person. And just like you thought that it was wrong in the abortion analogy, you should also think that it's wrong in the mask wearing analogy. And that is why I view that as a logical inconsistency. All right, Tyler, we'll give you two minutes. Go ahead. Okay, so I don't like we're getting real circular because I just keep responding to this over and over. So like I said, when it comes to, and this is the last time I'm going to talk about this mask thing, because again, like I feel like what you're doing is trying to dodge the inevitable of like strictly abortion. And you're trying to go into all of these other like, hold on, let me finish. You're trying to go into all of these other things that it doesn't even matter. So again, like I said, if you are, oh, I'm sorry, what was the last thing that you said? Just so I can remember, what was the last thing you said? Basically, even if someone is decked out in PPE, they can still get coronavirus and die from you not wearing a mask. Okay, okay. So tell me what's the data on that? So the data is that personal mask wearing actually does reduce, hold on, let me see if I can- More specifically, not just mask wearing, so specifically to what I said earlier. So if you had everything that you needed as far as hand sanitizer, you were covered from head to toe and mask and your eyes were covered, whatever was covered. What are the chances of you getting COVID that way? And if someone isn't wearing a mask versus if someone is wearing a mask and you're not decked out that way? Well, as of right now, as I kind of explained, I can't remember if you were streaming during this. I'm having internet trouble, so I wouldn't be able to look up a specific study for you, but it doesn't matter what the percent chance is, because what we do know is that by not wearing a mask, you could be condemning to someone to death, even if you're not 100% certain that you are. But still, there is nothing stopping you from protecting yourself. Like you said, again, in the analogy, in the analogy that you even if I'm on- But there is nothing stopping you. Even if I'm on- There's nothing stopping you, right? Right, just as there's nothing stopping me from using birth control and condoms. So so long as I'm wearing birth- using birth control and condoms, should I be able to just- As long as you are using a type of contra- Hey, keep taking the abortion. Hey, keep taking the abortion. Should I be- As long as you are using a type of contraception that is not directly influencing implantation or stopping anything after fertilization, then I am fine with that. No, but here's the thing. I don't think you're- Okay, so that's about two minutes. So I do want to give Victoria two minutes uninterrupted and then we'll go back to you. To be fair, like we kind of were, that was kind of like open. It wasn't just like my side, right? It was still within your two minutes. Okay. If we could- One of the, hold on one second, is one of the challenges is, I'm okay with you guys asking questions, kind of like a cross-examination style, totally okay with me. The only trick is that it is kind of getting is, there is some overlap in terms of who's talking at the same time. And so that's why we're- Okay, I will- Okay, can I say this? Can I say this James? So I will absolutely, I will absolutely try to refrain myself from interrupting Victoria if we can have more of like an open style. I'm okay with that. If- If she agrees. There's less interrupting. I'm fine with that. Okay, let's go for it. Now what I would ask, what I would implore Victoria to do is to navigate this into her consciousness argument. Because we're now like 40 something minutes in. So I would implore her to navigate there. All right, Tyler. I respect you. I, you know, I respect this argument, but I would also appreciate it if you don't tell me how to argue because I think I am coming upon a logical inconsistency of yours that you seem to be running from for some reason. So the point is, the equivalencies in this analogy would be wearing PPE is pretty equivalent to condoms and birth control, right? It could, it could prevent, like a person wearing like a mask, like sure it could, or wearing gloves and hand sanitizer, sure it could prevent them from getting sick. But just like, you know, I might still get pregnant, even if I'm on birth control and using condoms. If I were to then do something more intentional that could kill this other person inside me, which I would equate to refusing to wear a mask even though you know that that could kill someone else. I would say that that's a logical inconsistency that you don't think that the government should be able to step in and make you wear a mask. So you're comparing the intentional killing versus the possible killing? I would say that if you know, because for COVID just to be clear, just be clear for COVID, right? Well, let me answer your question. Let me answer your question. If you know, if you ask the question, Tyler, so let's give her a chance to actually answer it. If you leave your house knowing that you could give someone else COVID and kill them, that is the exact same as me taking the abortion pill knowing that I could be pregnant and I could kill a fetus? No. Yes, it is. Because in both situations, the person doesn't really know for sure, just as we talked about earlier. We can do the rollback. You don't think. So again, but again, you believe in positive rights if it's inside a woman, if it's requiring something of her, but you don't believe in positive rights if it's requiring something from you as a citizen. You don't believe that it is the person on the street just walking or whatever, the person who's high risk. You don't believe that their right to life is a positive right so long as it requires something of you and making you wear a mask, but you believe that a fetus's right to life is a positive right so long as it requires something of the person hosting that fetus. Does this make sense? This is why it's a logical inconsistency because you seem to only believe in... Okay, I'll let you go. So let me ask you this just so I can kind of dead this whole issue. So let's just say that I even conceded, which I'm not, but let's just say that I even conceded on this point and said, okay, it's the same thing. What's your point? Like, are you then just going to say, okay, then we shouldn't do this also? Then a woman shouldn't take an abortion pill? Then what's the point? No, no, no. My point is that if you genuinely do believe that a fetus is a person just like anyone else is a person, that you believe that the right to life is a positive right, then you should be pro-mass because that would be saying, okay, I will take on the responsibility of preserving this other human being's life, but you don't care about that. Possibly. You might possibly preserve. Right, right. You might possibly preserve the someone else's right, but again, But again, it doesn't matter if you know it. Victoria, Victoria, Victoria, you constantly, like you're interrupting me as well, so please let me finish. So what I'm saying is, again, like we're now going on 50 minutes for this mask thing. We haven't even gotten to the core argument here. So again, for someone to con- you would have to do something and then that person would have to contract COVID and then they may die from it. So some person may contract COVID from what you're doing and then they may die from it, right? I mean, you're talking about something that that's incredibly, I think, I think, I forgot exactly what your phrase was, but you said it was severely lethal when you're talking about people that are under the age of 65, you know, it's like 0.5% chance of dying from COVID. So again, like we can, it's subjective to say what is a lot or not a lot or whatever, but again, like my whole point was that there's nothing stopping you from doing anything that you need to protect yourself. You've already conceded that and said that, okay, there is nothing stopping you from protecting yourself. So that's why it's an unnecessary use of government force. You're trying to then compare that to an abortion pill where you are doing something intentionally that is going to kill another person, right? So, or it may kill another person. I mean, an abortion pill, what's the percentage of accuracy there? What is it, 98%? Like, what is it? Tyler, does it? Okay, here we go. Totally equivalent. I am randomly taking the abortion pill. I don't know if I'm pregnant. I have an abortion. You are walking around. I asked you a question. Hold on, hold on, hold on. I asked you a question. You didn't even answer my question. Wait, wait, wait. Please let me speak. You are walking around without a mask on. You're walking around. You're walking around without a mask on. You have COVID. You get someone else second they die from it. Are those equivalent? Are you allergic to answering questions? Tyler, will you just? I ask you a question. And I'm trying to explain my ideology behind my answer. I don't care about your ideology right now. I care about you answering my question. That's what I care about. Can you answer the question I asked you? Yes, I just wish you were arguing in good faith, bro. Like, I genuinely want to understand your side. I don't know why you're being so antagonistic right now. Like, I genuinely- I'm not being antagonistic. You are intentionally not answering my question. Okay, ask me the question again. What was it? I was trying to answer through another question. I apologize. What was it? James, what was the question I asked, man? It was like 40 seconds ago because we went off the rail so much. I don't even remember the question now. Yeah, I've been following it. But you refused to answer it. It's hard for me to remember as well. Okay, well- Talk about not arguing in good faith, Victoria. Okay, I'm sorry. I genuinely did not mean for that to be rude or dismissive. I'm just trying to explain my ideology. Again, I don't see how it's different for me to be arbitrarily taking the abortion pill, have an abortion, and then for you to just be randomly not wearing your mask, get someone coronavirus and then die from it. That seems pretty equivalent. You're depriving both people of life because of what you might deem as a selfish action. And in order to preserve my own rights to my own body and being able to do whatever I want to do without government interference. Let me ask you this. What can a fetus do to protect themselves from the abortion pill? Well, again, it doesn't matter because someone who is completely protecting themselves from COVID can still get it. So I'm saying in the situation where their protective gear did not work, you not wearing your mask ate this person COVID. Okay, okay. So nothing, so nothing is stopping, so a fetus can't do anything to protect themselves against an abortion pill? No. Okay, but a person can do something. Actually, well technically a fetus could. I mean, technically there are failed abortions with the abortion pill. I think it's like 5%, but obviously that's not intentional. Can a fetus consciously do anything to protect themselves from abortion? No, because the fetus is not conscious. Should we just segue into that? Can a person do something to consciously protect themselves against COVID? Yes, but again, this is a situation where that did not work. That did not work. The person still got COVID despite doing all that. I don't care. I don't care. I'm just asking you, can they do that? Can they do something to protect themselves? You never answered my question. Is that morally wrong for you to give someone else COVID? They're taking all the necessary precautions. Again, now you're saying, oh, well you gave them COVID and I'm telling you that you didn't do it. Wait, no, no, no. I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood or heard me. I misheard me. I literally, five, 10 seconds ago, we can roll back the clip. This is the analogy I'm giving you now. I am randomly taking the abortion pill. I have an abortion. You are randomly walking around without a mask. You give someone COVID and they die. I am asking you how those two things are not applicable. How do you prove that you gave them COVID and they died from it? Tyler, again, this is an analogy. They died because you were not wearing masks. But what I'm saying is that it's disanalogous. What I'm saying is it's disanalogous because when it comes to the abortion pill, we know who killed that life, right? We know that the mother did because she's intentionally taken something back. Again, but not wearing a mask it does increase COVID deaths. So should the government be able to interfere and mandate not? I can't speak like more than three seconds without you interrupting me. All right, let's just move on, Tyler. I don't think this is getting anywhere. I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. That's the first time that I've agreed with you. So, yes, so you want to go ahead and go into sentience and consciousness since that's your real argument? Yeah. Okay, great. So what is your argument? So you're saying that a person isn't a person unless they're conscious? Yes. Okay, so define consciousness. Consciousness? Hey, that's like a cute little throwback. That's like a cute little Easter egg from the first debate. Consciousness is basically the brain's awareness of itself in the universe. And the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are not apparent until the 23 week period, meaning that obviously in the first trimester, a fetus is not conscious nor sentient. Okay, okay. So are you arguing? Okay, so you're basically talking about subjective experience. Okay, so all right. So are you arguing that to be recognized as a person that you need to have the current capacity for consciousness or the perspective capacity for consciousness? Well, so basically in order to have the right to life, a right in which, the positive right to life, I guess I should say, the right that requires something from others, you must be conscious. In order to have the positive right to life, you must be sentient. Okay, so can you just directly answer my question? So are in order to be recognized as a person by your guidelines, do you need to have the current capacity for consciousness or are you arguing for the perspective capacity? I would say we'll define perspective capacity for me. Perspective would be like of now or expected in the future. I would say that you would have to currently have consciousness. Okay, so you're arguing for the current capacity of consciousness. Yes. Okay, so someone like under general anesthesia doesn't have consciousness. Right, and so here's the thing. So by your guidelines, we would be able to, they're not a person and we could, what, kill them? I'm not trying to straw me. No, I understand and I'm actually really glad that you brought this up because this is something that I don't think I argued well enough in our first debate. Here's the thing is that this is why it does become a bit of a of a false equivalency, I guess I should say, not on your behalf. I know it's obviously like, I don't think you are making a falsely analogous argument at all. I think it's a fair question, but in the case of general anesthesia, that in order to keep that person alive, it is not really requiring something from someone else. So I think in our previous debate, you mentioned accommodation, right? Like, okay, someone who's in a coma is not conscious. Do we have the right to then kill that person? And a normal nice human being would be like, well, no, that would be pretty fucking rude. And so I guess my point is with, I mean, would you be okay with me addressing the coma analogy? Or would you like me to try and? No, I'm not arguing. I'm not arguing. Well, I mean, technically, this is a medically induced coma, but I'm specifically talking about general anesthesia. Right, medically induced coma. Where there is no sentience and there is no consciousness. Right. So my point that I was making is that if you just, you admitted that you were arguing for the current capacity of consciousness, not the natural capacity or not the prospective capacity. So by your guidelines, so, so basically I'm saying that you're saying that you need to have like characteristic X to be considered a person. And then if we remove characteristic X, then by your guidelines, they are not a person. I would say, I would say that, that no one should be required to give up their body or resources in order to keep that person alive. They're positive right to life. And again, this is why the second half of my argument is still important here, even though I'm not subject subscribing to the bodily autonomy argument. If you do not have consciousness, your right to life is not necessarily a positive right. So when we're talking about putting someone under general anesthesia, let's say we put them under general anesthesia for nine months, they're in a medically induced coma for nine months, or they're just they, you know, have an accident, they're in a coma for nine months. After, after I think about the two week period of having a coma, they do declared a vegetative state because they understand that that at that point, there's absolutely no consciousness. There's the person has the inability to feel pain. The person is not aware of themselves. They would not even be aware of their death, and they classify it as a vegetative state because they understand that at that point, the family can choose to pull the plug because no one should be legally required to give up their own resources to keep someone alive who is not conscious, who is not aware of themselves or. Can you just, can you just, can you just attack my heart? I'm not talking about a vegetative state or coma. I'm specifically referring to general anesthesia. It could be, it could be general anesthesia as well. I was just using that real world example. So under general anesthesia, so under general anesthesia, if you're under it by your guidelines, by your guidelines, they are not a person if they do not have consciousness. If you were, if you would be under generalized anesthesia for nine months, I do not think that anyone else should have to sacrifice their resources. The time doesn't matter. The time doesn't matter. The time doesn't matter. No, it does. It does in order to be completely equivalent. Okay, so, so what you're saying, okay, so this is what you're saying. Hold on, hold on, let me, let me say, because you, Victoria, you talk for like two minutes at a time, and then you only let me talk for like five seconds. So, so basically what you're saying is that, so now, now you're, you're about to commit a special pleading fallacy without you even knowing it. So, so you said that you're arguing for the current capacity of, of, of consciousness. And then I said, okay, so then by that guideline, if you're not arguing the perspective capacity for consciousness, then if we take away consciousness, if we take away consciousness, which is taken away under general anesthesia, that would not be a person. So, even when you try to relate it and bring in, oh, well, my bodily autonomy argument doesn't matter because that's not a person anymore. So, it doesn't apply to them. So, are you arguing? Because now you're saying time matters. So, if you're saying time matters, now what you're, you're conflating current capacity for consciousness with the perspective capacity for consciousness, which you couldn't do, you would be committing a special pleading fallacy. So, are you arguing current or perspective? I apologize if I answered your question and correctly. I don't think I fully understood what you were asking, but my point is, and I will repeat this even though I- I just asked you a question. I just asked, can you please answer my question? I did, I said, I said, Tyler, Tyler, hey, hey, hey, hey, I've never raised my voice in debate with you. I will argue how I want to argue. I need you to not interrupt me and I need you to let me speak for about five seconds. I'm asking you a question, Victoria. Why are you getting it? And I answered, I said, I think I misunderstood. You do have a letter finished. So, it's like, it's totally cool. It's common on the channel. If someone asks a question and the other person doesn't answer it, then they just let them finish and then they bring up, hey, I noticed you answered somebody's question, but it wasn't mine. Something like that is totally okay. Listen, Tyler, I'm talking right now, which means I need you to be great. So, the idea here is it's totally cool to bring it up, like, but you do have to actually let them answer it and then you can come back with saying, hey, I noticed you clearly didn't answer my question. That's totally cool. Sure. So, I apologize, Tyler. I think I maybe misunderstood your question, but my point at the end of the day is that I do not think the right, I do not think that the right to life is a positive right if someone is unconscious. I don't think, and I wouldn't say that bringing up time in the situation is a special cleaning fallacy because in order to make, just like I would never accuse you, remember when we were talking about my analogy earlier and you said that's falsely analogous, you know, it wouldn't be inviting someone into your home and before saying someone into your home. I'm basically making the same qualifications to your argument. Your argument is not entirely equivalent because we're not telling women, oh, hey, you only have to be pregnant for a few hours and then you can get birth. We're telling women, hey, you have to provide this baby with resources and with your body for nine months. So I think that in this case, time is incredibly relevant and I think any woman would laugh at the idea that time in this situation would be a special cleaning fallacy. So I don't think that women should be required to give up their bodies or I should say people, sorry, I know that everyone can get pregnant. I don't think that people should be required to give up their bodies and resources for nine months and for a being that is not yet conscious. So yeah, that's my argument. Yeah, you can go. Okay, so are you arguing for the current capacity or the prospective capacity? Why don't you go ahead and define both those terms for me so I can make sure I'm answering questions. Current capacity means that it happens in the moment. It has to be current. It has to be currently happening. Perspective capacity would be of now or in the future. I would say... And if you conflate those two things, you would be committing a special cleaning fallacy. Okay, well again, I would just reiterate my previous point. So I guess I would be answering the second one, prospective capacity. Okay, so originally you said current capacity. So now you're saying prospective capacity? Well, I just, I still don't fully understand the question that you're asking if I'm being desperate or not. Okay, so this is why I'm saying that you're committing a special cleaning fallacy. So you argued originally that I asked you, okay, consciousness is what makes a person a person. So, okay, so if consciousness is what makes a person, not my argument, your argument. So if consciousness is what makes a person a person, I asked you if you were arguing consciousness in the current capacity or the prospective capacity and the prospective meaning of now or in the future. Current meaning that it has to happen now. You said the current capacity. So I'm like, okay, so if you take away that characteristic, if you take away consciousness, like you are under general anesthesia, then by your own guidelines, you would not be considered a person. Then you committed a special cleaning fallacy by saying, well, no, time matters. And if you're talking about time, then time is, you're talking about prospective capacity. So if you're saying time matters, then, and still trying to argue the natural or the current capacity, that's a special cleaning fallacy. Now, if you're gonna concede or change your argument and say that, okay, well, you know what? It's not current capacity. I believe in prospective capacity now, then that's fine. If that's what it is, then I wanna address that. Are you now arguing prospective capacity? Well, I wanna make it clear. I'm not changing or conceding in any way. I remember earlier when you asked me this question, I answered your question with my stance. You got mad at me for not answering your question. And I think the biggest reason I didn't wanna answer your question is because I don't fully understand what you mean when you're saying prospective capacity. That gives me more insight though, thank you. So I would say that clearly from the beginning, I've been arguing about prospective capacity just because again, I do not believe that someone should be required to give up their body or their resources for an unconscious being so that they can fulfill their potential for life. Okay, okay. So you're arguing prospective capacity? Sure. So you have to have it now or in the future? Sure. Okay, so a fetus in the future will have the capacity. Right, see, this is why I didn't, this is why I didn't wanna say that though, because again- Because you're logically inconsistent. You would have to concede. No, it's not because I'm logically inconsistent. Again, you take someone in a coma, you take someone in a coma, if that person is completely non-conscious, doesn't even have a minimal conscious state, if they're in a vegetative state, I think that it is the family's right to deny resources to that person, pull the plug, and which would obviously cause that person's death. I think that if someone is in a vegetative state for nine months, the family should not be legally required to ensure that person's life by providing resources for that person. Even though they have the potential for waking up in nine months, even though they have the potential for consciousness, I do not think that, yeah, I don't- So wait a minute, so wait a minute. So you're saying that, okay, so, okay, so now you're putting special parameters on your perspective capacity. No. So now you're saying that, okay, so, okay, so this is, so just a timeline of what happened. So you originally say that it's the current capacity, then you say, well no, it has to do with time. So it's like, okay, so then you're arguing the perspective capacity, then you're like, yes. Okay, so it's the perspective capacity either of now or in the future, and I stated that multiple times, and then you said yes, of now or in the future to have consciousness. So I'm like, okay. We'll see, this is why, this is- Hold on, hold on, Victoria, can I finish my thing? So then I say, and you say yes, absolutely. Okay, so then I say, a fetus has the perspective capacity to have consciousness. And then you say no. So you are committing a special pleading fallacy by far. Now you are saying, well, wait a minute, there's a certain amount of time. So if it's nine months, then that's too much. So you're saying nine months is too much. So if someone, if we knew that someone was going to awaken in nine months or they were gonna come out of general anesthesia or whatever, you would say that, well, nine months is too long, we should be able to pull the plug on that person. Yeah, well, I would just say that. I don't think that the family should be forced to give up their resources to ensure that person's potential consciousness. Who said anything about their family? Who said anything about their family? Because again, I'm trying to make this analogy more equivalent. If it was possible to take an embryo out of a woman- I have no family, Victoria. So I have no family- Tyler, Tyler, I'm begging you to try and understand my point. Like genuinely, I want this to be a good faith debate. I'm begging you to understand my point. So just like how we, we could just take embryos out of women and incubate them and they would become full-blown babies without the woman, there wouldn't be a debate here. People would just do that and it'd be great and the woman could walk away no harm, no foul. That's not the reality. So just like we can't act like, you know, someone under general anesthesia in a coma could just survive without the help of anyone for nine months. Like we can't pretend that that would, that would ever be a plausible situation. We need to make it more equivalent. So in this analogy, the coma analogy, you, in order to make it equivalent to a woman sacrificing her body and her resources, there would need to be someone there giving up resources to keep this person alive. And I do not think that anyone should be required to give up their resources to keep someone alive who is unconscious, who is not aware of themselves or their existence. Can I respond? Yes. Okay. So in your, so, I mean, you went into other things. So, I mean, you believe in universal healthcare, right? I do. Okay. So, I mean, in your ideal world, you have, you have universal healthcare. I mean, you fight for that. So if you had universal healthcare, that person, it's no one else's resources, but their own. I mean, so the state or whoever or people would be, would be contributing to that. So they would be in a coma for nine months, but you're still saying, hold the plug. Well, I'm not talking about America with universal healthcare. I'm talking about you. America without universal healthcare. This is your own world that you want to live in. So hold on. So, so, so wait. No, I'm trying to, I'm trying to, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm trying to create a situation where someone being in a coma would be perfectly equivalent to a woman being pregnant. The issue here, Tyler, is that those situations aren't equivalent. Even in my analogy, no one's body is changing as a result of keeping this comatose patient alive. You know, a woman isn't risking her life. A woman isn't risking postpartum depression, which is incredibly common. So these are always going to be false equivalencies, but to help you better understand my argument, an argument that I know you will never agree with. I understand your argument. You're just not understanding mine. Okay. Or actually, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I, I, I take that back. You do understand my argument. You are just intentionally being disingenuous. So you already know, Victoria, you, I've already proven that you're committing a special pleading fallacy. And then you prove that I did not like the question that you gave me because the question, like it's just like whenever I was asking you about positive or negative rights. Victoria, what's a special pleading fallacy? A special pleading fallacy is when you make special exceptions for no reason without justification. And I'm telling you, the timeframe is justified because the timeframe is so crucial to whether a woman chooses to have an abortion or not. Don't interrupt me. So what's the time? Don't interrupt me. I am saying time is not a special pleading fallacy because there, it is justified in this conversation. A woman isn't sacrificing her body only for a few hours. A woman sacrifices her body for nine months. So talking about keeping someone alive in a coma for a few hours or whatever it would be, wouldn't be equivalent. Time is relevant here. It's justified. It's not a special pleading fallacy. Okay, so time matters. Yes. Okay, so what is the time? Because you said hours and then you were talking about nine months. So what's the cutoff time? Well, no, I'm just saying that I think if someone is in a coma and they are like in a perfectly equivalent situation of persons in a coma, their family is giving up resources in order to keep them alive. They are unaware of themselves. They are unaware of the world around them. If even if you somehow magically have the guarantee that they will wake up in nine months, I don't think that the family should be subjected to providing resources for that person to keep them alive. Okay, so you just again talked and you didn't answer my question. So two things that I want to bring up. I fully did answer your question. So two things I want to bring up. So for one, you keep talking about the family is responsible. I'm telling you that in this situation, if someone doesn't have family, they're not responsible. There is no family there. So for one, in this scenario that I'm giving you, no family is responsible for them. So that's the first thing. Second thing. Then it's falsely equivalent. I'm helping you make it an equivalent. Just to be fair, just to hear the rest from Tyler. Sorry. Okay. So I don't even remember the second point because again, you interrupted. What was it? Oh, but you were talking about time. So I asked you, so I asked you specifically, what is the cutoff time? So you said that nine months is too much. Okay. So what time is okay? Any amount of time? I would say 12. Well, 12 weeks is the time frame that I think it's okay to get an abortion. But obviously, that's falsely. I'm not talking about abortion. So for the coma analogy? Yes. Well, this is where it becomes falsely equivalent because if I were to give, sorry, I'm trying to answer your question. I genuinely am. But I want to make sure that these are equivalent situations because they're not. We see in a fetus past the 12-week mark, the fetus is not equal. The fetus gains more consciousness, but in a comatose patient, the more time passes, the less likely they are to regain consciousness. So I just want to make sure that, yeah. That's a distinction with no difference. So, so. Well, okay, legally right now, for comatose patients, you can pull the plug and as soon as they enter a vegetative state, which is only a few weeks. I don't care about what's currently legal. We're arguing not what is legal, what should be legal, right? I just think you're getting a little bit too, I think you're getting a little bit too lost in this analogy and you're not trying to understand my- Victoria, Victoria, Victoria, this gaslighting that you'd constantly do is not going to help you here. I'm genuinely not trying to get out for you. I'm not the one lost in this conversation. So I'm not asking you. So let me restate everything that I've said. So what I'm saying is that you said that consciousness is what makes a person a person. And you said that it needed to be current capacity. Then you said, okay, well, wait a minute. I think we were all here. Then you said it's not current capacity. We were all here. It's the perspective capacity. I don't know what I finished. Can you stop interrupting me, please? So then you say that is the perspective capacity. Okay, so of now or in the future. Then you said yes. And I said, okay, so a fetus has the perspective capacity to have consciousness. And then you said, well, no, wait a minute. Because if it's, if the person's anacoma or whatever, whatever, whatever, then I said, okay. So you said that time matters. And you said that nine months is too long, which they don't, it's not nine months until they have consciousness, right? It's like 24 weeks, but either way. So then you said, okay, so nine months is too long. So really when it comes to consciousness or sentience or whatever you want to call it, it's whatever 24 weeks. How many is that, like five months? Four months or something like that? So five months maybe? So it's really five months. So you're saying that five months, if someone is in a coma or whatever, and you know that I talked, I specifically was talking about general anesthesia, but you talked about a coma, so that's fine. So if you're saying that you know that this person will awaken, regain consciousness in five months, you are saying that no, you should be able to pull the plug on that person, even knowing that they would awaken and have consciousness in five months. If that is what your argument is, then I think that your morals are just very different than my morals. So I would gladly have you explain how that's moral. Yeah, no, that's fair. I would say that because it's requiring resources of, you know, again, in my analogy, I understand that this might not be how it always is, but in my analogy, I don't think that the people should be forced, legally forced to give up their resources to keep that person alive for a few more months until they're conscious. I think that they should be given the right to pull the plug. What people? The family members. It doesn't matter. Again, no family members here. Tyler, okay, okay, I'm begging you. We know, we know. I'm begging you to debate in good faith here. I'm begging you to debate in good faith. Victoria, I'm not the one who's trying to be in good faith. The family is the mother. The family is the mother. In this analogy, the family is like, it is equivalent to the mother of the fetus, or is this making sense to you? Just like the fetus is relying on the mother for life or whatever, the person in the coma is relying on their family for resources. No, they're relying, no, they're relying on doctors. I'm trying to make it equivalent. I'm trying to, just like how you said- It's already equivalent, Victoria. Got about five minutes before we go on to Q and A. Okay. You can stretch it maybe to 10 if you really, if you guys are both like, but roughly in that. Tyler, Tyler, Tyler. Just, just like, see what you're doing right now is like earlier, if you had said, hey, it looks falsely equivalent, it'd be more like if you forced someone to your home, that'd be like if I was like, wait a minute, buddy, I would never force someone into my home. I would only invite them in. Like you're intentionally missing the point of what I'm saying. I'm saying that in a situation where the family was providing resources, whether it be money, whatever, in order to keep one of their family members alive in a coma, even if they were, even if they knew that that person was going to wake up in a few months, I do not think that they should be legally not given the right to pull the plug. They should be legally able to deprive that person of resources if that person is completely unconscious, if that person is completely unaware of themselves and the universe. That's not the same for a couple of reasons. So for one, they didn't force that person to be in a coma, right? So you forced that baby to be in a state of dependency. So they did not force that person who was in the coma to be in a state of dependency. So you're completely missing that. You haven't even attacked that. That was my core argument. You weren't even. You brought up the general in the theater. You literally talk for two to three minutes at a time and you do not let me speak. So that's the first thing. So you did not attack that, that you're making it more disanalogous the more that you talk. So they are not, you did not force that person in the coma into a state of dependency. So anything that you're trying to make, like you're just making it more disanalogous and you are really arguing in bad faith by not just saying, okay, and I ask you very specifically, what is the time frame? Is the time frame anything? That's what I'm asking you. So if we're talking about a person in a coma, if we're talking about a person in a coma, which is really your analogy, but if we're talking about a person in a coma, what is the time frame? Since you said nine months was too long and five months is too long, at what point should they be able to cut off that person's life? I would say as soon as that person enters like the vegetative state where they are completely, completely unconscious, I would say that at that point, the family can refuse resources to that person, which in a way would be going. That has nothing to do with that. So you're not understanding the thought experiment. No, I am. I am totally understand what you're saying. You're not just because of what you just said. So in this, remember, we know. Yes. For some reason. I'm saying at any point, Tyler, that's your answer. I answered. One sec. Just to have order. Okay, so we. At any point, they should be able to deprive resources. Even if we know in five months that they, five months, they will regain consciousness. You're okay with saying you could, you can kill them. I would say that you can deprive them of your resources. It's not their resources. What resources are you talking about? It is. It is. I'm saying. Taxpayer resources. Again, I'm trying to make it equivalent to a mother giving up her resources to fetus. I'm trying to make it equivalent to a mother giving up her resources to a fetus. It says nothing to do with people. Tyler, Tyler, I think this is what I'm saying. This is what I'm saying. Okay. We have got both of you talking at the same time. We have to have an orderly end. Otherwise, we're just going to jump into Q and A. So if you guys want to have maybe a few minutes to wrap up kind of with some drawing the threads of this debate together on each side, we can do that. But it is. There's a lot of overlap right now. So what we can do is if I recall right, we started with Victoria. So if that sounds good to you guys, which I highly recommend it just because there's so much overlap, is that we can give two minutes to Victoria, three minutes if you want, four minutes even if you want, and then the same amount of time for Tyler. I would say Tyler's biggest issue in this debate is not recognizing the sacrifice of pregnancy. Whether you agree with it or not, by being pregnant, you are giving your resources to another being so that that being can eventually become conscious and have life. And so in my analogy, I am basically saying that if someone is completely unconscious, if they are unaware of themselves in the universe, if they have brain activity, if they are completely unconscious, would be unaware of their death. I do not think that someone else should have to provide resources to that person in order to keep them alive. Like I don't think a family member should be able to provide or should be legally required to keep that person alive. And whether you call that pulling the plug, whatever, that is my stance. I do not think that the right to life is a positive right until someone is conscious. You got it. Thank you very much. And we'll give the same amount to Tyler for his wrap up. That was about, that was only about 45 seconds. But so if you're able to keep it... I'd like my two or three minutes if you're able to give that to me, James. If Victoria, you're yielding the last minute and I should say a minute 45 or so, we can give Tyler the same amount of time. Or I should say minutes 15. Okay, so yeah, Tyler, if you want two minutes. I like to have as much time as possible. Okay, so just to be clear, Victoria, you argue in bad faith. You knew that you had so many... You knew that you committed a logical fallacy, a special pleading fallacy. You knew that you were logically inconsistent. And because of that, you are instead of just... This is the thing that I hate the most about when you specifically argue is that it seems that like instead of just conceding the point, which is fine, you can concede a point. Like, instead of just conceding the point and saying, you know what? Okay, that was logically inconsistent. You just want to double down and just talk about irrelevancies or try and make things more disanalogous or to try and gaslight into being right. So here's what it is. You said that time is an issue when it comes to consciousness. So you said, okay, if someone... If we, even if we knew that someone would regain consciousness in five months, you said that, well, no, we should still be able to deprive them of life. We should really kill them. We should be able to kill them. It's like, okay, so even if we knew that, we should still be able to kill them. And then you keep talking about, oh, well, it's the family. And I told you, it has nothing to do with the family. Victoria, if I got into... I don't really have family. So like, if I got into a car crash or whatever, or to whatever kind of wreck and then they had to put me or I was in some kind of coma and they knew that I would wake up in five months, you are still saying, well, no, you should be able to... Is it taxpayer dollars or whatever you want to say that it is? No, you should be able to kill that person. That I find to be completely immoral. It's 1,000% immoral. Even when I said, okay, you believe in universal healthcare. You believe that people should pay that and that people should be able to have a hospital or whatever on taxpayer dollars. 30 seconds. Okay, but even still in that, you said, oh, well, I don't even want to answer that because we don't live in that scenario. So you do not understand what arguing in good faith is. I think that it's very apparent that you care more about not admitting that you are wrong than you do actually having some type of discourse and understanding if you yourself are wrong. So yeah, I just find that to be a huge disappointment. But yeah, that's all I have to say, James. All right, and time. So with that, thanks for your questions, folks. We appreciate it. And we are going to go through as many of these as humanly possible. So we do appreciate them and we really do want to honor them. And so if we have the most, I hate to ask both Victoria and Tyler, if you're able to give the most pithy responses, that is most ideal. I don't know what pithy means. Just concise and with a punch. And Soldier of Science, thanks for your question, said, Tyler, should men be able to defend the pro-life position? Of course, absolutely. Because you just have to know what the pro-life position is. So if we believe on the pro-life side that that is the killing of an unjust, or I'm sorry, that is the unjust killing of an innocent person, then it has nothing to do with gender. Has nothing to do with that at all. You know what I mean? It wouldn't make any sense. Anytime that somebody says that no uterus, no opinion, or if you're a man, you can't talk, really what they're showing is they're just, I would say, intellectual inferiority that they don't, just on this topic, not as a person themselves. But they just aren't as, I would say, knowledgeable on the topic. So because of that, they're trying to shut your argument down before it even starts because they don't want to look like even more wrong. So yeah, absolutely, men can absolutely have a... Thanks for your question, Honest Abe as well. By the way, I want to remind you folks that both Tyler and Victoria are linked in the description. So if you'd like to hear more from them, you certainly can as they are on TikTok. And Honest Abe, thanks so much for your question. Said Tyler, how is your pro-life position any different to that of a rapist, apologist? You both seem okay with using women's bodies without their consent. Yeah, like we already talked about that earlier in the debate. So it's not so much about using a woman's body without their consent. Again, that mother forced that, if you're going to say that it's a baby, right? Or forced that being. So it forced that person into a state of dependency. You cannot force a person into a state of dependency and then say, well, I get to now kill that person. If you do, then that would be considered murder, right? I can even give you like a parallel and this isn't exactly analogous to abortion, but the point is dependency, not abortion. So like if I had a drug and I injected that into you and I'm the only one who has that drug and you are now reliant on me for this drug and if I die, you die because no one else can get this drug for you. I cannot then just deprive you of that drug, knowing that you will die if you do. So because I forced you into that state of dependency, the same way that a mother forces a child or a fetus into a state of dependency on her, if she voluntarily and consciously acted in a way that put them there. Thank you very much. Mike Billers, thanks for your question as well, said, Tyler, you look like you have a healthy pair of lungs. I need one or I could die. Give me your left lung, please. Yeah, again, that's just disanalogous. I mean, I don't have to provide you my lung. I didn't force you into a state of dependency on me. To make that, and these things are so disanalogous, to make that analogous, you would have to say that, I don't know, maybe you were unconscious and while you were unconscious, I removed your lung or forced you or hooked you up to me somehow and now you are dependent on me and now I'm going to remove that and now you can no longer breathe. But yeah, I didn't force you into a state of dependency again, just as unlike a mother who forces that fetus into a state of dependency. Gotcha, thanks so much. Thanks for your question from Cider and Port, who says, quote, you spoke for two minutes. Then let's see, I said, well done, Victoria. My Irish temper couldn't deal with this git. Never heard that word before, but Enrique, I think it's, I don't know if they say git or it's, like we say git, I don't know if they say git, but that's okay. I'm learning. I'm Irish too. I'm half Irish. Everyone who doesn't know, legitimately, I'm not joking. I am half Irish. Hey, maybe we're related. You never do know. Matt, I think it's for your question, said Revelation 21, 8, but the coward's faithless, detestable, murderous, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their share will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death. So we promise we'll read every super chat, so that includes the ones that aren't, it's not super directly related to the abortion topic. But next, thanks. People are always telling me I'm going to Hell, man, you know. M-I-K, thank you for your question, said suggestion, K fellows who is pro-life versus Victoria, who is pro-choice. Well, maybe, you never know. Cider and Port said yet another quote, unquote pro-life person who's really just pro-forced birth. If you'd like to respond, you can, of course, Tyler. So again, anybody who says anything like this, like, what does that mean? What does pro-forced birth mean? So it's not, you could call it whatever you want, but I am pro not killing the person that you forced into a state of dependency. That's what I am. So that's it. That's what I am. Thank you. And then, Aira Selly, Hernandez, thanks for your super chat. If you want to put your chat, your question as a normal chat, you can, because I didn't see a question attached to your super chat. And so I don't want you to have to put two super chats in. David Smock, thanks for your questions. Said Victoria, what is the purpose of consensual sexual intercourse and what is the natural biological outcome? Well, I would say, obviously, biologically, every time that you have sex, you are at risk of getting pregnant. Again, I just view abortion as morally neutral. So while I do understand that everyone is taking a risk, every time that they have sex, I don't see anything morally wrong with ending the life of something that was not even aware that it was alive to begin with. Right? We don't feel bad about killing plants, which are not conscious. I don't understand why we feel bad about discarding embryos. Gotcha. And thank you for your question. This one comes in from Cider and Port. Says, Tyler, if you get into a car, are you consenting to a car crash? If not in that case, then why are you consenting to pregnancy double standard? So I wouldn't say that consent to sex is consent to... I wouldn't phrase it that way. I would just say that people have a moral obligation to accept the consequences of their actions if they consciously and voluntarily act on them. And that extends to sex. So if you get into a car and you... I guess I'm not understanding the analogy here. So if you get into a car and then you hit someone, like if you hit someone, then yeah, you are obligated to accept the consequences for those actions. Yeah, absolutely. If you hit them, that's it. Even if you accidentally hit them, you are absolutely responsible or should be held accountable for those actions, 1,000%. The same way that you should be here. Gosh, you have Mike Billards. Thanks for your questions. And Tyler, what do you do to address problems with children after they're born? Do you adopt or donate to foster care organizations? Help solve the problem. Don't just point out the problem. Yeah, so I had somebody on my... Even on my cameo. Oh, I'm on cameo now, guys, with all the big people. But anyway, so even on my cameo, I give half of my funds when I get them. I give half of my funds donated to a pro-life organization. It is called the Let Them Live Organization. It's an incredible organization. I actually had a podcast with them a couple, like a week or so ago. You should really check them out. But basically what they do really quickly is they raise funds. And everyone pro-choice should be able to get down with this too. They raise funds for women specifically who are thinking about abortion because of financial stress, which they found out was like 73% of abortion. So I support them. I had them on my podcast. I'm donating to them. I advise everyone else to donate to them. So I tried to. Thanks so much. And Papa V, thanks for your question, said Tyler. Forced pregnancy is actually what you're advocating. You're not okay with government imposing a belt. But oh, that you're right. Seat belts. But you want it. It looks like a belt. Okay. So they said, but you want them quote unquote forcing women to give birth. I want them to not kill the person that they put into a state of dependency that is not analogous to seat belts. So if I get into my car like me personally and I want to not have a seat belt, why should the government, I'm not hurting anyone. I am not killing anyone by me getting into a car and having and not having a seat belt. I mean, I guess you could argue that I would be quote unquote a flying projectile if I got into if I happened to get into a car crash. But then you would have to show me what data backs that up that that would actually kill another person. So it's just not analogous. Thanks so much. And want to remind you folks, friendly reminder to we want you to focus on attacking the arguments rather than the person. We're not going to read any super chats that are. I got I got six skin, man. If they if they talking crap, man, I could take it. I appreciate that. I like that attitude and Lawrence Lobdell. Thanks for your questions. That if Tyler believes a fetus is a living person, why is he just sitting by as millions of people are being genocided? So so so I would ask I would kind of respond to that question with another question. So what could I do? So let's say so OK, so I believe that they are killing people, right? OK, so if I go up and try and stop a woman forcefully stop a woman from what I believe to be killing, even though the law does not recognize that to be. So if I forcefully try and stop a woman from doing that, or I hold her against her will or whatever that's kidnapping now. So right. So what what good is that? That would put me in prison and then what could I do now? There's nothing that I could do at that point to really help anyone. So my goal is to educate people and to break down just the logical inconsistencies, as I clearly did here, to break down like the inconsistencies in the pro choice logic and show you and to try and help other people into becoming pro life, or at least challenging you to if if you're able to operate in good faith, at least challenge you to accept that, you know, maybe maybe there's something there that maybe you're not totally right on your pro choice side. Gotcha. Armed cadaver illustrates. Thanks for your question said. Can you please address the issue of the forced birth that inevitably results from pro life policy in parentheses without any version of the quote, keep legs closed, cop out on unquote. Was that a question to me or because I didn't hear it. I'm sorry. Definitely for you. They said, can you please address the issue of the forced birth that inevitably results from pro life policy. And then in parentheses, they put without any version of the cop out of saying, keep your legs closed. So it's the second part of the sentence isn't super related to this up. But just can you please address the issue of the forced birth that inevitably results from pro life policy? Yeah, again, I think I think this is like the third time. I think I think it's just like the same question just freeze a little bit differently. Again, if you want to call it forced birth, I don't look at it that way. I look at it even if you want to say, OK, fine, you could say that it's forced birth. But the point is, is that you cannot kill a person. You cannot kill a person if you want to have an argument on personhood, we can have an argument on personhood. But you cannot kill a person if you if you force that person into a state of dependency on you. That is exactly what pregnancy is. If we're talking about my argument is explicitly consensual sex. So when you have consensual sex, you force that fetus into a state of dependency on you. You cannot then kill them for your own convenience or say claim that it's your body or say that all you're forcing me to birth this child. No, we're making sure that you do not kill the person that you created and forced to be there. So that that's the pro life argument. Gotcha. And moving on to the next question, we do appreciate it. This one comes in from Smokey Sainte who says, after show on my channel after the debate is over, discuss your opinions on this debate no matter what side you're on and my other debate earlier today. So yes, folks, we are willing to link after shows in the description. And that's from both sides. So we do want to keep it fair. Daniel Patterson says, Tyler, it's irrelevant if the fetus is a person or not. Even if it's a person, no person has the right to use another person's body without their consent. So that's not true. So even so if again, if you're saying that it doesn't matter if it's a person or not, then I would I would just ask you, you know, are you morally obligated to accept the consequences of your actions? If you if you consciously and voluntarily act on them and then you force that person into a state of dependency, right? So if you if I force you, you're talking about property rights. That's what bodily autonomy is. If I force you into my home, can I kill you because you don't leave? No, I cannot that that would be murder, right? I can't kill you just because you don't leave. If I forced you to be there, right? I force I physically forced you to be into in my home. That's property rights. That's bodily autonomy, right? So you cannot kill that person. And you can. I doubt that you could argue that. But hey, if you think that you can, then give me the argument. You got it. And thanks for your question. This one coming in from Mike Belar said, so sorry, virtually all of these are for Tyler. Let's see. If you you want to check in on the news or whatever. But Mike Belar, your question says, sorry if I missed it. I came in late. Tyler, are you pro euthanasia? Are there any hard lines to draw here? OK, so euthanasia, I'm not 100 percent solidified on when it comes to my opinion, because I haven't looked into it too much. But what from what I do understand, I think that there's different different types of euthanasia if I'm not missing. I thought there are like three different types of euthanasia if I'm not mistaken. But I would say my my initial reaction to euthanasia is if we're talking about a doctor like doctor assisted suicide, while I understand while some people, while you could get down with it, if a person is in great suffering, I think that it's a slippery slope because I believe that doctors are made or their profession is to save lives, not to intentionally end lives. So I feel like it would be a slippery slope to where, OK, well, now we're allowing it for this suffering, but then what exactly is suffering? You know, I'm depressed. You know, can you go ahead and kill me? And now you're talking about for-profit places that allow you to go there and then kill the general population. Or even if you say it's government funded, but then, you know, government gets involved in super shady and they're probably making some kind of profit or incentivizing it in some way. So I feel like it's just a super slippery slope. I'm not completely solidified, but my initial reaction is I'm not with it. Got you, and Jordan Rose, thanks for your question. Said, Tyler, you clearly don't know how to debate. They're riffing India, Tyler. You asked, you said- It's all good, man, it's all good, man. You don't even know your own argument clearly and you don't understand hers. You don't care about human life and you don't respect women. You lost. You have a critic out there, Tyler. Yeah. OK, so here's what I would say. Thanks for that. And thanks, Matt and I, for your question. Said, thou shall not murder from God. And Jamie Russell, thank you for your question. Equivocation fallacy. They say, this is what they say. Jamie says, Equivocation fallacies are when a word is defined with ambiguity and its usage, using it with different or multiple definitions. I think everybody's on the same page of that. Cider and Port, thanks for your question. Said, James, we all love you, but please don't have. Let's see. All right. There's more poop throwing. So Matt and I, thanks for your questions or we read that. Thanks. Enrique, thanks for your question. Said, current perspective, not dichotomy, ignores past demonstrable consciousness. If a parent cannot be forced to give an organ to a dying five-year-old, then why must a woman give up her body? I've already answered that. They say, to a one-year-old, I'm confused. I think they mean to a pre-born, um, to the pre-born. I don't know why it says one-year-old. So imagine it just says, if a parent cannot be forced to give an organ to a dying five-year-old, why must a woman give their body to an unborn? Because they forced that person into a state of dependency. Next, thanks for your question. Cider and Port said, oh, we got that one. Fact-based living, appreciate it. Said, should Tyler be forced at gunpoint to give up a kidney? No. Bottle the autonomy solved. It's really not that hard to understand that what pregnancy is. Clearly, clearly it is very difficult for many of the people in the chat to understand that, because they, again, are just being disanalogous. They do not take into consideration at all that you force that person into a state of dependency. I haven't heard one argument that would actually go against my core argument, and they just keep bringing this up over and over and over again. I think it shows that you don't actually understand how bodily, these specific people, not everyone in the chat, but these specific people don't understand how bodily autonomy works. One thing that I would like to ask you, Tyler, in front of everyone, because your stance last time we spoke on abortion was that you are against abortion, even in cases of rape. Now that you're saying that because women are consenting to sex to have these babies or to get pregnant, and because that would make you forcing another being into dependency on you, have you changed your stance? Are you okay with abortion in cases of rape now? Since every argument you've given this far relies on consent. Yeah, so essentially, yes. I'm for evictionism in cases of rape. I had somebody, well, actually I was watching a debate and somebody made a really good argument, and it forced me to rethink. So yeah, I am for evictionism, which technically is an abortion, but I think it's an important distinction to understand that evictionism is going in with the intent just to remove that fetus, but not going in with the intent to kill as in the other abortions that we're talking about. But yeah. So you're fine depriving that being of its right to life if it was conceived non-consensually. Yes. Okay. Next up, thanks for your question. Sir Rafa says, Tyler, let's see. Yeah, they said, Tyler, if you cause an accident and I can't afford to pay for the damages, should you be obligated to sell your blood? How about your organs? Say that again? I'm not getting that. So I said, if you caused an accident, let's say in a car, and can't afford to pay for the damages, let's say maybe for the persons like bodily damages, should you be obligated to sell your blood or your organs in order to pay for those damages done? No. Gotcha. And Mike Billar, thanks for your question. Said, Tyler, let's see. Nightmare, thanks for your question. Said, Victoria's argument would be valid if the baby just poofed into a woman's belly. But the woman was there when the baby was put in. We'll give you a chance to respond, Victoria. Okay. Interesting. I'm kind of confused what it's asking. Is it talking about just the consent to conceive through sex? Or what do you guys think? I think that they're saying in the case that your argument would work fine if it wasn't for the case that women were knowingly engaging in sex where there's a possibility of becoming pregnant. That's, I think, what they're saying. Right. And again, to that, I would just say that I view abortion as morally neutral and in situations where fetus might be abused. If it were to ever become sentient and be born, if it were to be abused and deprived of resources and possibly faced food insecurity, I would say that, obviously, I'm very almost pro-abortion in that regard. So I would say that the whole consenting to possibly conceiving doesn't really change my argument much just because I view ending a non-sentient life as is neutral, as ending the life of a plant. Because that person was never aware of his or her existence and never will be aware of his or her existence or his or her death. Thanks so much. And thanks, Mark. Read for your question. Said, Tyler of Universal Healthcare applies to the coma. Then in the analogy, the state would be gestating the baby. How is this possible? I don't understand. Well, I would say, I would say, I guess, one issue with that whole, you know, with that whole discussion, one false equivalency that I think will never be solved in talking about the coma versus fetus analogy is that no one's required to actually change their body or give up their body in order to keep someone alive in a coma. And so maybe that's what they're referencing, but that's one thing that I wasn't going to say. I think what he's saying is that because what the state would be keeping you alive or they wouldn't be allowing you to die, is that like what that means? Now, I believe that the government, we should have small government, but I believe that the government does have a role in protecting life, liberty, property. So in this scenario, where if they had universal healthcare, which I haven't really decided on if I'm for it or against it, but in this scenario, if they are in universal healthcare in a universal healthcare world, then it would just be the state or actually taxpayers. I mean, it would be taxpayers not allowing that person to die. I guess, I don't know. I don't really understand the question too much. Frankly, I'm confused by two. Marguerite, if you're in the chat, you can try to help me out if I butchered it. Mike Manzano, thanks for your super chat, says this is a waste of $5. Appreciate that. Pilgrim says for Tyler, if you believe in the American Constitution, in liberty and freedom, how can you support pro-life? Pro-life removes the liberty of women. No, it doesn't. I could really just end it there with those three words, but it definitely does not again. Again, I implore everyone to actually understand my argument instead of trying to understand the general conservative or whatever type of other abortion debate you've seen. My argument again is that personhood starts a conception. All human persons have the equal right to life, and that the third is that you cannot force a person to be in a state of dependency on you, and then remove that dependency, knowing that they will die if you did. And the woman did that by consensually engaging in sex. Gotcha. Thanks so much for your question. This one coming in from Sidney King. Appreciate it. Didn't see a question attached. If you have one, shoot it into the chat. And Steven Johnson, same deal. If you had a question you meant to attach, just fire it into the chat as a normal chat. Abby Tad S, thank you for your question. Said, Tyler, what about in the instance of failed contraceptives? What, like a, okay, so failed contraceptive, like a failed condom, it doesn't really matter to me. Even if you try and protect yourself against abortion, or I'm sorry, try and protect yourself against pregnancy, nothing is 100%. You are still taking that risk. I gave that same analogy, and I could quickly say it in like 20 seconds that I gave to Victoria. If you have human cells in a jar and you don't have to interact with these cells, and you want to, even if you wear gloves, even if you wear a hazmat suit, but you knew that there was still a chance, even no matter how small it was, you knew that there was a chance that these human cells, if you mess with them, if you touch them, that they would latch on to you, create a new person that would then be in a state of dependency on you, it doesn't really matter what precautions you took. You still voluntarily chose to do so, so you cannot kill them due to you doing that. Gotcha, and thanks so much for your question, this one coming in from Semeiser says, Tyler, if the pregnancy was non-consensual, do you maintain your position? I think that we covered that in other words. Yeah, we maintain. Thanks so much. Stephen Johnson for your superjet said, Tyler, can you provide an equivalent of the woman's sacrifice in the case of the comatose patient, and James, can Victoria, so they have also got a question for Victoria, will let Tyler answer that first? What was the question? If you can provide an equivalent of the woman's sacrifice in the case of the comatose patient, I think they mean an equivalent of a woman's sacrifice in being pregnant, can you provide an equivalent, you could say piece of the analogy for the comatose patient analogy? I'm so sorry, I'm trying to remember, like, what are they looking to expand on? I guess I don't understand. So it was like our whole bit when we were comparing an unconscious fetus to an unconscious human being, basically a big reason, a big argument for abortion would be the sacrifice the mother has to make to keep the fetus alive. So they're asking you to create a mother equivalent, someone who would have to sacrifice something in order to keep the comatose patient alive, create an equivalent for that in the analogy. Sacrifice what? What are they sacrificing? Resource as their body. I mean, possibly their mental capacity, their mental state, some women suffer from heart and depression. Why does that matter? So, okay, so wait a minute, so wait a minute. Why people have abortion? So you force a person into a state of dependency on you. I don't look at that as her, even if you say she's sacrificing her resources, I don't care. So she forced that person into a state of dependency. If you force someone into your home, I don't care that you have to now use your food or use your whatever to sustain that person's life. You force them to be there, right? If you intentionally act against that and trying to kill them, then that is immoral. So I don't know what we're talking about as far as trying to analogize this to a coma patient. When we were talking about the coma patient earlier, that when we were talking about strictly general anesthesia, the point was that Victoria was committing special pleading and I was like, okay, well, if... Why do you only have to be rude about it? That's not rude. That's like saying that you were walking down the street. I was like, I'm reciting what happened. This is what happened. You committed special pleading. So she was committing special pleading and I was trying to get her to understand that, okay, very least being logically inconsistent. I was like, okay, so at what point, since you're saying that in a coma, that this person, even though you subscribe to the fact that perspective capacity is what matters of now or in the future have consciousness, but then you say, oh, well, wait a minute. If it's too long, then you know what, then you know what, I don't subscribe to that. So if it's five months, then it's too long for that to happen. And then she just kept trying to go into things like, oh, well, it's the family's resources. I'm like, well, it doesn't have to be the family's resources. So I don't know. That's just kind of what we were talking about. Tyler, my question to you would be if we're using time as a special pleading fallacy here, or if that's what we're saying. If your child was in a vegetative state, someone who is dependent on you, someone you force to be dependent on you, was in a vegetative state completely unconscious, should you be required to give up your resources, being money or whatever it is, to keep that child alive for an indefinite amount of time? It's not indefinite. You were intentionally being disingenuous in the argument. No, but I'm pointing out that time is not a special pleading fallacy. Again, you're not pointing out anything. It's justified here, right? No, no, Victoria, Victoria. How long should you be required to keep your child alive in a vegetative state? That's what I asked you. That's what I asked you. Give a chance to respond, and then we go to the next question. So I'm asking you. That's what I'm asking you. I do have a question for you as well, Victoria. So wait a minute, so wait a minute, so wait a minute. So let me get this through. I guess I'm asking you. Hold on, I'm answering your question. I'm answering your question. So what's so interesting about this is that now you are asking me the question that I asked you that you refuse to answer. So this is incredibly interesting. I was saying at any point. I said it at any point. I said it at any point. You had asked the question, and now we got to give you a chance to respond. And so then we got to give you a question, Victoria, as well. So then, Victoria, this isn't my argument. I was only challenging your own logical consistency, which you failed. That's not my argument. My argument is that at conception, beginning, you are not able to kill that person morally. If someone is in a coma, and we know that they are going to, first of all, when you're talking about, if you're talking about specifically in a hospital, like if they know that this person is going to regain consciousness in five months and they will then be sentient again or they will have consciousness, they won't just pull the plug on them anyway. Now, that person, let's just say in your analogy, because you want to be super hyper focused to make it in your favor. So if you're saying that, okay, so it's dependent on this father or this mother who has to fund this, they do not pull the plug specifically because you can't afford it. You would just be given the bill. So then you would have to pay for it later. So then they're not pulling the plug on it, on the Victoria. Must go to the next question. This one comes in from Stephen Johnson for Victoria. Namely, they said, can Victoria respond to his proposition of a woman's nine month sacrifice? What proposition was this? I'm not sure which, Tyler, do you know what they mean when they say... Well, earlier, I think a couple of questions ago, they asked me a question on the sacrifice and then I said, well, I think they're talking about my core argument because then I said, well, it's not the same thing because you force that fetus to be in a state of dependency. So I think that they're asking her to address that because I said it doesn't matter if it takes nine months or not. You force that person into a state of dependency, you cannot kill them. Right, and I would just say again, the mother's sacrifice cannot be ignored in this situation. Even if you do view having sex as forcing another being into dependency on you, I just don't think that the mother's sacrifice should be ignored. That's something that should be considered and in my personal opinion, even if a woman has consensual sex and gets pregnant, I think that she should have the right to deny her resources, deny her body to that unconscious, not sentient fetus at any, or not at any point, I'm sorry, before it becomes conscious. And I would say to be safe, that is the 12 week mark. I hate to do this, but we do have so many questions. I hate to do this, but Tyler, this one's even for you. And I think that, so they said Tyler, a person who's pregnant will have a baby, but a person who's in a coma will not probably wake up. How exactly are they the same? Well, because in this scenario, the specific scenario that we were talking about in this thought experiment, we did know that they would, right? So we knew that they would awaken in this hypothetical that they would awaken in like five months and they would. So basically the argument was, is that Victoria's argument was that it is perspective capacity is what makes a person a person for consciousness, which means of now or in the future. So if they... To be clear, that was not my argument. So I keep going. Victoria, Victoria, your original argument was current capacity and then you then realize that you were doing perspective capacity. Just before we get into Victoria's arguments, their question was more focused on yours, Tyler. So just to forgive me because we have so many questions that... I'm sorry. Ask me the question again. So they had said a person who is pregnant will have a baby, but a person who is in a coma will not probably wake up. Right, right, right, right. How are they the same? Right. So well, they're not really right. So like, again, what we were talking about when we were talking about a coma, we were only talking about knowing that they would wake up and that they would regain consciousness and it was based on perspective capacity to have consciousness. My argument isn't even consciousness. I couldn't care less about consciousness. It doesn't make a person a person. I was just challenging Victoria's own thought experiment there. So yeah, it's not the same. Gotcha. Thank you very much, Matt. And I says we're a free speech platform. So we, even if it's not clearly related, have to read it. So they say, these six things dot the Lord hate, yea, seven are an abomination on to him. Seventeen, a proud look, a lying tongue, in hands that shed innocent blood. Proverbs six, 16 through 19. And we appreciate your question as well. Duffy Loner. Thank you. 64 says, for the both of you, what do you think about making birth control over the counter, making sex ed clearer and improving the foster care system as a more problem solving answer to abortion? I'm all for that. I am all for that. I think that that's one area. And me and Bella, who is great Tyler, I don't know if you know her. I believe her username is like Bella Jean. She's a conservative pro life. And me and her, we're just talking about how conservatives and or how both pro life and pro choice people should work together in that regard to make birth control more accessible and sex ed more accessible. Gotcha. So you guys have some agreement. I agree. I agree. Zirfa, thanks. Sir Rafa, thanks for your question. Said, if taking an abortion pill is wrong, even if you don't know you're pregnant, should sexually active women be barred from partaking in alcohol and drugs? While they're pregnant? Isn't it interesting? No, you don't know. Sex, sexually active women could be pregnant at any given point. Right. So we have to get it practically. So if you don't know, it's not the same as taking an abortion pill because in taking an abortion pill, you are intentionally doing something that is going to kill off that fetus. Now, if you don't, if you're taking drugs or whatever, I guess I would say that how would we be able to measure this? So how would we be able to quantify this? If there was a way to, if this is some kind of futuristic thing and everyone's super tyrannical government and you have to wear these things on your wrist and it tells you, oh, you're pregnant, then it's like, okay, then you can't do that. But not knowing, I think that it becomes very dicey there. So, but I would say if she did know that she was pregnant and then was doing like alcohol or drugs or something like that, then I would say that that's absolutely child endangerment, 1,000 percent. Gotcha, thank you. And Enrique, thank you for your question, says, I hope this gets read. Why should anyone accept the premise that it is based on a false dichotomy? Current perspective, ignore past consciousness. Oh, I think we read that one already. Sorry about that, guys. Pandora. We didn't read that, but I don't even understand it. I'll read it again. So maybe we didn't. It might have been something that was similar. They said, why should anyone accept the premise that is based on a false dichotomy? But I don't know who they're accusing of using a false dichotomy. They say current slash perspective, ignore past consciousness. I wonder if it was in reference to our comatose argument, because in that case, the comatose patient would have had past consciousness. They would have been aware of themselves and, yeah. Maybe. Aware of themselves in their surroundings. So they would have had past consciousness, making that an equivalent to a fetus. Which obviously wouldn't matter if they had previous consciousness. Well, I mean, I personally could see it mattering a bit. I don't know. I mean, I think that that's definitely another false equivalency with the comatose analogy compared to a fetus. The issue is that there just are very few perfectly equivalent things to abortion. No, no, Victoria. So previous consciousness wouldn't matter, right? Because if someone's brain dead, it doesn't matter that they had previous subjective experience or consciousness. The only thing that matters is that they won't have it in the future. The only thing that matters is the perspective capacity for consciousness. Not previous. I understand why some people would bring that up just because I think that, yeah. I think it's different. It's different when you're depriving an organism that was never aware of its existence and would never even be aware that it ever died. It's different comparing that organism to an organism that has lived, that has been aware of itself. I just understand people's, I didn't use that in the debate because I don't think that it's like super, super important, but I do understand why people would be talking about. It would have been illogical. Gotcha. And Pandora Brinn. Why are you so disrespectful to everyone? I said that that's illogical. People trying to understand our side. Why do you get, why do you get triggered? Pandora Brinn, we do have to jump to the next one, said, Tyler, you don't understand how mass work, quote, my mask protects you, your mask protects me, unquote. We all have to wear masks for them to work. Yeah, I get that. Next up, Sophie Pasadas, thanks for your question, said, Tyler, if you believe that men have an equivalent opinion on abortion, then are white people's opinion on POC issues equivalent or above to POC people themselves? Yeah, everybody can have an opinion on things that affect everyone or even even it doesn't, like just because I'm not part of government doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion on government just because you are not, now I know that you could quote unquote be part of government, but it doesn't really matter just because I find that to be super prejudice by saying that this person's opinion is not valid because they are not part of that specific group. That doesn't make any logical sense by any metric. So like it just doesn't make any sense. So if you're asking me, can you have opinions on black people stuff? Absolutely. That's like saying white people can't have an opinion on like slavery. It's like, absolutely, you can have an opinion on slavery. So yeah, absolutely. Gotcha. And I want to mention folks out there so sorry to ask because we do appreciate your questions, but just because we want to respect the time limits of the debaters we're basically coming up on what we promise. So we want to try to, if it's okay with the speakers, we want to wrap up with the questions we've gotten so far. We do want to ask folks, if you'd be willing to maybe, we will for sure invite our guests that we have on right now to come on in the future. They've both been a pleasure to have on. And so if you're willing to maybe save that question for next time, that'll help us out as we're trying to get through as many as possible. But Ashley Snyder, thanks for your question said, Tyler, if abortion did become illegal, what do you think will happen and how do you prevent unsafe abortions? How do you prevent more unsafe? So I think that just because something is illegal doesn't mean that people aren't going to do it. Just because you make a certain weapon illegal doesn't mean that people aren't going to, that people that really want to obtain that weapon the same way that some people really want to obtain that abortion doesn't mean that they aren't going to get it. I think that it really focuses on two things, education and implementation. So one, we need to educate the public young, especially in schools, parents need to get involved and it needs to be known that abortion is the killing of an innocent person. So that needs to be made known first. But even if you didn't at the very least, if you make something illegal, it doesn't stop people, stop everyone from doing those things but it definitely decreases the amount of those things happening in totality. We used to be able to have every weapon that the military had and then through government tyranny, enforcing more and more gun control, less people are obtaining those same amount of weapons. How many people do you know that have a rocket launcher or a tank in their front lawn? I believe that it would still make total abortions go down and while it may, may make unsafe abortions go up, I think that the education part is really key there and not just denouncing and saying, oh, well, no, we don't believe in it. I think that more open discussions like this is what's important and I think that, yeah, I just think that education is really the key there. Thank you much. Thanks Sydney King as well as Tyler. No one forces conception to happen. No, nobody forces conception to happen, but if you consciously and voluntarily act in a way where that happened anyway, it doesn't really matter because you still acted in a way that forced that person to be there. It doesn't matter. Now, if you didn't consent to that action, that forced that person to be there, then I would agree that, yeah, but if you consciously and voluntarily acted in a way that forced a person there, whether you wanted them to be there or not, you did force them to be there. Gotcha. Thanks for your question. This one comes in from Sunny Uchia. One, two, three says Tyler. Oh, this must be about the hat that Victoria said she was happy you didn't wear, I'm guessing. They say Tyler is a misogynist who sells, quote, grab them by the blank merchandise. Does Tyler think that being pro-life absolves him from respecting women? Yeah, so I absolutely do sell that beanie on my website, terribleconservative.com, but yeah, I absolutely do. And the point is that it's not non-consensual. So it would be the same if I said kiss her. It doesn't mean that I'm saying kiss her against her will. You know what I mean? So it's an act that I completely believe to be consensual. If you want to say that it's not consensual, well then, okay, prove that it's not consensual, right? But it's just an act. It doesn't make it non-consensual. Gotcha. Hailey Marie 980 says Victoria, at what point in the pregnancy is abortion unacceptable and why? I would say that I think we need to legalize first term abortion. So it would be ending at the 12-week mark, most definitely. If you want to get very, very technical, I would say up to about 15 weeks would be ethical just because 15 weeks is when we start seeing circuit when we start seeing brain structures develop that are capable, that make a being capable of subjective experience. So I would say 12-week is a very comfortable cutoff for me. Gotcha. Nicole Goriab, thanks for your super chat. And Hazel Kulf, thanks for yours. Said, Tyler, if you get into a car crash that you are responsible for, are you going to give up your lung for that person who needs it due to your mistake? Yeah, to be fair, I think I've answered that question four times now. And I'm not saying that anything wrong about that person, I don't mean to be like an asshole about that. I'm just saying that I have already answered it, but I'll answer it again. Again, you didn't force that person to be in a state of dependency. To force them to be in a state of dependency would be if you got into a car crash and then that person was unconscious and then you forced some kind of, I don't know, some kind of cable or whatever or lung or whatever and said that you are now dependent on me for survival. And then you said later, you know what, I no longer want you to be dependent on me. So I'm going to remove that even knowing that you would die. That's what would make it analogous, not just getting into the car crash. Gotcha. Jeanette Cruz, thanks for your question. Said, Victoria, what about the situations where the fathers wanted the child and was willing to give their money and time to help the mother and the baby with everything, but the mom still aborts it? Do you believe that the husbands should have a say? Yeah, and this is something that I changed my stance on pretty recently to anyone in this situation. Oh my God, I am so fucking sorry. I know it is so messy and painful. My biggest thing is that requiring the partner's consent for abortion would get really dicey in instances of rape or one night stands where you maybe have no way of contacting the person following the sexual intercourse or the rape. And so that is one problem with it. That is kind of impossible to get around, unfortunately. But then additionally, even if that man is willing to give his resources and his money, he's still not giving his body. And obviously the chances of a woman dying as a result of pregnancy are pretty small. Women's bodies are permanently changed by pregnancy and I think any woman with children will tell you that. I can tell you even my own mother has a herniated disc and postpartum depression from having babies. So because the man is not making that sacrifice, I do think that more control should lie within the woman over what she does with her body. Thank you very much. And Ashley Fincher, thanks for your support. Appreciate it. And Tara Rowland says, Tyler thinks it's not okay to kill without consent. So are you a vegan? If not, why do you think it's okay to kill another sentient being for your pleasure? Yeah, so I don't really care about... No, I'm not a vegan. I eat my red meat medium rare, like every other red-blooded American should. I don't care about granting moral consideration to other animals. My point isn't that because you are sentient that that gains you moral consideration. My mind is that if you are a human person that you have the equal right to life as anyone else. Mine isn't value-based like that. I mean, even if you were to say, again, I don't care about granting moral consideration to animals. I care about human persons having the equal right to life. You got it. And thanks, Sergey Milsarin says, how would you know that the fetus would be abused? I think that that's probably a question for me. Obviously, there's no way of knowing, but this is something that a guy named Jonah, who I talked to right before my previous debate brought up to me, which was a really interesting point. I don't want to get into it too deep, but he was basically like, what is more immoral? A world with no sentient life and no suffering or a world where you force beings to have consciousness and sentience and then force them to suffer. And I would say that that ideology can be used here. When you're forcing that mother to have that baby, you're also forcing that baby into existence, which could be a sufferable existence. And I would say that in an instance where you'd be forcing another being into a sufferable existence, that might not be the most moral thing to do. Can I ask a question based off of that? A really quick question? Sure. Okay, so if it's based off of someone having the potential to have a really bad life, okay, so then what if we knew that that person was just going to... Okay, so if they were just going to have a really bad life, like if they were going to be poor, should we be able to kill them? Well, it's not... Number one, I want to make it clear that I think abortion should be legal, regardless of circumstance. For me, it's all about consciousness. I just think that subjecting a being to consciousness just for them to suffer is a bit immoral, and that's when you can get into the conversation of what necessitates abortion, which is a whole nother conversation. But I don't necessarily think that there's anything wrong with being poor. If to anyone out there watching, if you were raised poor, I'm very happy that you're here. I'm very happy that you exist. But I'm just saying that I don't think that you should force a mother to have a baby that she's not prepared for because you could be condemning that future baby to a sufferable existence. I apologize. Gotcha. Thank you for your question. This one coming in from Monkey Maya. Appreciate your support. Didn't see a question, but appreciate your support. B.C. Burns says, question for Tyler. What proof does he have that a fetus is a person at birth? If none, is his argument feelings-based rather than factually-based? Right. So, personhood beginning a conception is really easy to establish. She said personhood, she said life. What did she say? I'm so sorry. They had said, I'm trying to move through the list. Sorry. Let's see. Frankly, we're going to come back to that question. Well, let's just say personhood beginning a conception. So, I'll just answer that really quickly. So, conception is when a new distinguishable human organism is created. In any expansion of that organism, like sentience or birth, is completely arbitrary. You can go from a zygote, embryo, fetus, neonate, adolescent. Every milestone, after conception, is just part of a human's developmental process. Right? We don't even stop biological functions outside of the womb. You don't even go through meiosis until you hit puberty. Right? So, because of that, the most logical conclusion would be that personhood starts at the beginning of an organism's life, which would be that zygote at conception. Gotcha. Eddie Kroom says, premise one, it's wrong. So, this is for Victoria. They said, premise one, it's wrong to kill an innocent human. Premise two, abortion does kill an innocent human. Conclusion, abortion is wrong. Which premise do you deny and why? So, again, the two premises were, one, it's wrong to kill an innocent human, or two, abortion kills an innocent human. I would say what most purchasers would disagree with would be premise two, that abortion is killing an innocent human. Or, yeah, I would just say, because we don't believe that personhood begins right at conception. We don't view embryos as people the same way that pro-lipers do, and I apologize if I'm not explaining this in the best way. But I could see someone discard an embryo, and I would not view that as killing a person, whereas pro-lipers evidently do. Thanks for your question. I hate to do this, Tyler, but just because, Tyler, we have so many questions seriously. I'm sorry, guys. I don't know if we've gotten this many since we had Destiny and Vosh in person. This has been a lot. DeMille Limp, thank you for your question, said the problem with Tyler's analogy, here's one you can respond to, Tyler, is that even if you let someone into your house, you absolutely can kick them out of your house, even if it kills them. So for one, that's evictionism. That's not the intentional killing of a person. So for one, that would be arguing, if you were arguing against an evictionist. Victoria's not an evictionist. She even admitted that she's like pro-bortion in certain circumstances, right? So she's arguing for the intentional killing of that person, regardless if they live or die. So she's not an evictionist. So that's the first thing. Second of all, if there was a baby, if there was a baby in your home, so let's make an analogous, it's not just like a 20-year-old. If there was a baby in the middle of your floor in your home and they were trespassing, you cannot kill them. Even if you said that you can evict them, sure, you can evict them, but you can't evict them knowing that they would die, if you do, particularly if you force them into your home. Now, if you didn't force them into your home, then you might have an argument. But if you force them into your home, as you do with consensual sex, then you absolutely cannot kill them. Gotcha. Jay Blevins, thanks for your question, says, if two people voluntarily crash into someone and put them on life support, do they have the right to end life support of that person? I think that this is a question for me, probably. I would just basically say that that's falsely analogous, and this is where we could bring up past sentience, past consciousness. Here's where it's very difficult to find a perfect analogy for abortion. And I'm not saying that, obviously, that you were being intentionally disanalogous by any means. I just think that this is difficult because that person that they crashed into was conscious in that moment. So that would be wrong, obviously. That initial act of putting them into a state of dependency is wrong, whereas I don't necessarily think the act of conceiving a baby is wrong. And so I think that that's where they're not equivalent. Gosh, yeah. Thanks for your question, Brandon Smith, says, Victoria, some states have legalized abortion up until the day of delivery. What magic potion exists that charges or changes a, quote, clump of cells to a human? I don't think it's a magic potion, and I apologize for not getting into, getting into cognitive development enough during this conversation. But we understand that our brain changes throughout phases in our life, just like 18-year-olds get the right to vote. My argument, you could almost see it as an embryo does not have the right to life per se. Based on its cognitive development, it kind of develops that right to life, if that makes sense. And my argument is not based on a magic potion or just my feelings. It's based on the fact that a fetus does not have the circuit elements necessary for consciousness and self-awareness until about the 23-week period. They don't have the brain structure necessary for subjective experience. That doesn't even begin developing until the 15th week. So I would say that, in my opinion, it's all about consciousness, and yeah. You bet, thanks. Eddie Kroom, as well, says, Victoria, should a woman be able to intentionally deform a fetus? Why or why not? Intentionally deform a fetus? Right. Um, I would say that would be pretty rude. I'm kind of not understanding the question. Maybe they're saying deform the fetus so that it is born with a deformity. I would say that that's morally and ethical because you'd be subjecting a conscious being to that experience eventually. Gotcha. Josh Willingham says, Tyler, would you be affected by the laws and regulations of pro-life? Also, isn't the father responsible for forcing that life? The mom has no control where the sperm goes. I don't understand the first part, but the second part, I would absolutely say that, yeah, sure, the father is responsible, also responsible for that life being concepted. However, unfortunately for the mother, the mother is the only one who actually can get pregnant. I mean, again, by today's standards, some people will say that men can get pregnant, just depending on what you identify as, but that's another conversation. That's another conversation. I don't know, maybe if men can have, if men can be impregnated, then I don't know how to answer that based on that, but my belief is that they can't. So, yeah, so absolutely, I think that you could say that it's unfair to the mother because she is the only person who is able to get pregnant, but what are we going to do? I mean, she still did act voluntarily. So what are you going to say? Also, Victoria is in a position on bodily autonomy contradicts her position on abortion being illegal at the first trimester. So I just want to be clear on that. Oh, what? I'll give you a chance to respond if you'd like, Victoria, since Tyler added stuff other than what was asked in question. I appreciate the effort. I'm very much that way too. I love getting in my last two cents. I would say that my issue with abortion debates is that it's so often people pick one lane or the other, whereas my argument is almost kind of a combination. Two, I know the thought's probably very annoying to most people who are very into abortion debates, but for me, it's a combination of sentience and right to your own body. So I don't think that a woman or that any person should be forced to give up their resources. I've said this a million times. I know you've heard me, Tyler, despite the look on your face, I don't think that a person should give up their body, their resources for a being that is not yet conscious. Next. But they can't have it in our country. I hate to go, but Beth Kirkham, thank you for your question, says, abortion is a medical procedure between a doctor and a patient. It should be legal and safe and none of anyone else's business. Does that mean we can't host debates on it? I don't know. Oh, you guys are going to respond to that. Man, I guess you lost all the abortion debates in the future, man. Next, Mike Billarz, thanks for your question, said, Tyler, forced dependency is wrong. That implies intent. It's more, quote, you found someone in your home. Are you required to take care of that person if you did find someone in your home? It's not that you found someone in your home. You didn't force them to be in your home. What if you locked your door unlocked? You still didn't force them to be in your home? You didn't force them to be in your home, right? A sperm just doesn't magically... These aren't Virgin Mary's, Victoria. The sperm doesn't just somehow just go into the woman's egg without her consenting, right? Without her acting in a way that forced that person to be there. So it's not the same. They didn't force it. I would just say that if someone's using all forms of protection, there is a need for a bit of nuance in these analogies because I do think that that, okay, well, that's my opinion. Gotcha. Anne, thanks for your question, trying to move through. We are almost to the end. Thanks for your patience, guys. This one comes in from Mike Billarz. We got that one. Whizbang, thanks for your question, said for Tyler. What if you were pregnant with baby Adolf and since we're... Yeah, so sort of like the hit movie Junior starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. Would you abort baby Adolf or would you allow his fourth rike to... Dear gosh, YouTube. Sorry, to begin from your Bluntman loins. Oh, my goodness. Okay, so for one, black guy being with baby Adolf, that's wild. But so, yeah. So again, even if you... I mean, you don't know that they're gonna that they're gonna become baby Adolf because everything changes, right? So if they are... If I am birthing what Adolf would have become, then everything changes now because I can do anything that I want in my power to make sure that that is no longer baby Adolf. So I would say that it's just impossible. I'll say in fairness to Tyler, too. Like, I think people's morals would change if you knew that your baby was gonna be a dictator, that like committed mass genocide. Like, I'm against killing children, obviously, but if someone had gotten rid of baby Hitler before he became Hitler, I wouldn't be like... But you can't know that. No, I know that. And if you did know that, you could change it. That's one thing, that's one thing. In fairness to you, knowing that that baby was gonna go commit mass genocide, I think changes everyone's morals. Gotcha, thanks for your question. Juliet Pauley says, is Tyler for or against condoms? I'm for them. Gotcha. Matt and I, thanks for your question. Said this is a response to someone's previous... Someone's previous. There's a battle of super chats. They're responding to Beth Kirkham says, abortion is murder, God commands thou shall not murder, and all murders will be cast into the lake of fire. Finoia... I better get my floaties, because everyone keeps telling me about this lake of fire I'm going to. Thanks for your super chat, Finola. Says, Tyler, your child is dependent on you and is born needing a lung. Should you be legally obligated to sacrifice yours, don't commit a fallacy here. So my child is dependent on me. I forged them not to have a lung? I think they're saying... Maybe you forged... Needing a lung, it was just born without. Okay, so from a genetic anomaly, the child does not have a lung, then I would say that if we are able to get a lung by some way, then we should definitely do that. But I guess I don't understand, it's not analogous to me. I didn't force them to not have a lung. Next, BC Byrne. Thanks for your question. For Tyler, what proof does he have that a fetus is a person at birth? Yeah, I answered that before. Do you want me to answer it again, James? Yeah, I think you're right. That was the one we did ask before. And Monkey Maya, thank you for your question, super chat support. Nicole, Goriab. Goriab, thanks for yours. Victoria, let's see. You believe there shouldn't be a law preventing the caregiver from pulling the plug on a human who will be known to wake up in nine months? So I guess here's the issue, because I know obviously I seem like quite a bit from a moral perspective. But here's the thing, it's not just like if the hospital's just going to take care of the person requiring no money, no resources, nothing from anyone else, then that's a different situation. But in abortion, it's important to recognize the mother's sacrifice so in a situation where someone, Tyler, don't make those faces, genuinely try to understand what I'm saying. Recognizing a mother's sacrifice, there has to be that equivalent in this coma analogy. Unfortunately, there will never be an exact equivalency because no one has to sacrifice their body in order to keep a comatose patient alive. But I will say that I don't think that family members should be required to give up resources to keep someone on life support. Currently, they are not required to. They are allowed to pull the plug, even though that is absolutely hard-wrenching. And I apologize to anyone who's ever had to do that. Thank you very much. And thank you, Momina. Mahmoud says, so Tyler, if you hit someone... With a car, is this another? Now it's a different one, though. Oh, okay. And they now need a kidney or liver should you be obligated to give yours if you wreck theirs in your car accident that you were liable for because you caused them to be dependent. Well, you actually didn't cause them to be dependent on you. Again, you would have to hook them up physically to you for them and then say that I'm going to now deprive this of you. So if something happens to them and they now need one, I mean, you're going to face the consequences, right? So, like, if they die, you face those legal consequences because you acted in a way that killed them. So, yeah, that would be my answer for that. Gotcha. And anybody... So as of right now, Paul Kramer was the most recent super chat. I cannot read any more after Paul Kramer because I do want to get the speakers out of here on time. So please don't super chat any more after Paul Kramer. Monkey Maya, thanks for your question. I said, so Tyler, you think that people who do not want to get pregnant should stay celibate forever? Do you think that is reasonable? People that don't want to get pregnant should stay celibate. I think that's the best way of not ever having to get pregnant is to stay celibate. But if you have sex, you have to always understand that there is a possibility of becoming pregnant if you're a woman, right? And just because you don't want to become pregnant and just because the odds are against you becoming pregnant, most days of the month anyway, that doesn't give you the moral right to kill that person just because you didn't want them to. So there are a number of studies that'll show you that sex you are not physically dependent on sex. I mean, you could say we're doing it for the advance of our species, but you're not physically forced to have sex with someone. You don't have that. We're able to control ourselves, right? Otherwise, you would have to acknowledge that rape should be legal because rape is just can't control themselves. So yeah, so absolutely. Yeah, I think I answered it. Got you, Richard King. Thanks for your question. Comments that I would like to speak or debate with Tyler if he'd be up for it. He speaks very neuro-minded. My insta is Richard B. King, if so. You got a fan out there, Tyler. And next, Matt Focos. Thanks, Matt Fuse. Thanks for your question. Said if you, Tyler, were in a fertility clinic and a five-year-old was trapped inside and you can only save him or embryos, who do you save? I would say the five-year-old. The same way that if you gave me the option to save a five-year-old or a 90-year-old woman, if you were forcing me to make that decision again, this is disanalogous to abortion because you're not forced to choose between the mother or the fetus. Both of them live, 99.98% of the time. So yeah, but if you're forcing me and I say, oh, I have to choose between these two people, one's going to die, again, disanalogous to abortion, but I would base it off of whatever my emotional attachment would be to that person because I believe the moral that morality is subjective and the same way, if it was my child versus 100 people, and you gave me the option to say, look, you can either save your child or 100 people. I'm saving my child over 100 people. It's whatever that emotional thing is, but that doesn't negate my argument that all of those people, those 100 people, and my child all have the equal right to life, but you are forcing me to make a decision to choose between one or the other. Gotcha. And Zweerafa, thanks for your question, said if appealing to timeframe is special pleading and any choice is arbitrary and wrong, why is appeal to percentage okay? What percentage is okay? No, so appealing to time isn't special pleading just by appealing to time, but if you say, like Victoria said, that originally, that she believed that it was, that her argument on consciousness was the current capacity to have consciousness, but then said, okay, well no, it is the perspective capacity, and then said, oh, but wait a minute, it's not the perspective capacity because it has to be a very specific amount of time than that special pleading. Next up, quality control says, Tyler, what was the argument that convinced you abortion in rape cases is okay, and how is that not ending the life of someone dependent on you? Right, so when it comes to, I'm so sorry for eating, I haven't eaten all day, I'm so sorry. So when it comes to rape cases, I believe that if someone stole your DNA, because you didn't consent, so if someone like stole, hijacked my DNA during my sleep or whatever, my sperm cells or whatever, someone hijacked my DNA and created a child that I did not consent to, and then I woke up to see this child attached to me saying that they're dependent on me for nine months. Do I believe it to be immoral to sever that connection? I would say no. Personally, I would likely just keep them attached to me, but I don't find it to be immoral because you didn't, my whole argument really is based off of an obligatory stance, that you are obligated because you consented, but if you don't consent, you know, I don't think that it's immoral to deprive them of life if you did nothing to put them in that position in the first place. Gotcha, Matt and I, thanks for your question. They asked for Victoria. If scientists found a clump of cells on Mars, they would say we found life. Why does that not apply to humans? Here's the biggest thing. When we're talking about life here, we're talking about sentient life, we're talking about conscious life. I'm sure even you would agree that finding a clump of cells on Mars is a lot different than finding a conscious sentient being on Mars that is aware of itself and its surroundings and capable of having subjective experience. I would assume you would agree that that would be a much larger discovery. So I understand the point that you're trying to make, but the biggest thing I'm saying, I'm not necessarily that it is not a life. I'm just saying that it is a life in the same way that like a plant is a life. Like it doesn't hold value to me. It's not a being of moral consideration, no matter how much Tyler laughs at that stance. It's a pretty common thing. Why do you think that everything I do is about you? Next up. This is my chat. Appreciate it. Sophia Adler says, I really hate how condescending you are, Tyler. You've got a critic out there, Tyler. Says, Victoria has been so civil, give her the respect she's giving you. Thank you. And Flat Earth Guy, thank you for your super chat. Says, Smart and Beautiful Victoria is 100% a Flat Earther. Oh, I'm a Flat Earther? Thank you for sharing that. And Matt and I, thank you very much for your super chat. They say 180movie.com and lycanthropic testicles. First time I've seen you here. Thanks for your super chat. Said, time to bring Alex back on. Name the fuken trait. Okay, I don't know what that means. Pigs are intelligent as dogs. Thanks for your super chat. Said, Victoria, if you are so, so into sentience, why aren't you vegan? I have actually, that is such a fair question. And I'm actually considering going vegan. As of right now, unfortunately, with my current budget, it's very difficult. But I'm trying to phase meat and cheese out of my diet because that is something I'm passionate about as well. Gotcha. And the legend of Randy, thanks for your super chat. Who says, Victor, Victoria, if I can use my mother's body against her will as a fetus, why can't I use her body against her will after birth? Why the double standard? Um, wait, I'm confused what they're asking. They're saying, if I can use my mother's body against her will during pregnancy, why can I not use it after? I feel like I'd be more of a Tyler question than for me. I don't even understand that. Is that like an incestuous question? Like, what is that? No, I think they're asking, like, you know, you can use. So basically, one thing I was thinking about earlier, you know, if, oh, it's so hard to find, like, something that's equivalent, but maybe if you knowingly brought a baby into this world with one kidney, should you as a parent be required to give your kidney to that baby after it's been born? Maybe that would be an equivalent, but I don't know. I'm trying to understand this person's question. No, I think you're right, Victoria. I think this has to be for, I think it has to be for Tyler. I think they're saying, like, hey, if I'm a fetus and I can use my mom's body against her will, according to your logic, Tyler, by, you know, why can't I continue to do so after I've been born? And, you know, I don't know, like, theoretically. Well, the fetus isn't using it against her. I mean, she doesn't have really any say, she forced that person into that baby into a state of dependency. So it doesn't really matter if she, you can't just revoke that and say, well, you know what? Now I can kill you because I don't want you here any longer. You can't really do that. And also, I would argue that there are times where the baby does violate, or by their standards, violate bodily autonomy. I mean, if your baby is breastfeeding, I mean, if time is not an issue, like if you are a mother and you are like in the woods or whatever, and your baby needs sustenance, and the only thing that you have is you're lactating and you're able to give your baby food, but you deny your baby that food because I don't know, maybe it hurts you to breastfeed. I consider that to be 1,000% immoral because the very least that you have to do both morally and legally for your child is to give them food. And that very natural process to give them that. So yeah, I would consider that to be immoral. Gotcha. And last question of the night. So sorry, folks. I know we did not get to all the questions. We do want to respect the time of the debaters. They've already stayed over about, yeah, I would say you could fairly say an hour passed what was originally discussed in terms of setting the debate up. So we appreciate you guys for doing that. Paul Kramer, thanks for your question. By the way, want to remind you folks, our guests are linked in the description. So if you'd like to hear more, you can hear more. And Tyler from Paul Kramer, doesn't your stance contradict itself? An embryo has no more brain power than an animal, yet it's okay to kill an animal? Well, it doesn't contradict myself because my stance isn't sentience. Or consciousness. That was Victoria's stance. I was only testing her logical consistency. I believe at conception, as as I go, that you have the equal right to life. My stance is not based on value, based off of sentience. I don't care about another animal or that species. I don't care about granting them moral consideration. So yeah, it doesn't go against my stance at all. Gotcha. Well, thank you very much for that. And want to say thanks everybody for hanging out with us tonight. It's been an epic one, one we will remember. So want to say thanks to our guests. We really do appreciate Victoria and Tyler. It's been a true pleasure to have both of you. So thanks so much for hanging out with us. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much, James. And thank you for being an awesome moderator. I think me and Tyler can both agree that this is much better than our previous debate. So thank you. Thank you for that. I would have appreciated it if it was like one hour longer, but I appreciate the time. Thank you guys. We appreciate you. And thanks everybody for watching. We appreciate it. We have a lot more juicy debates coming up. So for example, you'll see next month we are going to have Doug Wilson from the Popular Documentary Collision with Christopher Hitchens. He will be on with Dr. Ben Burgess. And they will be debating on whether or not atheism is immoral. So that will be a juicy one. And so hit that subscribe button if you love controversial debates as we have many more to come. And want to say thanks everybody. Keep sifting through, sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. And we'll also, by the way, it's a triple header. It is a big, big day as we've had three epic debates or two so far. Now we're actually tonight in just a few minutes, we'll start with a Flat Earth Debate, which should be a juicy one as well. So stick around, folks. I will be putting that link for that Flat Earth Debate, which you can migrate over as we'll be starting that in just a few minutes. That link is going into the description right now. And so want to say thanks everybody though for hanging out with us. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from. And with that, thanks again, keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable everybody. Folks, I want to say thanks so much for hanging out with us. This is a short post-credits scene. Want to say we really do hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from as we are a nonpartisan debate platform. So we really do want it to be a level playing field for everybody to get to make their case on, like I said, an equal playing ground. And so want to say thanks everybody for hanging out with us. Please let us know if there's something that we can do to make and I'm very serious about this. We do appreciate you guys. First, want to just let you know that just by hanging out here, seriously, you make it more fun. The more the merrier we appreciate you, we hope despite the fact that it can feel like a war zone in the chat that nonetheless, hopefully it feels like a community that you really do feel welcome. And want to remind you we do have some things we agree on. We all do want equal debates. We all do agree on good causes. So for example, we do a charity stream once a month at least in which we give to causes such as starving children across the world. And so those are things that I think no matter what worldview you come from, no matter what political position you name it, I think we all agree on those things being good. Those are just a few of examples of the examples that do indeed unite us. And so want to let you know we appreciate you guys. Thanks for hanging out here. My email, like I said, please let me know if there's something I can do to make your day easier. We do appreciate you guys. And so thanks for hanging out here. My email is moderndaydebate at gmail.com. And so like I said, if there's something we can do to make your life better, we do appreciate you guys. And so thanks so much for hanging out with us. And again, my name is James if this is your first time here. And yes, we just love juicy controversial debates. I'm currently working on my doctorate and the goal is because oftentimes in academia, sometimes topics or individuals are frankly some, not all, but some discourage that open dialogue. And so our goal is we want to allow for free speech for people to be able to come on and make their case on controversial topics such as tonight. And so we really do welcome you no matter where you're from, what your views are, who you're attracted to, regardless of it all. We do hope you feel welcome. And so thanks so much, everybody. As mentioned, we will be having a flattery debate in just a moment. Yes, it should be juicy. So I have put the link for that flattery debate at the top of the chat if you want to see what that is about. That should be wild as well. And so thanks so much, everybody for hanging out with us.