 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 this epic debate. It is going to be a blast tonight, folks. We are just thrilled to have you here and want to let you know if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. And so, if you love juicy, controversial debates, if you are sick in the head, like us, I want you to consider hitting that subscribe button as we have plenty more sick and juicy controversial debates coming up. As an example, you guys, on the far right side of your screen, you will see, I should say in the bottom right corner, you will see the poster for our upcoming debate on January 18th. This is against Michael Shermer going against Michael Jones. It's going to be on whether or not Christianity is dangerous and it's going to be epic, you guys. So, we hope you can make it. Also, you are seeing, as of right now, on the far right side of your screen, that is our Kickstarter fundraiser, New Stretch Goal. We hit our goal, you guys. I am thrilled. We hit our original goal. It was Friday night epic way to bring in the new year. But want to let you know we are now stretching that goal. So, in other words, we are now extending it to 3,000 for the grand total of our goal. And we plan on. I'm getting feedback still. So, if you have feedback, email me at moderndaydebate.com. But for that, want to let you know, we are considering using that stretch goal to fund a trip down to our friends at the Atheist Experience Studio, as we've really enjoyed it in the past. I think people based on the average view times loved the debate with Matt Dillhunty in person. So, that is what we are planning on using that stretch goal for. And so, if you have not yet contributed to the Kickstarter to watch next Friday's debate between Michael Shermer and Mike Jones live, well, that link is in the description and waiting for you. Also, thrilled, you guys. This is going to be really fun tonight. It's going to be epic. Here's how it's going to go. Kay is going to go first with a flexible, roughly 10 to 12 minute opening statement followed by my boy T-Jump. He will be going with his 10 to 12 minute opening statement followed by open conversation. And Q&A will be following that. So, if you happen to have a question, feel free to fire a question in the live chat. And if you tag me with At Modern Day Debate, it makes it easier for me to get every question in that Q&A list. So, we are thrilled, you guys. This is going to be a blast. Thrilled to have all of you here, no matter what walk of life you were from. You really do mean that. I'm going to kick it over to Kay to, if you guys, both Tom and Kay, would be willing to share what people can expect to find at your link, which I have put down in the description. That would be excellent. And do want to remind you folks, yes, at the very top of the description are both Kay and Tom's links. And so, we'll start with Kay. Thanks so much for coming back on Kay. It's a pleasure to have you. What can people expect to find at your link? On probably, I'm guessing you probably linked my Twitter in my link. What you can find there is basically just me giving my opinion on various topics. I'm known as a pro-life activist, but I have varying opinions on any number of topics. So, if you go and click the link to my Twitter, I give my opinions very wholeheartedly, but I'm always open to discussion on anything that I state. I stand by what I put out there, but I'm always open to hearing other forms of opinion. You got it. Thank you very much. And T-Jump, glad to have you back as well. What can people expect to find at your link? Yeah. I tame bees. I grow them on my YouTube channel. I teach you how to tame bees. There's amazing facts about bees, like honey bees eat fruit, and the female bees leave the nest. And if you haven't ever heard this before, you should just ask the Karan and it just makes you magical. You're a superior being if you know these four facts about bees. So, go to my YouTube channel to see bees. You serious, Tom? All right. Thank you very much. We are really excited. This is going to be a blast. But yes, both Kay and Tom are longtime friends of the channel, so we're thrilled to have them on here with us. Honestly, I have high expectations. This is going to be great. I know it. Believe me. It's going to be tremendous. We will kick it off with Kay. Thank you so much. The floor is all yours. Yeah. So, you always give me 10 to 12 minutes in these opening statements. And, sorry, my son is awake. My topic on, my opinion on the topic has, is really just pretty simple. I believe that life begins at fertilization as science teaches us and that all human life is valuable and that it should be protected from the beginning of life to the very end of life. And that's why I've always been staunchly anti-abortion. I think that these are the most vulnerable and innocent of our species and that we, as, you know, born people with the ability to speak and have conversation and give our opinions on things, it is our job to stand up for them because they don't have the ability to do that. And so I've dedicated a lot of my time and a lot of my effort and pretty much my life's energy into speaking up for them and making sure that they are a protected class because they are human beings and their life is valuable. And there is, there's wiggle room to have a conversation about the ethics of abortion or the morality of abortion, but bottom line, it comes down to that these are human beings. They are part of our species. And I believe that they deserve not just to be legally protected, but for society as a whole to stand up and say that it's morally acceptable to protect these human beings because they have no ability to do that for themselves. I'm pro-choice because I believe that no human being has the right to use another human being's body without consent and abortion is de facto the rejection of consent of having another human being in your body. So I think that women should have the right or and men too, if they could get pregnant, have the right to remove any other human being in their body with, because no one has a right to use your body without consent. I grant that a fetus is alive. I mean, technically all of our cells are alive, so life begins before conception, but consciousness doesn't. And I don't think that until the baby has consciousness or a brain or can feel anything, then it's not technically immoral to kill it because it technically doesn't have any feelings. It's only immoral to kill something that's conscious or has a brain of some kind that would be conscious in some state. So I don't see it as immoral in any way to especially abort the fetus before it has a brain. But even if we grant that the baby has a consciousness at conception, it would still be justifiable for the mother to abort the baby because, again, no human being has the right to use another human being's body without consent. It would just be slavery to enforce that. So I think that even though it would be immoral to kill that person, just like it's immoral to kill someone in self-defense, because I think it's immoral to kill anyone for any reason ever, it's justifiable because if you are protecting your own body from another person using it, it is justified to kill someone in self-defense, even if the person is going to harm you without recognizing it. So I think that abortion is justifiable even if the baby is considered alive and conscious and a human. If we just thought about it as if an adult was inside of you and was growing, you would have the right to remove them because they're in your body, or one of another thought experiment is the violentest thought experiment, I forget, which philosopher posted that, but it's the idea that if you wake up one day in a room and you're connected to keep another preven being alive, you have the right to disconnect yourself even if it will kill them because you have a right to your body. You have sovereignty over your parts and no one has a right to use those parts without your consent, and that's why I'm pro-choice and I will yield the floor. Thank you very much. I want to remind you, folks, both of our guests are linked in the description, and we will open up the open conversation. Thanks so much, both of you. Yeah, so I guess I'll just kick it off. So for me, I have a hard, I struggle with the idea that we place value on a human being based on, you know, a location, a point of development, whether or not they have a consciousness. To me, that kind of opens up the floor to doing that with all human persons and basing how we view them and whether or not they are valuable or whether or not they are important based on what they do for us as a society and as individuals. Kind of, you know, this is a human being and this is a person that deserves to be protected because, you know, I can see them, I can interact with them, I can feel that they are people, so therefore they have value to me, therefore they should be a protected class. I'm not sure what you mean because I hold all humans to the exact same standard and not just humans, any living creature, I think if it has consciousness, it has value. So I mean, if it didn't have consciousness, it would just be essentially a cancer mess and no difference. I don't think at that point it would be considered human. So I don't see, like, even if there's a human being who is completely brain dead and a brain was just decayed and we wouldn't consider them to be human anymore either. They'd just be dead and having a functional metabolism. But I don't see how that's relevant to the case because even in my argument, I said, if we just grant they're a full adult human in another purpose in his body, you still have the right to remove them from your body. So I don't, I'm granting they're completely human and alive and conscious. It's still justifiable to remove them from your body if they're in there without your consent. But do, like, as a society, can we not hold parents to, like, as someone who's like, I don't understand. Like, you use the the correlation of, like, slavery saying that if we were to make abortion illegal and essentially say that women could not end the pregnancies that they did not want, it would be tantamount to slavery. So would you, would you kind of push that off in the same direction as a born child? Because we are as we are required to take care of our children once they are born as well. If you didn't give it up for adoption, you're contractually obligated, you've agreed, you've consented to take care of the child. But so after it's born, you wouldn't be able to do that. You would be able to give it up to adoption. But if it's living required for life to be inside of you and to take your resources, then you are justified in removing it. If there was a way to remove it without killing it, then that would be the morally thing, morally more justified thing to do. The only reason it kills is because you're required to take your resources. They can't live it outside of you. If there was a way to just transfer it, that would be the preferable thing. But we don't have a way to do that yet. So it's the same thing applies, whether it's a live baby or a someone inside of another body, you still have to apply the same rights either way. The only difference being is that you don't need to kill a baby if it's outside of you to get it out. You can just give it up for adoption. So that would be the only difference there is that one is inside of you and requires your resources to live. And so it's death is only going to be a result of removing it from you. Whereas the baby outside of you can just be given up for adoption and it won't cause you any physical harm that way. And so there's no reason to kill it. It'll be immoral to kill it in that case, just like it would be immoral for a doctor nowadays to cut your leg off instead of giving you an antibacterial for an infection. For the exact same reason, because we can simply just give the child up for adoption without killing it. It would be immoral to kill it since there is a way to remedy the stress on you without causing excess suffering. Whereas if the person is inside of you, that isn't really possible. Okay, but like when in like society, we allow things like adoption or in many cases like safe haven laws, we allow that transfer of responsibility from a parent to another human being specifically for the sake of protecting the child's well being their safety because we if you look back through history, like safe haven laws came about for the express purpose of women were leaving their babies in the middle of the road or in dumpsters or in toilets where because they didn't feel like it was a they didn't have a safe environment to leave that baby with somebody else and transfer that responsibility of the child. So we do hold parents to a certain moral standard as a society to take care of their children until it is safe to transfer that responsibility that goes for born children. I don't understand why it shouldn't go for preborn humans. Well, I'm not sure how that addresses my point. So again, because it's outside of your body, you can easily give it up without causing any damage. But if it's inside of your body, you have the right to remove it from the inside of your body because it's your body. You don't have the right to damage the baby's body once it's outside of you because it's not in you anymore. So the only reason like you wouldn't be able to kill another human being if they're just standing in front of you in the streets. But if they're literally inside of you, then yeah, you could remove them even if it kills them because it's self-defense. So the only justification here is that if they're literally inside of you, which you have complete sovereignty over yourself, then you have the right to remove them from being inside of you. That's the difference. But I mean, I know it's a cliche thing to say, and I try to avoid using this cliche term whenever I'm discussing abortion. But to an extent, you do have to admit that whenever you consent to an act such as sexual interactions, that you do consent to any potential outcome of that sexual interaction. So part of the outcome, potential outcome of being sexually active is getting pregnant. Pregnancy is what happens whenever the body functions exactly how it is supposed to. Sex is derived for the purpose of procreating. So consent to sex to an extent is coincident to a pregnancy developing from that sexual interaction. Well, I totally disagree with that. I mean, the fact that evolution has a mechanism that it divides that I don't consent to doesn't mean I'm contractually obligated to abide by that thing that it designed, like going to the beach and laying in the sun can cause cancer. That doesn't mean I consent to cancer. Smoking can cause cancer. It doesn't mean I consent to smoking. Eating food can cause you to choke to death. That doesn't mean I consent to choking to death. The fact that there are physical or biological consequences to an action does not mean that I consent to those consequences by doing the action. There are many, many consequences that we mitigate through pretty much everything we do because we don't consent to the consequences of nature. The fact that nature has imposed things on us against our will is also a moral in my view. And so there's no obligation to abide by nature's impositions on us that's irrelevant. I think it's a appeal to purpose. I remember what the fallacies called anymore, but you can't appeal to the fact that nature, naturalistic fallacy, naturalistic fallacy to say, well, nature did it this way. Therefore, we're obligated to abide by nature's rules. No, no, we're not. We have every right. Like, for example, the example I normally use is imagine if eating cheeseburgers caused us to get pregnant with some kind of a being. Well, does that mean that we're obligated to take responsibility for this being every time we eat cheeseburger? No, we have a right to eat cheeseburgers or if we're vegan, vegan cheeseburger, whatever we want. And we don't have any obligation to abide by nature's rules if it implants other people in without our consent. Absolutely not. That would be essentially no different from if a psychopath who didn't like a vegan psychopath, like ask yourself, didn't like the fact that you ate cheeseburgers. And so every time he would just take another human being and put them inside of you, every time you ate cheeseburger, that we would be equally as not obligated to take care of that person because they were implanted to us by a psychopath as we would be to one implanted to us by nature. There's no difference there. We're not obligated simply because nature made us this way. Where I struggle with that because the comparison is, you know, if if you can, if you, like you're how you put out like choking, like if you decided to eat something doesn't mean that you can send it to choking. Well, that's when something goes absolutely wrong whenever when with an action with pregnancy. It's the exact opposite. Pregnancy is what happens whenever the body works exactly how it is supposed to pregnancy is a natural biological bodily function just as, you know, your food, your body breaking down food and passing it through your bowels just as, you know, your air taking your lungs taking an air. This is something that doesn't even necessarily require your consents to happen. It's what just naturally what your body does going through a basic biological process. So is cancer and choking, but that doesn't make them moral. So again, that's a naturalistic fallacy. That's when something goes what wrong in the body when something goes unnaturally wrong. Right. So you're saying right and wrong are determined by nature. Nature says it does this way. Therefore, if it goes this way, it's right. And if it doesn't go the way nature designed it, then it's wrong. That's a naturalistic fallacy. Like cancer is a natural thing in evolution. That doesn't mean it's right. It's not right that we get cancer. It's in fact, it's wrong that we get cancer. It's wrong that we age without our consent is wrong when things happen in our body that we don't want. Even though it's perfectly natural, natural does not mean good or right. That's the naturalistic fallacy. The fact that nature designed it this way does not mean we are obligated to listen to nature. In fact, it's the exact opposite like nature has enslaved us to this kind of bondage of biology that we should do everything we can to overcome. In the moral situation would be to make it so that we could just transfer or prevent pregnancy in any case, if it wasn't consensual, if you didn't deliberately have sex to have children, then it should be impossible for you to get pregnant. The fact that it can happen because of how biology designs, it doesn't mean that we're obligated to listen to biology any more than we're obligated to listen to a God who implants you with someone you didn't consent to. But being that it is all right, we can argue we can argue whether or not, you know, nature is fair or just or right. But whenever it comes down to it, this is how humans procreate. This is how we continue our generation. I would argue that saying that a woman's ability to get pregnant and the fact that that is our biological makeup, that's what makes us the female species, saying that we are enslaved to our body and is therefore wrong. I would actually, as a woman, I would take offense to that because this is how this is how my body is made to function. This is what it is supposed to do. And it's what it's supposed to do whenever it is working at absolutely perfect peak exactly what it is supposed to do whenever sex happens. Like, I'm not saying that humans only have sex to get pregnant, but the purpose of having sex is to procreate and make other humans so that the human species doesn't die out. So anytime you say the purpose of some biological thing, that is just literally a naturalistic fallacy, you can't say that something is good or right because of it. This is how it happens in nature. That doesn't make it good or right. That's just a fact of nature. It's amoral. It doesn't accomplish anything. So just saying, well, nature works this way. Therefore, it's right. Is just a naturalistic fallacy that can't that isn't a justification anywhere. It's been proven to not be a justification. This logical structure does not follow. It would be no different to say that, well, if you did eat the cheeseburger and a God being punished you by implanting you, well, then you're obligated to be to take on that impregnated thing because you ate the cheeseburger. And that's the way God dings it to be. Obviously not. That's obviously slavery. If some external being decides that, well, you doing this thing is going to make you be impregnated and therefore I'm going to impregnate you any time you do this thing, that is slavery if you don't consent to it. Now, of course, if you consent, it's not slavery. So like I wouldn't call Christians slaves to a God because they consent to worshiping the God. But if someone who isn't a Christian is forced to abide by the God's rules, that's slavery. So in the case of a woman who is totally fine with consensually having sex and getting pregnant, that wouldn't be slavery. But it is slavery for someone who does not consent to that to be imposed on the same rules to say they're obligated to abide by this super powerful being that they had no saying that is forcing them to abide by this consequence they didn't choose. That is slavery. So obviously this wouldn't apply to all women. It's not all women. That would be slaves if they do consent to it. But it would apply equally to women who don't. They would be slaves because they don't consent to it and apply to men too. They have if other biological consequences. So it's not about all women's or slaves because of biology. It's all women who don't want to get pregnant after sex are slaves to biology if it forces them to get pregnant without their consent, just like they would be all humans would be slaves to a God if it forced us some kind of consequence on us that we didn't consent to. There's no difference here between biology and an evil malicious God being. And so we are equally as not obligated to abide by the laws of nature as we are not obligated to abide by the laws of a God that imposed them on us without our consent. And saying that, well, that's just how nature works is no different than saying, oh, well, that's just how God gains it to be. And so it's OK because, well, God drawn millions of babies. That's just his nature. So it's totally not totally OK. But no, it's not just because nature works that way does not mean it's good. And it's not a justification to say that, well, because nature working that way produces it. Therefore, it's right. And we were supposed to abide by this. That that's a natural domestic fallacy that doesn't work. But the way that you look at how it consent works, like you bring up, you know, I did not consent to choking if I eat something and I accidentally choke. Well, no, you do not consent to choking, but you can sense to it being the possibility that you could choke if you ate food. The same goes. The same logic follows whenever you consent to have intercourse that one of the potential outcomes of having intercourse means that you could possibly and potentially get pregnant. So whenever I say that consent to sex is consented to pregnancy, you are consenting whenever you enter into unless you have absolutely no understanding of how sex works, you are consenting to every potential outcome. It's like saying that I consented to sex, but I didn't consent to getting, you know, an STD, you know, you consented to every possible outcome of having sex. And whenever you're talking about this is another human life. So it's not just a simple of, you know, I had sex, I got pregnant, I didn't want to get pregnant. So therefore I should just be able to wipe away any outcome of that choice that I made because I did not like the outcome of the choice that I made. Well, like your example of choking, like, yes, when I eat a cheeseburger, I obviously can know that I'm going, that it's a possibility that I choke, but I'm not consenting choking to death. Like it would be good for someone to save me if I'm choking, I really don't want to choke. And the same thing applies to pregnancy. Even though you know that you can get pregnant by the action, doesn't mean you can sense to nine months of pregnancy and having a child and you should abort the baby or have the right to abort the baby in the same way that you should have the right to abort the choking thing in the middle of your throat because it's not what you wanted to. And saying that, well, you can, having sex can sense to pregnancy is like saying, well, being a Jew and being in Germany can sense to being gassed. No, no, it doesn't. The fact that you are imposed upon this extra thing just because you knew it was a possibility, doesn't mean you can sense to that possibility, like people go skateboarding, does that mean they can sense to being, having their legs broken or people go to the beach, does that mean they can sense to getting cancer? No, absolutely not. Those are things that are imposed upon us against our will by nature. We didn't choose these things. And if we could, we'd get rid of them instantly. And that's how we can show it's not consensual. We can say, if this, if we could, if we had the option to choose a beach that had no chance of getting cancer, but equally as fun and a beach that had giving cancer, most people would consent to the beach with no cancer every single time. And the same thing would apply to pregnancy, which is why we use condoms for the most part. They don't always work. So the fact that people would, in pretty much every case, choose the case where there isn't the consequence shows it's not consensual. And in fact, that's kind of the whole point of abortion is that they're not consenting to the pregnancy. So you can't say they consent to pregnancy by having sex because the whole point of abortion is that they don't consent. So it's contradictory to say that they can consent to a secondary consequence that they're literally not consenting to. So in that case, your argument doesn't make sense. I mean, I totally agree that, yeah, we can compare these two between the choking and the baby, that if you do this physical action, you know there's going to be a physical consequence. But that doesn't mean you consent to the physical consequence and that we aren't obligated to try and remedy that consequence, just like the choking. If you're choking, we are obligated to try to like give you the Heimlich maneuver so that you're not choking, just like if you get pregnant without your consent, you're obligated to remove that child from you because you have rights over your body in the exact same way. But I go back to again, the difference being that, you know, if you're choking and somebody gives you the Heimlich remover, they are saving you from choking on a piece of food or whatever, and they are saving you from death. The same moral argument cannot be made whenever you are taking a very literal human being that exists, that is alive. Science tells us that it is alive from the moment of conception, a new human being begins to exist and rewiping that human being from existence. We can make the comparison about whether or not, you know, you consented to a secondary outcome, a secondary consequences of an action that you took knowing that that is a potential outcome. But it comes down to the moral difference between a piece of food and another human being, another human life. And then you have conflicting human rights violations here. You say that a woman has a right to her body, therefore she has the right to have an abortion if she does not want to be pregnant. Well, that human being that's living in her body also has the right to life and did not consent to being put there in the first place and obviously cannot consent to being removed at their demise, at their very literal death. Oh, absolutely, I totally agree. I think that the child being placed into another human being without its consent is also immoral, but the parents didn't do that. The biology did, the nature did. Nature is the one who did the immoral action there. So it's just like my example if you say I eat a cheeseburger and some mad scientist implants me with another human being, clearly that's not my fault. Like I didn't do the evil thing here. I didn't implant the other person into me deliberately. Some evil scientist did. The evil scientist is the evil one. They are the one responsible for the death, not me. And you mentioned that the life, the fact that it's the difference between a cheeseburger isn't alive and a child is alive. Well, that wouldn't make any difference. So if you imagine that if someone was choking you accidentally, like if someone fell on you and was just leaning on your neck and they were unconscious and couldn't do it deliberately, you would have a right to kill them, to remove them, to save your life. So it doesn't matter if they're conscious or not. If they're choking you, you have a right to stop them. And pregnancy was one of the leading causes of death for pretty much women for most of history until we got antibiotics. So it is pretty much analogous to that. And it causes what the technical term is great bodily harm for sure. Like if you imagine a person taking a bowling ball and shoving it up inside of your butt or whatever, that would cause equal damage to men and women as pregnancy. And if someone did that, you would have a right to kill them in self-defense because that's great bodily harm to your body, which is like one of the criteria out of what justifies lethal use of force. So all of those cases can be paralleled whether it's a conscious being or a cheeseburger and unconscious thing. So that doesn't really change my analogy. It still works either way that if a conscious alive being, which I mean, all of our cells are alive so it's not really a big deal. If that thing unintentionally was going to cause you great bodily harm, you would have the right to use deadly force to stop it. In self-defense, regardless of whether or not it knowingly does it. And regardless of whether or not it's the fault of the child. Like again, if an evil scientist does this, if an evil scientist hooks you up to another human being that your blood is keeping them alive, you have a right to disconnect and their death isn't your fault. It's the evil scientist fault. And the evil scientist here is nature and biology. That's the evil one. But we can't, I mean, in all logic, we can say that we are slaves to biology and this is how, regardless of whether or not you believe in a higher power or whether or not you believe in evolution and we're just beings existing, we can't make an enemy out of our basic human biology. We can't say, well, this is how nature, this is what nature has saddled us with. It sucks and it's unfortunate because then we have to get into the moral argument of it. I try not to bring in the moral argument. I like to argue abortion objectively, but morally, as a society, what we have and have not allowed to be considered acceptable, these more absolutes that we have placed in order to be able to live in what we would categorize as a civilized society, one of those more absolutes would be that healing other human beings is wrong. And yes, you do bring up the argument of self-defense, but as a society, there's a difference between saying, this is something that is morally abhorrent. It's a horrible thing. This is a human being that is being starved, poisoned at some points in pregnancy, depending on how far along you are during whenever you get the abortion, sometimes being literally ripped apart, pulled apart piece by piece. This is something that is morally abhorrent, but we should allow it to take place because of X, Y, and Z reason. I could to an extent understand that argument, but there's a difference between saying that this is morally wrong, but we should allow it to take place because like you said, pregnancy, like our maternal mortality right here in the United States is absolutely insane. It is so incredibly disgusting that we are like one of the most advanced countries in the entire world. And we have so many women dying of what you might even call natural causes because pregnancy is a very, very natural biological process. And yet we can't figure out how to keep women from dying from something that their bodies are meant to do. But say somebody breaks into my house and I shoot them in self-defense because I don't know what their intentions are. And it turns out that they were unarmed, they were a kid, they were mentally unstable, they were tripping out on drugs, for whatever reason, as a society, we know that yes, I had the moral rights to kill them because I didn't know what the outcome was, but it's still a horrible thing that happened and another human life was ended. But that's not what we see in society today. We see this abortion being pushed as not just something that's morally justified, but something that's good, that's okay, that we should be pushing on women as a solution to not just not wanting to be pregnant, but being in situations where a child might be disabled or might have some type of handicap. And then we're getting into pretty much straight up eugenics. Like abortion is being used as a form of eugenics at this point. So as a pro-life activist, where is that moral line? Whenever we're talking about what is morally justified, what are we a society going to morally allow to be, not just normalized, but pushed as something that is good and healthy as a society? All right, like I agreed in the beginning that killing anyone for any reason is immoral. So I grant that the child is a living human being and killing it is immoral, but like I mentioned in the evil doctor analogy, we're not the ones doing the immoral thing, it was the doctor for placing it in us without our consent. So yes, I grant that killing any human being ever for any reason is always immoral, but it's kind of like my doctor analogy. If you imagine being a doctor in the 1800s and someone has a bullet wound in the leg, your best option is to cut off the leg. If a doctor did that today, it would be immoral. We'd immediately throw him in prison for like 40 years for unaggravated assault essentially, because you could just give someone an antibiotic and that would cure them. But 200 years ago, that was the most moral thing you could do because you only had that level of technology to be able to heal the wound in that way was the best you could do. And abortion is kind of the same thing we have today. The reason we kill the baby is because we don't have another option. We can't just remove it without causing lots of physical damage to the woman and have it be alive just to like put it, bring it up in a test tube or whatever to give it up to adoption. We don't have the technology to do that yet. Once we do, absolutely, we should completely stop any killing of fetuses ever because we have the technology to do otherwise. And the reason we can't do that is for the same reason that the doctor can't just give someone an antibiotic 200 years ago, we don't have the technology. So I grant that that is immoral. I grant it's always immoral to kill anyone ever, but until we have the technology to do otherwise, it's the least justified or the most justified immoral thing we can do just like the doctor cutting off someone's leg. And so I do think that we can answer that question that you asked at the end which is where do we draw the line between what's moral and justified or immoral and justified? It's based off of technology. Once we have the technology to impose less on other living beings, then we are morally obligated to do that. But until we have that technology, then we have to do the best we can with the limited technology we have, which right now is the abortion method of killing the baby to not cause damage to the mother. And until we can do better with better technology, that's just the best we have just like the doctor cutting a patient's leg off. And see, I think that's probably where like you being, because you have a very unique perspective on being supportive of abortion. And I actually haven't ever heard a pro-choice person ever admit that abortion is an immoral thing. But in your mind that this is the best option that we can offer society as a whole because we have not advanced to technology to where we can safely remove the fetus and allow that fetus to continue living, at least until like a certain point in pregnancy. Whereas for me, where I differ with my morals, for me, I consider the temporary, I haven't gone through pregnancy twice, I consider the temporary being pregnant for nine months. Or even, I would even go as far as saying, being pregnant until viability, like just be pregnant until viability, then we can remove the fetus and give the fetus its best chance at life. For me on like my moral compass, I see that as like the better option of compromise as far as like moral society goes, like, okay, abortion is immoral, killing humans is always immoral. You can argue that imposing another human being on a woman is also immoral. Whenever I'm like weighing pros and cons, abortion is 100% or 99.99% of the time results in death, whereas pregnancy, especially if you're only going to like 21 to 25 weeks is significantly less deadly. I would argue that if we're weighing the pros and cons or morality of it, I would say that having women be pregnant for five, five, six months, and then removing the fetus and allowing the fetus to have their best chance at life outside the womb whenever they are able to survive would be the moral, like the best we can do as far as morals go for a civilized society until we are able to garner the technology to where as soon as a woman finds out she's pregnant, doesn't wanna be, we can remove that embryo, put it in a test tube, put it in one of those little pod things that we're trying to advance right now and give them their best chance at life. For me, whenever we're arguing what is immoral, what is more immoral, my stance would be the one that is less likely to result in the death of a human being would be the more moral option. That doesn't make sense to me because like gunshots, 92% of gunshots are non-fatal, but if someone points a gun at you, I don't think it's reasonable to say, well, you know, most of them you survive, so I should just let him shoot me because killing him would be definitely less likely to more likely cause more death than if I let him shoot me because most gunshots survive. I don't think that actually makes sense. I think that if someone is going to shoot you and you know what's going to cause essentially four to nine months of you being in the hospital or having severe back pain or severe bodily injury that in many cases will cost you your job and your relationships and lots of money and lots of things that you have no controller that could destroy your life, especially if you're impoverished. I don't think that it's justified to say, well, you know, it's not gonna kill me. So I'll just live with it. I don't think that's a good justification to define this moral. But the difference being that, yes, okay, pregnancy can have complications and it's something that we should definitely do more research into to say why are we having so many complications in pregnancy because it is so natural. This is something that a woman's body is designed to do. So why are there so many, why do women face so many problems in going through this biological process? But whenever somebody points a gun at you, they are a direct threat to your life and your safety, whereas the argument of whether a fetus poses a direct threat to your health and safety, I think that that's more of a gray area and it's more subjective than it is objective because a fetus did not ask to be put inside you. This is a natural biological process and many, many women go through pregnancy without any complications whatsoever. And whenever you're making the argument of she only has to go through like half the pregnancy and then have the fetus safely removed to give them their best chance at life. I struggle with the idea that we should allow, we should still allow them to abort and guarantee that that fetus is going to die to protect them from any minor complications that they might have in the first five months of pregnancy. Now, whenever, if we were to ever implement this and say she did have something like preeclampsia can come up in the first five months of pregnancy to where it literally comes down to we need to have this fetus removed or this woman is going to die. Breaks are being pressed down right now, you're fine. You're going to find many pro-life activists that are actually against treatment like that. Like whenever it comes down to the woman needs life-saving care and it might end the life of the fetus and it might not. All the pro-lifers in my circle are not opposed to that. Whenever the pregnancy does pose a direct threat to the woman's safety, we are pro-allowing a woman to safely get care even if it might mean the demise of the fetus. Well, I'm not talking about complications as in things that go wrong into pregnancy. I'm just granting pregnancy goes perfect. The amount of damage done to the body by that is equivalent to someone taking a bowling ball and shutting up a guy's ass. There is a lot of damage there. That is not, that itself is a complication. That itself would qualify as great bodily harm, just the pregnancy going perfectly. And the amount of pain without an epidural before we had any technology. Again, this killed a third of women prior to like 200 years ago. So this is a serious medical concern here. This is not just, well, if it's fine, if we just let it go. No, this requires a lot of stuff. And even if you grant just having to go perfectly, even in a hospital, the amount of money, especially in America that it costs to do these kinds of things is significant. It's like, you can, just the treatment, the amount of time it takes to go to work, your job, if you're especially like a model or something, there's lots of things that this could cost you that have nothing to do with complications in pregnancy. Pregnancy itself causes significant harm to a body and significant challenges to a person's life just by it going perfectly. Saying that someone has to sacrifice that much of their life to this person that's no different from saying someone like breaks your leg with a baseball bat and you just have to recover for six months, that itself still justifies self-defense and use of lethal force. Like, even if it's unintentional, like if someone like falls asleep at the wheel or something or has an epileptic seizure at the wheel of a car is gonna hit you. Yeah, you have the right to use deadly force to stop them, even if they didn't intend to do it. So the intentionality or whether or not nature has this malicious intent of trying to impose the baby on you or not, it makes no difference. Like the fact that there is this thing inside of your body which you have sovereignty over and it's going to cause significant damage to your body and your life, you have the right to say no, this is not something I consent to. And even if you yourself think it's perfectly fine having gone through it, that doesn't mean everyone else does. Like I've been stabbed, I think it's not really that bad. That doesn't mean everyone else is okay with it. Doesn't mean like, oh, well, it's moral for me to get that like, no, the fact that I was okay with it and didn't really bother me that much. Doesn't mean everyone else can then consent by some kind of median of me determining this is totally okay. Like no, every individual has their own limitations of what they're willing to go through and forcing them to go through someone else's set of limitations is also a moral. You shouldn't be judging their life based off of yours. So in the case of like the socioeconomic things that you mentioned, like say she's a model and she's going or even there are tons of jobs that if women get pregnant, especially unexpectedly that they are at risk of losing their jobs. There are a lot of social issues that come along with the abortion debate of society just not being accepting, not being helpful, not being willing to bend or cater to women that have even planned pregnancies let alone unpranned pregnancies. So whenever we're arguing morals would it not be a better option to address the socioeconomic issues that honestly drive the majority of women into the abortion clinic to begin with and these women overwhelmingly have stated that they don't want to the abortion. They're getting the abortion specifically because of these socioeconomic issues. Wouldn't it be better to address those issues and fix them instead of just sitting by and being like, yeah, this isn't a moral thing that we're doing but we should just allow this immoral thing to continue on instead of trying to fix the problems at the root. Absolutely, I think definitely the same thing would apply to crime if we could get everyone a personal force field that made it impossible for anyone to shoot you. Yes, we should definitely do that instead of just locking people up in prison but we don't have that option yet. That is even further down the line technologically than having the ability to remove children and grow them in test tubes without it causing any damage to one's body. That is absolutely, that would definitely be a solution but that's even more like ridiculously idealistic than just the solution that of being able to remove children without causing any harm to either the mother or the child. Like that's not a solution that we can solve right away. Obviously, I totally agree. There's many different things that are immoral like socioeconomic pressures on people that they don't consent to and natural impotence on people that they don't consent to. Both of those are immoral we should fix both of those definitely but the question is like you mentioned earlier what's the answer to the question of how do we determine which things are justified as technology? What do we have the technology to actually do? The most realistic solution we have is allowing abortions. That costs the least, it's the most technologically possible solution we have. We can't just solve economic issues like what you're mentioning. That is incredibly impossible. I would love to do that. It'd be great. I don't know how. I mean, whenever I'm talking about like socioeconomic issues I'm a libertarian. So I'm very much not in favor of like the government being involved in solving these issues. I think that the change would be majority on like a social level. The way that society views and I would contribute this largely to the abortion industry. The way that society views pregnancy and society views women's ability to get pregnant even whenever they don't intend to. The way that society views children in general has made society genuinely an unloving place to women that get pregnant whether they intend to or don't intend to. So whenever I'm talking about solving these issues I'm really more on like the social side of it of just changing the way that society views pregnancy and the way that society views families and having children whether it's a planned or unplanned. As far as trying to solve all of the world's issues and living in a utopia I understand that that's very, very far fetched and it's not likely to ever happened because we're human beings and human nature and all that but whenever it comes down to literally talking about life and death situations abortion offers absolutely no chance for one human being to come out of it alive whereas with pregnancy there is a significantly higher chance of both of those human beings coming out alive. So my moral argument remains as we as a society even in the worst of circumstances where you can say that lethal force was justified in the best of like the best of circumstances is that both human beings come out alive. So should we not be pushing for the option of trying to save both human beings? Well, again, I'd go back to my analogy like if someone comes at you with a knife or a gun like you have 90% chance of surviving that encounter because bullets mostly don't kill you as long as you get to hospital fast enough that doesn't mean you're not justified in killing them even if letting them attack you would have a higher likelihood of you both surviving than killing them that doesn't mean it's not justified to kill them to protect yourself like if some other human being is causing a significant just great bodily harm to your body that is justifiable to end their life. It doesn't matter if it's gonna kill you or not and months of pregnancy or months in a hospital or months with a broken leg all of those things justifies great bodily harm. So the life here isn't really the equivalent in the equation like even things that could cause lots and lots of suffering could be worse than allowing both of you to live like the case of someone shooting you it may be justified to kill them even if it's not gonna kill you if you don't. So I don't think that's a great solution. I don't think that's moral but the other thing you mentioned was the societal opinions like best of luck to you changing millions of people's opinions I think that is an admirable goal but I think it's more likely that we're gonna get technology technological ability to give everyone personal force fields before that happens but it would be cool. But even if we grant that I still think that the physical harm done to the body in and of itself regardless of any socioeconomic issues even if there were none is still justifiable for self-defense just because of the great bodily harm done to you without your consent. And like I mentioned earlier because it's you can't say it's moral just because nature did it this is essentially occurring because some external force has imposed this thing on your body without your consent you have every right to reject that and not be obligated to abide by it just like you would for cancer or someone locking you up in the violence experiment hooking you up to somebody else's body or choking death all of those things are things imposed upon you by nature you didn't consent to and it's no more obligatory for you to abide by those things than if a God imposed these things on you. So I think that even if we solve the socioeconomic issues it's still justifiable to get an abortion because of the damage done to your body until we can fix both of those things it would never be justifiable to make abortion illegal. So because of your I just I thought about this earlier and then I left my brain I wanted to ask you so because of the way that you view abortion as being morally justified are you therefore opposed to like are you in favor of having limits to abortions to where because like viability because the fetus can survive outside of the womb we should not allow abortions to take place after that. Well, I have no idea what I'm not a biologist so I have no idea what the limitation should be but I'm definitely for limitations. Like I said earlier, you asked what is the criteria we use to establish what is the limit of where things become justifiable and my answer is technology. If we have the technology to save both lives with very limited damage to both and that is the criteria and we should use not leave that up to doctors to determine where that should be because I'm not one, I have no idea where that is but yes, I definitely think there should be limits and those limits are determined by our technological ability. Like if we had the ability to prevent any socioeconomic issues and we had the ability to remove the child without killing it or harming the mother it would be immoral to kill the child in every single case. So I totally agree there should be limits for sure. Okay, I was just curious because I have never honestly like I have to give you props because I've been doing pro-life activism for almost seven years and I've never heard the moral argument of whether or not it's morally acceptable to have an abortion due to you know, the Trump and I'm not going to sugarcoat it. I've gone through pregnancy twice. There is a certain level of hardship that comes with it. I had some complications with both of my pregnancies. I personally because I don't know if it's because I see more value in saving both lives. I stand by the option of trying to keep both people alive. I don't see pregnancy as posing a direct threat to the woman's life, especially if we're only having her go through the first five months of pregnancy. Childbirth can cause death. It can cause harm. It can cause trauma. But we have no way of knowing that beforehand of what the child is going to be. Of what kind of harm potentially could come from pregnancy. So like you made the comparison of someone pointing a gun at you. Like you know that 90% of the time you're going to survive that gunshot. But they are pointing a gun at you. They're posing a direct threat to you. Whereas a fetus isn't posing a direct threat to a woman's health and safety. We know that pregnancy can cause bodily harm. But we don't know if it will cause bodily harm. So I would say that really the moral equipment would be somebody walking in and you see that they have a gun on them and they know that they could shoot you and that could cause you bodily harm. So you're just going to go ahead and shoot them because they could possibly shoot you and cause bodily harm. They could possibly kill you. Whereas a fetus, I don't see them as posing a direct threat to a woman's health and safety. Well, when you think about pregnancy and having no doctors, no medical treatment at all, the death rate for pregnancy is like 30%. It's huge. It's significantly deadly. Same with gunshots. If you get no medical treatment, it's about 30%. If you get shot, you're dead because of blood loss. So they're actually really comparable if you don't include medical treatment. But if you include medical treatment, they're also pretty close to comparable because if you get a doctor then you'll be able to save your life. So I actually see those as actually really comparable examples. Like if someone's pointing the gun at you and you can think, well, if they shoot me and I get to a hospital, I'll probably survive. That's pretty much the same as having a pregnancy and saying, well, as long as I get to a hospital I'll survive, so it's okay. But when you take away that hospital, you realize they're actually the same. Like if you're in a like pygmy tribe in Africa and you get pregnant, like you don't have good chances here. This is going to cause significant damage to your body. You're going to have very good chances of getting an infection. You will probably die in many cases. This is not a safe thing to occur. And so I don't see how that isn't comparable to the gunshot example, and it seems pretty much exactly comparable. Because like you make the comparison of like, if you get shot and you make it to a hospital, like there's a very, very good chance of you surviving. Pregnancies are overwhelmingly unless you have absolutely zero access to prenatal care, which I very much pro, like everybody should have access to healthcare. If you have access to prenatal care and you are having that pregnancy monitored most of the time, every two weeks, sometimes week to week, making sure that everything is going the way that it is supposed to because pregnancy is a natural occurrence. The body is just going through a biological process. Like you said, there's a very, very minimal chance of anything going wrong. And if something does go wrong, there is the ability to intervene almost immediately, get medication, get whether if, like I said, I am very much pro if the woman absolutely has to have the fetus removed in order to save her life. Then at that point, the fetus is posing a direct threat to her health and safety. It comes down to the woman is going to die if we do not have this fetus removed. They are posing a direct threat to her health, her safety and her life. And therefore we have to have the fetus removed. Like very much like a topic pregnancies, for example, there is absolutely zero chance of both human beings surviving this. Therefore one has to be removed from the equation. And if it happens before 21, 22 weeks, the fetus has absolutely zero chance of survival. Therefore you have to choose the woman because she is the only one that can survive in that situation. Okay, so imagine that we're in a hospital and someone's pointing the gun at you. And so you know you're gonna get medical treatment. Someone's gonna be there to treat you. You will probably not die from this. Is it immoral to kill the person in self-defense in that case? Because well, you're in a hospital so it's probably not gonna kill you. No, but again, like there's a person pointing a gun at you. They are causing, like they are a direct threat to your health. Whereas a fetus, we don't know if they're going to cause any type of bodily harm if we allow them to continue gestating. Well, I'm not sure what you mean here because the physical damage is about equivalent. So even if we can get rid of the intention, just say it happens by chance. Someone is waving a gun around to do an epileptic shock. It was one of the cops. He was there to protect people and he has an epileptic shock and he's pointing the gun at you. The intention doesn't matter here. All the only thing I'm comparing is the physical damage to the body. The physically, the act of getting pregnant, what occurs physically in the body is you have a mass that is growing in your body that causes significant damage to the body inside of you because there's a thing growing. Like a bowling ball-sized thing inside of you. That's pretty significant damage. Like if you just imagine someone doing that like an evil doctor just causing equivalent damage to your body without the pregnancy, yeah, you would be able to kill the doctor in self-defense if you was just doing the exact same things to your body. So I don't see how it's different just because, well, nature does it this way and we've had it this way for thousands of years. I don't think, again, that's a naturalistic fallacy. Just saying, well, that's the way nature works. Doesn't mean it's justifiable to abide by the way nature works. If we just look at the physical damage done to the body by pregnancy and by a doctor who did the exact same things, yeah, you would be justified in killing the doctor, for sure. I don't see how that would work just like you'd be justified in killing the guy who's pointing a gun at you in a hospital even though you have a high likelihood of surviving. I think where we differ, like where our opinions are differing is, like from my standpoint is what I'm arguing is that we can't know until it happens if there is any level of trauma that happens. Like pregnancy in and of itself, especially in the early months of pregnancy does not cause trauma to the body. Trauma occurs whenever there are complications during pregnancy and of course childbirth does and can cause bodily trauma. But just like naturally gestating fetus in the early months of pregnancy, you can have significant complications that cause severe morning sickness. But as far as actual trauma to the body, like I said, the woman's body is designed to be able to do this, the organs move and they adjust and the body adjusts to the fetus being in the woman's body. There is no significant or severe trauma in the early months of pregnancy just from being pregnant. Well, sure, I can grant that and let's say there's a chance that the guy pointing a gun at you could miss and it'll cause no damage to your body. Does that make it justifiable for you not to kill him in self-defense? I'm sorry, you cut out there for a second. Can you hear me? Yeah, so it's like if we imagine the guy with the gun pointed at you in the hospital, he could miss. So if he misses, there's no damage to your body. Does that mean, well, because he could miss and because if he hits you, you're very likely to succeed to survive because you're in a hospital. Does that mean it's immoral for you to kill him in self-defense? No, it's not immoral for you to kill somebody that is posing a direct threat to your health and safety. But I don't think that the same argument can be made for a fetus that is just existing. And we do know that there could possibly be trauma to a pregnancy, but that trauma is not imminent and it might never happen. They're not posing a direct threat to a woman by just gestating. So what's the difference between the examples? So for example, we have a gun and the guy's pointed at you. You could miss and maybe the pregnancy could cause no damage. Both of those are possibilities. Or there's chances that they could cause significant harm if they're not treated and they kill you, which happens many times all over the world, pre-industrial age. Or we get treatment and they're both likely to not hurt you at about the same rate. It seems like they're the same in all the three cases. I'm not seeing the difference here. The difference is being that, I don't know how I could word this differently. We're not going just round and round in circles. In my opinion, the comparison would be if a fetus is causing a woman to have any kind of symptoms, any kind of trauma to the body, they are then posing a direct threat just like with a person with a gun poses a direct threat to your health and safety. The fact that it could potentially do that, isn't that a direct threat? The fact that it could potentially cause doesn't not damage? No, because like anything could potentially cause damage. Like I could get into my car and potentially get in a car accident of no fault of my own, but me getting into my car isn't have caused like me being in a car accident. Like I'm not going through trauma just by being in my car. Whereas like just like with a pregnancy, they're not posing a direct threat to the woman's health and safety by something that could potentially happen. How is that different from a gun being pointed at you? Cause it could potentially be shot, but it isn't actually being shot yet. Because a person pointing a gun at you is directly threatening you. Well, again, it could be like an epileptic seizure and the guy is doing it accidentally. So how is that different from the potential of the bullet shooting you and the potential of a pregnancy causing physical complications? Those seem to be the same cause they're both potential. They may not and they may do it. And the fact that there is a potential there with a pretty significant probability seems like, yeah, you seem justified in stopping that person using deadly force. Yeah, but like if a person, okay, he has an epileptic seizure and he happens to point a gun at you, the gun is still being pointed at you and posing a direct threat to your health and safety. Whether or not he's intending to point it at you, he is still pointing it at you. Like that direct threat to your health and safety is there. Like, you know. Imagine instead of a baby, you have a bomb inside of you and the bomb has a 30% chance of going off. That's a potential threat. It may do nothing. It may just be like a pill or something that just passes you without ever noticing. So there's a person gonna give you this pill. Is it justified to kill them in self-defense if it has a 30% chance or a 20% chance of going off and killing you? A 10% chance? But the difference of being that it's a bomb and it's a human being, whereas if you diffuse the bomb, you're not directly taking the life of another human being and wiping another human being from existence. Okay, let me change the analogy a bit. So we have a pill with a human being and a bomb in it and this doctor is gonna give you the pill. There's a 10% chance the bomb goes off and kills you both or damages you significantly, kills the other person, whatever, and you can reject the pill but it kills the human being. Like, are you justified in rejecting the pill? You froze. Can you still hear me? Yeah, I can still hear you. So I'll say it again. Like imagine you have a pill and the pill has a bomb. I'm sorry, it's my internet. You're coming in all kinds of laggy, just giving. Hey, James, can you hear me clearly or is it just K? I can hear each of you clearly. My only thing is, let's see, whether or not your guys' connection, I would think it's not yours, Tom. If there's problems, it must be K's because I can hear you, Tom. I think she froze. It looks a little laggy on K's side. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Yes. Can you hear us? Okay, the picture's back. Can you hear us talking? I can hear you. Think this may be the last question that we do before we go into the Q and A, so go ahead, I'll give you a chance to ask that again, Tom. Yeah, so my question is, is imagine there's a doctor who's gonna give you a pill and the pill has a human being and a bomb in it and the bomb has a 10% chance of going off and causing you significant damage. Would you be justified in killing the pill in self-defense? The pill has a human being in it? Yeah, human being in a bomb and the doctor's gonna give you the pill and there's a 10% chance the bomb goes off and kills you both or just the baby inside and causes you physical damage. Would you be justified in slapping the pill away and killing the person in it in self-defense? I guess in this scenario, yes, but I go back to my argument that unless a woman was raped or of no fault of her own, like these are actions that directly resulted in pregnancy taking place that a woman willingly entered into. Whereas in this idea of you have the option of, you have the option of, He went so badly to be a part of this conversation. In this fictional scenario, whenever it comes down to a direct threat to, it's a pill, it's a human being and a bomb. I see that as a direct threat to your health and safety. Like they're putting a bomb inside you. We do want to jump into the Q and A, we want to say thank you as well, folks. We are really excited that during the stream, always encouraging that we actually had, hold on, that's not it, two seconds. Let me get to the right picture. We actually had, we actually had someone become a new pleasure for the is Christianity dangerous debate coming up. So thank you so much to the new person who pledged. We appreciate that. And jumping into those questions, thanks so much. Appreciate it. This one comes in from old friend Robert Bull. Robert and I got our masters together at Texas Tech. He says, can you, Kay, can you ask Kay, how 14 year old girls who get pregnant are morally obligated to keep the baby? Does she believe a child can make a decision that serious? I would argue that making the choice to end another human life and go through the process of an abortion. If you say that she can make one and not the other, I feel like that's kind of a double standard. Consenting to going through a pregnancy and then potentially being able to give that child up for adoption, giving that child their best option, or having her make the decision of ending another human being's life. I see them as being equally as important choices to make. So saying that it's morally wrong to ask a 14 year old to make one decision, but not morally wrong to ask her to make the other decision kind of applies a double standard. You got it, thanks so much. And this next question comes in from, I thought we had someone, oh, Brian Stevens, appreciate it, said, if T-Jump knew the mad scientist put organisms in 4% of cheeseburgers, would he bear some responsibility by eating a cheeseburger given this prior knowledge? No, that would all be on the evil mad scientist. We're not obligated to bear responsibility because an evil mad scientist puts anthrax in a cheeseburger. No, that's clearly the evil mad scientist named Yahweh's fault. Gotcha, and thank you for your question coming in from, Steven Steen, how appropriate, as I just showed you guys that, this is here's our car wash scene. I told you, regarding this Kickstarter, Steven Steen and T-Jump and I, no matter what it takes, we'll do a car wash in January, folks. This is footage. This picture right here is Steven Steen, and Tom jumping myself during our car wash, and so we'll get back to that picture later, but excited that your buddy Steven Steen is here, Tom, and he says, Tom taught me the birds and the bees. We have a three-year-old, three children together, and he is a great dad. And then the night. Yeah, that's where I learned about those four bees facts from Nadir. He taught me those. That's what led to this whole thing. I can thank Nadir for this. What a sweet message. All right, next up, this one comes from L. Spaghetti. Says, it's too early for this, but K, quote, life begins at fertilization. Is a sperm egg cell not alive? What difference does it make that these cells have began replicating into a zygote? The difference being that once a egg and a sperm meets and it is fertilized, a unique human being begins to exist with its own DNA, its own ability to grow into what an adult human being is, whereas an egg by itself cannot do that, a sperm by itself cannot do that. Gotcha, and thanks for your question. Oh, we got that. Michael Dresden, yes, says, TJ, I'm getting dunked on yet again, L-O-L, okay. I'm sorry. It's just that some of these are so flagrantly trollish that stupid or energy, I think, is a serious one, says, there's no scientific consensus on what is life. So science cannot conform anything, quote, unquote, alive. I'm guessing that's for me. We don't have anything that says, this is what constitutes life, but we do have the classifications that science uses to classify life. And at the moment of fertilization, it is all written in the unique new human beings genetic code in their DNA, everything that we use to classify life. The embryo, the blastocyst, the zygote, meets the moment of fertilization. Gotcha, and thank you for your question. This one coming in from Alex Gross, appreciate it, says, at the end of the day, pro-life, quote, unquote, advocates, simply do so for personal emotional reasons. Sorry, you can't justify a maxim by appealing to what you think, quote, should be natural, unquote, no new ideas here at all. I mean, I think that we as human beings do a lot of things based on emotions. The reason why we don't allow people to just go out and kill other people is based on the emotional appeal of it's wrong to kill other people. So yes, to an extent, I am very emotional about other humans dying at the hands of other human beings. Gotcha, and we think to be fair, all logic is also based on emotion. So if you damage the emotional parts of your brain, you can no longer do logic either. So pretty much all of our beliefs are based on emotion. Juicy, and thanks so much for your question. This one coming in from stupid horror energy, strikes again. She says, if you think abortion is murder, a miscarriage is manslaughter. What do you think about them apples, Kay? There is a difference between nature just going through its biological process, and it is unfortunate. I have suffered more than one miscarriage, and it is a horrible thing to go through. I would not compare that to intentionally taking the life of a human being. And I think that comparing the two is both unfair and a little bit rude and unfailing towards women that have gone through miscarriage that wanted that pregnancy to succeed and didn't. It's very different than intentionally choosing to end your pregnancy. I actually agree with everything she said, but I would like to add one thing there. I think that a miscarriage done by nature is nature killing someone. So I think it is murder of a person that isn't the woman's fault, but it's nature's fault. Nature killed a person there, and so nature, whoever created it, is a monster. Okay, thank you very much. From Awkward Saint Senior says, you consent to the risk and possibility of pregnancy. We all know what happens when you engage in the act. I think that they're, I think the act refers to intercourse. Yeah, so that's like saying, well, Jews consent to being gassed because they live in Germany, and well, they know what Hitler does. So clearly it's their fault. Like, no, that's not how consent works. See how long this video stays on YouTube. A lot of trigger words, but Alex Gross, thank you for your questions. Abortion is relatively pragmatic. Good. It's a relatively pragmatic good. We are constantly finding new ways to avoid nature, imposing us. That's why human life expectancy isn't 25 anymore. K. That's something that I actually agreed with Tom on in this debate is that I do believe that if there is a way to prevent the horrible things that nature does, then we should be doing it. The reason that I oppose abortion as a solution to women being able to get pregnant whenever they don't want to get pregnant is that abortion ends another human life. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Appreciate your question. This one coming in from Ellen Green says, Tom, jump if a mother doesn't want to breastfeed anymore, her body, her choice after all, and her baby becomes malnourished as a result is what she did not immoral? If we have an option to solve the problem without breastfeeding, then she has every right to not breastfeed. And yes, so that's not immoral at all because we have baby solutions. So yeah, you can totally not do that. If after pregnancy you have consented to have a child and then you are under a consensual obligation to take care of the child, you choose not to in the 1800s before we had then, then yes, it would be immoral. But because we have the technology to alleviate that now, which is a good thing, and yeah, it's perfectly fine to not breastfeed. It's totally the woman's choice. Gotcha. And thanks for your question. This one comes in from, say, read this malnour, yep. Lying4Jesus.org says, Kay, who is caring for all these children once they're born? Conservatives don't even want to pay for or take care of the parentless children at our borders. Well, you're going to have a hard time getting me to argue with that. I think that the fact that the majority of pro-lifers are against getting help to women and women in these unplanned pregnancy situations and children that need assistance, that are already born. I think that that's important and you're going to have a hard time getting me to argue against that. But we don't say that you can't be against puppy mills that murder puppies that don't get adopted because there's nobody to adopt them. Like, it's okay to be against the killing of other human beings, even if you don't step up and take all of them into your home. Gotcha. And thanks for your question. This one coming in from Robert Bull for T-Jump says, can you ask T-Jump if he believes people should be allowed to abort their fetus without limits? If not, what limits does he believe are immoral or moral? Yeah, Kay asked that earlier. I leave it up to the scientists and biologists who actually understand the topic, which I do not. So I definitely think there should be limits and the limits are determined by our technological ability to impose the least involuntary imposition of will possible. And so whatever that is, which is determined by the scientists, that is the limit. Gotcha. And Matt Dieter asks T-Jump, he says T-Jump essentially argues pregnancy is equivalent to assault, but he fails to support that proposition. Pregnancy being viewed as assault is subjective. I don't understand the question. Like the physical ramifications are equivalent to assault. The difference is, well, who caused the assault? Was it another person, a conscious agent or a non-conscious agent nature? And I say, well, I don't care if it was nature, like a rock falling on you, I consider it to be assault because we should prevent it if we could. I think it's immoral that rocks can kill people without their consent. I think we should stop that as much as possible. So it doesn't matter to me whether the assault was done by a conscious agent or by nature, it's still immoral. I think we should prevent it if we could. Gotcha. Thanks for your question. Al Spaghetto says, this is a stick up. Everybody remember the moment you first, quote, turned on, unquote, right now and reflect on whether or not you would have known or cared if you were alive or not before that point came. By turned on, I think they meant like you became aware that you were alive. Yeah, I mean, I understand like the argument that he's making, like, you know, if you're aborted, you never knew that you existed. So therefore it's okay. I don't follow that reasoning. We don't say that it's wrong to kill someone based on whether or not they were aware of it. If I'm asleep and someone, like if somebody poisons me without knowing and I go to sleep and I never wake up again, like I had no understanding of being killed, but it was still wrong. Gotcha. Thanks so much and appreciate your question. This one coming in from Get Stanfield said, Kay, are you just as supportive for babies after they are born, even into adulthood? I guess that I would have to, you'd have to clarify like, what do you mean by being supportive? I am pro, very much pro charity work. I volunteer at my local crisis pregnancy center whenever I can. I am pro, I believe that everybody should have access to healthcare. I mean, they would have to clarify what they mean by supportive of people after they're born. Gotcha, thank you. And Elle Spaghetti says, I could really go for a cheeseburger about now. Thanks a lot, Tom. Can't remember. Did you use the thought experiment with cheeseburger? Yes. Okay, I must have missed it. But Stupid Horror Energy says, is that car wash footage from the movie Debbie does Dallas, no you sicko. Next, this is weird, appreciate it says, was Dolly the sheep alive? Her genetic code was not unique and her development did not start with an egg and a sperm. I'm unfamiliar with what they're talking about. I would need more context. Test tube sheep. Tom loves them. Interesting. You think Tom loves test tube sheep? Hey, if they taste like normal sheep, they're great. I love it. But yeah, so it's just he's saying, if we used a single genetic material and then just caused it to duplicate without using a sperm and an egg in a test tube, would it still be alive? And I would say yes. Gotcha, appreciate it. Next up, this next question. Oh, we have a new one from Stupid Horror Energy herself says, what does- I think K grows again. K, are you with us? Oh, this one's for K, so I'll jump, I'll go to the next one. Matt Dieter says, T-jump dodged. Please explain how intent plays a role in assault T-jump. Attent? Intent. Intent. Oh, like, so again, as I said, in my moral view, if a rock falls on you, I consider that assault by my definition, so intent has nothing to do with it. I think it's equally as immoral if there was no intent as if there was intent, because my model of morality considers the consequences to your body and your will to be the thing that matters. Gotcha. All right, got one for you, K. Thank you for waiting. This one comes in from Stupid Horror Energy who says, what does K think about the morals or ethics of in vitro fertilization? Making, implanting, many fertilized eggs, knowing one will take hold, all others will die. Is she back? Oh, she disappeared, K is gone. Well, don't worry, I bet she'll jump back in in just a moment, folks, so we will get her answer on that question. In the meantime, want to remind you, I'm just gonna keep an eye on the Zoom entrance in case she comes in and she's in the waiting room. We are stoked, you guys. I will just quick mention, if you guys have not known it, I am honestly so overwhelmed with joy. Oh, we got K back already, there we go. All right, oh, we just lost her again. All right, I'll keep an eye on when K comes back. We're stoked, though, that last Friday we met our Kickstarter goal. You guys, this is going to be epic, we are thrilled for it. And so if you would like to watch this debate live next week, this one, as we are trying to take bigger risks, trying to get bigger speakers, Dr. Michael Schermer, for example, being a New York Times author, as well as the founder of Skeptic Magazine. And I go on and on about his credentials, but this one is going to be an epic one, so I highly want to encourage you to tune in next Friday. The Kickstarter for it ends on Thursday. So if you want to watch it live, folks, highly encourage you. It's by Thursday at noon that you'd have to pledge, and we thank you for those of you who have already supported that. As you can see on the right, we've already reached our goal. We're going for the new stretch goal of 3,000, and we're at about 82%. I think we can do it, folks. I'm pumped about it, and we're going to make it. K, can you hear me? Yep, my internet just completely kicked me out. No problemo. What I'm going to do is read this question for you, and then... So Matt Dieter says, no, no, that's... Stupid War Energy says, what does K think about the morals and ethics of in vitro fertilization? Namely, making or implanting many fertilized eggs, knowing that one will take, and yet all others will die. Well, fun fact, I actually... I'm in the middle of going through my third round of egg donation. I think that in vitro fertilization is an amazing thing. It's a technological advancement that allows women that really, really want to get pregnant, that otherwise would not be able to get pregnant. It allows them the chance to do so, and the clinic that I go to to do my egg donation actually has a great program where the eggs that are fertilized that are not used are then donated to women that can't afford in vitro fertilization, so that they have the option of pretty much adopting that embryo. I view the moral argument against in vitro fertilization because some of the eggs might not implant the same way that I view miscarriage. It's an unfortunate reality. Sometimes the body just does not cooperate with you, and I don't think that we should bar women from getting the chance to go through pregnancy simply for that reason. Gotcha, and thanks for your question just came in. AnimatedFG said, consent is important to moral thinking. Is it not immoral to force a woman to be pregnant against her will? Consent to sex isn't consent to procreate. I think we kind of went over this with our kind of back and forth about what is and is not moral, where you can make the argument that it's immoral to say that a woman has to remain pregnant whenever she doesn't want to, and you can also say that it's immoral to take another human life, and you just have to weigh what is more or less immoral between the two. Gotcha, and thanks for your question. Robert Boll asked, can you follow up with Kay on why she believes that sleeping is a state of unconsciousness in spite of the fact that brain creates dreams? Well, if we're going off of the brain creating dreams, there is at a certain point of pregnancy, I believe it's like 21 weeks where a fetus can dream. So if we're saying that consciousness equals being able to dream, a fetus can also dream. You got it, not responding to your answer, just something in the chat that I'm mulling over. Let's see, in my opinion, I'm wondering, I'm like, I don't know, is this the... There might be more information needed to where I'm like, I don't know if that's what I'm up for, but do want to say thanks so much, folks. We will be back with a post-credits scene, and our guests, both Kay and Tom, are linked in the description. So if you'd like to hear more from them, you certainly can by clicking on those links in the description. We have huge updates about the channel, guys. I'm super pumped, and so thanks so much. Stoked to hang out with you in just a bit as we go into that post-credits scene, but one last time, do want to say thank you so much, Tom, and thank you so much, Kay, for being with us. People have loved this. We had, like, yeah, it was a huge response. People really enjoyed it, and so we do really appreciate that, and thank you for being on with us at modern day debate. Thanks for having us on. You betcha. Oh, sorry, Kay, didn't mean to cut you off. Yeah, I was just gonna say thanks. I always enjoy coming on. Absolutely, thank you, and with that, folks, we will be back in 58 seconds. Please enjoy this real photo, real life, guys. It's very embarrassing, especially for Tom. You can see here in his short shorts. I mean, nasty guy, but he insisted. He made all of us wear short shorts. We will be back in 58 seconds, and so thanks so much, folks. Stoked, you guys, really pumped up. That was a total blast. We love both Tom, Jump, and Kay. We really do appreciate them, and so they are indeed linked in the description. Updates that I wanted to give you is that it looks more and more like, well, probably the Kickstarter goal will be for the purpose, or I should say, the stretch goal. As we are stoked, thank you so much for your guys' support. I'm honestly so pumped, is that it's likely that the goal is the stretch goal that extra funding or pledges that we have come in for that will be used for a trip to the Atheist Experience Studio to have another live debate with Matt. Probably sometime in the spring, I don't think it's gonna be the winter at all. I don't know for sure it'll even be the spring. It could be summer, but I'm pretty sure by summer, I'm pretty sure restrictions will allow for it, and maybe earlier. So do wanna say thank you so much, you guys, for your support. I am honestly just pumped up about the fact that that is doing so well, but yes, we absolutely will. We really will, if we have to. I mean, I'm crazy, folks. I'm crazy. I will if I have to. We will throw that precious car wash. I mean, I've got other footage, you guys. You guys, maybe you haven't seen this. I mean, this is, again, Tom Jump and Steven Steen and I, I mean, Steven insisted on this video. Tom is wearing a pirate costume, but hey, you know what? I'm not one to judge. And so we are pumped, though, you guys. Wanna say thank you guys so much for all of your positivity. I was telling someone the other day, I was like, I'm just amazed at how much positivity there is in the live chat, and so we appreciate that. It really does mean a lot. And I am going to quick. Let's see. Oh, Adam, you're okay. I just wasn't sure. I couldn't tell how serious it was, or it was kind of where I was like, I don't know if I want to like, this one's a pretty hefty like charge, you could say. So I was like, I don't know if I get the joke or if it's serious or what. So no Adam, no hard feelings, no worries about that. And yes, I am going to put that Kickstarter link in the description. So here's the deal. If you're new to this, you guys, I know that it might be confusing. You're like, James, I don't get it. Why is it like this? Because, you know, this debate between Michael Schermer and inspiring philosophy on whether or not Christianity is dangerous. What's the difference with this? Why is it like this? What I'm saying is to watch it live, it's only three bucks, folks. So this is one that you won't see it on the YouTube page. In other words, like I'm going to send everybody a link through Kickstarter, or if you're one of our patrons, don't sign up for the Kickstarter because if you're one of our patrons, you're already going to get a link to watch this live. If you really want to do the Kickstarter, like cool, thank you. But want to let you know though, we are super excited about this debate. And you guys might be wondering, well, James, but why do we have to pay $3 though? I'm still, you know, maybe you're like, I don't want to pay anything at all. Like I understand that, but here's the reason. People such as Michael Schermer and others, some of them, we want to have these bigger, new speakers on, but they have speaking honorariums that we need to send them. And you guys, it's like, sometimes like a lot of our debates, it's not that uncommon that we have honorariums, in other words, where we pay a speaker or both. And sometimes we lose money on it, but it's okay because we have other debates where we have super chats and things like that. And at the same time, when we want to have a really big person on and these honorariums get bigger, it's like, well, if we just ask everybody to pitch in $3, you know, it's like the price of a cup of coffee. If everybody puts in $3, it allows us to take that risk of paying these bigger honorariums. And so that is basically the reason this is an honorarium that I've never gone to this big for a single honorarium in particular. And that's okay. We trust that it's worth it. You know, workers worth their wages. Like these guys are pretty famous. I mean, Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic Magazine, that's a big deal. I'm sure he gets offers to come all over the place in terms of debates and stuff like that. And so we are really excited. And thank you, Robert, for saying, James, good to see you. Check your Facebook. I definitely will, Robert. I appreciate that, buddy. And thanks for showing up at the debate. It's good to see you. And so, yes, but we are really excited about this debate. It's going to be epic. And then we will actually have this debate live to the rest of the world, the public. And that will be within a couple of days of when it's live. So, you know, we'll post it sometime, probably that weekend. And the thing is, you might be thinking like, yeah, well, I'll just not pledge, like, no problem. And, you know, I can just watch it for free afterwards. And it's like, well, actually, now it's guaranteed that we're going to have it. So, we've met the goal. So, it is true that you can do that. But I do want to encourage you, is that we are kind of testing to see how successful this Kickstarter strategy works. And if a lot of people, so right now, I'm excited that we've got about 104 backers, which is really cool. And we want to see how well can this work? Because if it can work well. And we see, oh, wow, it got 200 instead. You know, so if we keep getting more backers, that gives us an idea of whether or not this is going to be effective for having bigger debaters in the future. And so, that's why I would highly encourage you to jump on this. And that Kickstarter link, if I have not already put it, I'm just gonna throw it in the live chat right now. And so, that Kickstarter link is in the live chat right now, folks. And so, pin the message. And it is pinned. So, yes, highly encourage you to jump in on that. Matthew Colbertson, thanks for your kind words, says, happy birthday, James. Yes, it was my birthday yesterday. Thank you, Matthew, that's super encouraging. Good to see you, old buddy. We have a lot of good memories. I really did enjoy that time in Texas. It was a blast and good old Nacodotus. I loved it, seriously, love you, buddy. And let's see. I do like hanging out with you guys, though. So, other stuff, though, we are pumped. We have reached Twitch affiliate status. So, that's pretty awesome, you guys. I'm going to, if you guys have Amazon Prime, you may not know it that you, well, I don't wanna get on too many things at once. So, I will just say, I wanna just say, hey, we are thrilled about this Kickstarter strategy. And we appreciate those of you who've helped, means a lot. And if you wanna see other debates in the future, cause maybe you're like, nah, this one, like nah, who cares? You're like, but let's say you wanna see other debates in the future, big ones. Well, then that is epic. And it helps us to see that this Kickstarter strategy can work if you're willing to say, yeah, sure. Like three bucks, a cup of, price of a cup of coffee. And so, yes, do like hanging out with you guys. But yeah, Matthew Colbertson, good to see you as well, so yeah, as funny as it was, Robert Bull, who is in the live chat, lived with him, we didn't live together per se, but we went to the same program and interacted regularly at Texas Tech, so that's West Texas. And then Matthew Colbertson was maybe a few months later, I got to meet you in East Texas. And so, it's neat to see friends from all over the place. I didn't mean to pin that message, that's embarrassing. But yes, it was my birthday yesterday. I'm still young and hip, I mean, come on guys. But yes, thank you, stupid horror energy, good to see you again, as always, you crazy kook. Tracy Yates, our true regular here. We do appreciate you being here, thanks for hanging out, Tuss Beatbox, appreciate it. And then, oh, and the Twitch chat, so sorry guys, I'm honestly getting used to this still. Zanos Carthage, thanks for hanging out with us, I see you there in the Twitch chat. And thank you, Massive Robertson for hanging out with us there in the Twitch chat as well, as well as poor Lucy. Who else have we got in here? Let's see, MsMetal, are you still there? But yeah, we do appreciate your support on Twitch. So yeah, that's pretty hip, pretty dank. And who else have we got in the live chat on YouTube? Travis Statham, I hope you're doing well. Says, I've been high the last decade. That's a long time. But Adam Albella, good to see you, says, cause I'm high. So highly possible I'm way off. You're high too. It's all right, we're glad you're here. It's a, let's see, D-Ross says a person has an option to kill them, still carrying on the debate. I appreciate, you've got, what's the word I'm looking for? You've got a lot of fortitude, a lot of stamina. Appreciate that. Stupid Horror Energy says you're gonna, she's gonna lose her wrench. She might, what are you doing? Stupid Horror Energy, what are you saying? And Rachel asks, thanks for hanging out with us. I think, I don't know if I've seen you here before, if you've been here before. Cool, glad you're back. And if it's your first time, well, we're glad you're here. We really do hope you feel welcome, folks. No matter what walk of life you're from, we are totally serious. We do really want you to feel welcome. So, Key Prior Mando Pen says I go, I could go a steak and eggs right now. Oh yeah, I gotta have an omelet this morning, a meat omelet. It was amazing. So yeah, I really enjoyed it. And yeah, I'm pumped though you guys, as tell me how your guys' lives are going though. Let's catch up. Let's see, Stupid Horror Energy says I'm drunk. Huh, what you don't say? Okay, and then Atheist, what is this? Atheist destroyer. Glad you're here, hope you're doing well. Let's see. And then, I love you guys troll each other, even with your names. So, we've got names on both sides that you guys troll each other. It's like Atheists and Christians trolling each other. But maybe you're not a Christian, but that's my guess at least. And then correct me if I'm wrong. Happy belated birthday, James. Thanks you, I appreciate that friend, that means a lot. Steven M. Hawley says happy birthday, James. I mean, thank you, Steven, that's cool. Appreciate it. And then, and I, Stupid Horror Energy said you're a coot. In the most loving way possible. Flatter Thrusty Roscoe, I'm really embarrassed, I'm so sorry. Said I wouldn't mind getting three bucks for every time I appeared. I'm so sorry, bro, I did not. I'm so sorry, it was an accident. I didn't ask your question of T-Jump, and I'm so sorry that I didn't do that. He asked, and I should have, because we had time, I could have just squeezed it in really quick. He wants to debate, you want to debate T-Jump on whether or not space exists. Well, we've had weirder debates, so sure, why not. I'll ask Tom, let me ask him right now, just so you know that I'm serious. And we'll, maybe by the end of the month, we could do that. Let's see here. The future is here, I'm really, I'm pumped. Flat Earth Rossi, Oss, Flat Earth Ossi, good ol' Flat Earth Ossi Roscoe, wants a piece of good ol' Tom Jump. Well, we can make that happen, Flat Earth Ossi, let me just ask him. So, I don't know if he'll respond right now, but I'll let you know if he does. He, big Tom Jump has a big debate coming up on the 13th too, so that's 10 days from now. Do you want to debate Flat Earth Ossi on whether space is fake? Geez, what does my life come to? I'm just kidding. All right, and then, but yeah, we're pumped, you guys. Amazing, Tuss Beatbox says. I couldn't agree more, so much amazing. And ASDF says, thanks for this debate, by the way. Thanks, friend, I appreciate it. I'm so glad you enjoyed it, that means a lot. And, let's see. It's true, yeah, so stupid or energy, we say our name a lot around here. She's always here. KiaStar67 said, how was the debate? I thought it was a great debate. We had, I think it was close to 500, I think we maybe even had over a 500 people watching for a while, so there was definitely interest. And also, yeah, this debate I'm sure we'll get, like, my guess is maybe 10,000. T-Jump debates have been doing really well lately. They've been getting a lot of average watch time spans, and that usually is a good proxy for guessing how many views it'll get. So, people are apparently enjoying listening to old T-Jump. That or they hate him, but it's like, oh, who knows? I don't know, but they love to hate him, I don't know. StripperLicker said, Pascal's wager is poop from, oh, you guys, I'm pumped about this. Let me show you this. If you haven't seen it already, I gotta go in a minute, because this is my last night with my host, you guys. This is the last night, at least until summer, because I'm visiting family and friends in Wisconsin. It's the last time you'll see me in the bunker. So, I love living here, I love it, and it is cool, in a cool way. It looks like a bunker, I like that. ClintonRosh says, beta! Appreciate that, and let's see, where is, where'd you go? And RachelS says, first time I caught a live debate, super fun, thanks. Appreciate that, Rachel, that means a lot. And CottonHill says, Stephen M. Holly, would you kill a world full of Ted Bundy's? Interesting, you guys are still going on with the philosophy debates. And that's something that I'm like, we are moving in the direction of philosophy. I think that's probably, it's just my background, so that's what, when I got my, so I mentioned Robert Boll, the person in the chat earlier, that's my background, is we got our master's in philosophy at Texas Tech, and so that's like where we, the channel is like moving probably more toward philosophy, especially now that the election's done. Think people, I don't know, what do you guys think? I've noticed that our election debates, the average watch time, people aren't watching them as long, and that is usually views correlate with watch time. And so those aren't really getting a lot of interest, and so we're like, eh, we're gonna probably shelf political debates for a while, is they're just not getting too many views, which is kind of weird. And TracyAates says, thank you, you have some great debates, and I'm sure your channel will keep on growing. Happy New Year. Thank you for your kind words, TracyAates. I appreciate that, and let's see here. I got a shave, but let's see. StripperLicker says, I'm still in heavy isolation with virtually no human contact. Oh, and happy birthday. Oh, are you saying that you're in heavy isolation? I'm sorry to hear that. I hope things get better. That's not easy. And MiniGoo says, but thank you for wishing me happy birthday, I appreciate it. MiniGoo says, you close so soon after a great question about artificial insemination. No chance for follow-up. Sorry about that, MiniGoo. We can work on that. And no stupid horror energy. Samuel Adams is not my favorite beer. I prefer natty light, natural light. I'm a basic bro. I just want, you know, like, I'm not looking for anything fancy. And then Tussbeatbox says, I'm lost in my Minecraft mind. And let's see, let's see. This one comes in from, El Spaghetti says, I'm in favor of that debate, LOL. AtheistDestroyer says, life begins at conception. Protect all life. They're still on the debate topic. So I'm sure there are plenty of peeps in here still debating. Let's see. S-T-R-D-S-T, thanks for your kind words, said hello. Hope it went well. Happy birthday. Thank you. Appreciate that. I am excited to be, I am amazed and like shocked also to be 34 years old, you guys. Isn't that crazy? I'm like, when you're 24, you're like, wow, I've got so much in my life ahead of me. I was like, I'm young. You know, there's not really, you're carefree about, but now I'm like, I'm 34. I mean, that theoretically it could be, you know, like like pushing against, what's the median life expectancy? I think it was like 79, 80. So I mean, yeah, it's like, I'm not really, I can't say I'm young anymore. Unless I lived to be a hundred and it's pretty young. So hey, I mean, if you think about it that way. Flatter Thassie Roscoe says, hey, cool. Thanks, James. That reminds me. I did say I was going to ask T-Jump for you. Let me just go over here. Say, hey, T-Jump. He's probably going to say no. Let's see. He hasn't answered yet. But yeah, I'm pumped, you guys. If you guys ever seen the movie Collision, if you search for that documentary with Christopher Hitchens and what was his name? Pastor Douglas Wilson. It is free on Facebook right now. You guys, you got to find it. Google that debate, collision debate, and Google will pull up some of the videos of it that you can watch. There's another one on documentary tube, I think. And so, stupid or energy's right, I do shave my legs every day. Very embarrassing. Not really. Kia Star 67 says, Texas Tech, my mom died a few hours ago of COVID-19 and went there in the 50s. I miss her already. Please wear your masks. Kia Star, I am so sorry to hear that. I am like, wow, I'm so sorry. Like, we are totally here for you. I can't believe it. I'm just like, my heart goes out to you. I am sincerely sorry for your loss. That is like, I'm just so sorry. So I really do hope you're, I don't know what to say. Other than I'm so sorry for your loss. We are here for you. I hope you know that you're welcome here and we hear you and we care about you. I don't care what world view you are, what walk of life you're from. I hope you know that we really do care about you. I'm so sorry to hear about that, Kia. I think that's your name, maybe Kia's. But I'm guessing it's Kia, maybe. But we really do, we feel for you. So I'm so sorry to hear that you lost your mom today. We're totally here and yeah, my heart goes out to you. I really do, my hope has always been that this channel could be a place of community for everybody. You know, like no matter what walk of life you're from, there's something we can agree on. No matter what world view everybody is here, is that we could say, hey, we are here for you and so we're so sorry for that. And yeah, whether you be Christian, atheist, and all the strange creatures in between, we do hope you're welcome here though. We hope you feel welcome because you are welcome. And Robert Bull, an old, I think maybe Robert was maybe more agnostic, if I remember right, Robert. You can correct me if I'm wrong. Robert says, seriously the philosophy days were literally awesome, PS Happy Birthday. They were awesome and thank you for your happy birthday wish and that is kind of you. And let's see, Kia Star 67 says, I'm so sorry to, yeah, I miss her already but when you're alone it's hard to say busy things. Yeah, I just couldn't agree that must be harboring her alone. So I hope that you have plenty of community and support. I'm at, if you ever, if anybody, and I mean this for real, I've always put my, I don't know, maybe my email's not actually, is it in the description? Let me check, I meant to put it because I always put it at the bottom that if you ever have a hard day and just want to talk or if you want somebody to pray for you, yeah, my email is in there and I'm happy to be there for anybody. No matter what walk of life you're from, like I hope that despite the kind of the almost inevitable tribalistic, I hate to say that but it's kind of true, kind of tribalistic nature of the channel here because it's a debate channel. I mean, what do you, you know, it's always going to be like a rumble in the jungle but I hope though that, that everybody would feel welcome that it'd be a community that people would know in very serious about no matter what walk of life you're from. Feel free to email me at moderndatabate at gmail.com. So pretty easy to remember, I hope. If you'd ever, if you would just like want to talk or if there's any way I can make people's lives a little bit, if I could make your day a little bit easier, like please do let me know that and so we do appreciate you guys and let's see. Yes, El Spaghetti, I will ask T-Jump about whether or not space exists with Flat Earth Aussie. Rachel S. says, turning 34 this year too, we're young until 40, then I'm putting a fork in it. Putting a fork in it as in you're, oh, you're like giving up on the, like believing you're young, I appreciate that. Yeah, it's like, yeah, it's a, it is kind of crazy or it's like, I mean, I feel pretty good though. Once in a while I'll get like maybe a little, couple more aches and pains maybe, but I would say it's like, overall, I feel pretty energetic, pretty excited, pretty optimistic and said, stupid or energy said, James, I have a feeling you would thoroughly enjoy Game Change, a docu, docu movie about the rise of Sarah Palin. I don't know, maybe, I mean like, I never said I was a Sarah Palin fan. I got nothing against her, but like I don't really know much about her. Let's see, but yeah, so Colossus asked, are you going to do another veganism debate? We probably will, we're supposed to next Wednesday have a debate on Twitter. Someone was like talking smack to Vegan Gaines and Vegan Gaines agreed. He's like, sure I'll debate you and Vegan Gaines even agreed to the date and the time that I suggested, but the other person hasn't responded yet. So that's a possible new veganism debate coming up that we're hoping to host, that would be really fun. Prosocial Pessimist says exactly being healthy and fit feels the same whether you're 20 or 40, assuming no other diseases or injuries affect your mobility or sense of well-being. Interesting, and let's see, who said ukebuga, that had to be boiled pizza or mink deems as he likes to call himself. Robert Bolz says, James, I can be very truce about religion, I'm a Buddhist Hindu mix. You might like Brenton, Big Brain Bruton, I love him, my boy. It was boiled pizza that was saying ukebuga. Flat Earth Ossie Roscoe is still pushing the idea that space doesn't exist. Oh, what are you going to do? Megan St. Tannis says I'm 40, by the way. I wouldn't say don't put a fork in it until you're 50. Yeah, that's the trick. I do like everybody that are like, I still feel like when I'm like 40, I still feel like, I don't feel old, like I feel fine, and I like that. That's good to know. And, Superdore Energy says you should see how they tried to prep her for the debates, it was hilarious. That'd be interesting. I can't remember what she was debating on. She's somebody's vice president. World View Detective said, what's your favorite debate on the channel? It probably is the one with Matt Dillahunty and Mike Jones. I love that debate. Not just because it's been, it's got the best reception, but because I think it was a great debate. It was a quality debate. Everything about it was quality. That debate was just phenomenal. It was quality in terms of like the tech in the video and all that. And so that was just a fun one. I really did enjoy that. And then, but yeah, I also love to travel here and there. Sometimes I get a little tired of travel, but I usually like it. It's a, and I think I, yeah, I travel a pretty good amount. So it's like, I think I'm pretty, yeah, I like it. As long as it's not too much. Steven M. Halle says I'm about to turn 52 and I'm getting fitter and healthier and more athletic than ever. Good for you. That's great news. That's encouraging. And, Superdore Energy says I'm out, pace. That must be the new cool way to say it. But yes, we're stoked, guys. Thanks so much for your support. Really excited, you guys, as this debate next Friday night. Hope you were there making it to the party as it's going to be a total blast, you guys. We had, oh, I think we had like two more, two more people jump into the Kickstarter. So thank you guys so much. As you're seeing on your screen, that debate will be on Friday, the 8th of January. So that's only five days away. But remember, the Kickstarter closes on Thursday and we're basically on Monday. So that means you pretty much only have three full, not a little over three full days, I think. So you have about three days that you can still sign up for this Kickstarter. And one thing I'll just mention to you guys, oh, where is this? There it is. No, not the speedo. Okay, two seconds. The one I was going to show you was, oh yeah, you guys might be like, well, I don't want to sign in for a Kickstarter account. That's just kind of lame, man. That's okay. Don't worry about it. I understand. One cool thing is you can sign in with your Facebook. So I just want to let you know, if you're kind of like, ah, it's another hurdle. It's like stopping me from joining the party next Friday. Is that it's going to be a party, you guys. This coming Friday, it's going to be a party. It's going to be epic. You don't want to miss it. And so I would say, I highly encourage you, just three bucks. It's going to be a lot of fun. And like I said, it helps support the channel as we are trying to have newer, bigger hosts on. If you guys want to have people like Thunderfoot and Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, you name it. William Lane Craig, all of these big time players in the game. Well, that's something we'd love to do. And so this Kickstarter is kind of a way of, we're testing it. We're basically saying, hey, this is possibly a way that we can do big things in the future. And the only reason, or I should say one of the big reasons is we're thinking about the future. And I want to show you this in case you haven't seen, you guys, is that this is like pretty, it's like, it's cheap homies. And we did that on purpose because we were like, hey, we want to make this as cheap as possible. And so what I mean by that is, if you look at the top left of your screen, it's just three bucks to watch it live. And it helps fund the event as well as events like it in the future. It also helps promote. So for six bucks, you can throw in an extra three. That helps us promote it. As right now we're running a lot of ads on YouTube, in case you've seen those, by the way. And then on the bottom right, for example, we've got different rewards. So like if you want to have your name in the thank you ticker for this event, that's on the down here. I think we've got, oh, 12 backers for that. That's cool. And then, yeah, you guys, I'm pumped for it. But let me just show you the page because I'm so encouraged by this. It was kind of like, it's grown rapidly. And so I'm going to show you my full Chrome page. Let's see here. Full Chrome. And then pulling up the actual page for the debate. So Chrome. This is an exciting thing. I think we've got another backer. So thank you to whoever just backed as well. I think we've gone up several more. So we do really appreciate that. Whoa, we jumped up a lot. So that's exciting, is we're working our way there. We're getting closer to that goal. And so we are pumped. We appreciate you guys. Let me know though. The one thing that I want to do for the next one, and this is like super important to me, is I want to know what debates you'd want to see. So like, if you're like James, I totally want to see so-and-so and versus so-and-so. We, I think what we'll do is we'll put it up to like a vote and let people vote for potential debates that we would host. And then if we get a lot of people who are like, yeah, I definitely want to see that. Well, then we would raise the money for it. And we would say, hey, let's do it. And so we would give you guys like full, you guys would be in the driver's seat in terms of getting to choose which debates we would be doing in the future. And so do appreciate you guys. Thank you so much for your support. I do appreciate you. And like I said, I'm totally serious. My email is moderndaydebate at gmail.com. If there's anything I can do to make your day easier, please let me know. We appreciate you guys. We hope you have a great rest of your night or day depending on where in the world you are. And so yeah, I'm pumped. What can I, I agree, World View Detective says Matt DeLente versus William Lane Craig would be so cool. I definitely agree that would be epic. And I'm trying to think of, what was I going to say? I was going to share something interesting. I can't remember what it was. But yeah, thank you guys. I hope that feel free to share something with me. If you've got feedback for the channel, you can also email me at moderndaydebate at gmail.com. We are always open to feedback. We want to improve and we appreciate that feedback. So thanks so much, folks. We will see you tomorrow night. You guys, whoa, you guys let me show you this last thing. I know because I'm like, I've said that a hundred times, but you have to make this. This one, it is going to be live. It's open to the public. And so we want to let you know that you definitely, folks, you really should make this. It's going to be beyond huge. Matt DeLahunty will be on tomorrow night. And it's going to be epic. It's going to be with Sal. And so you guys totally, it's going to be on Pascal's Wager. That debate will be epic. That's tomorrow. Oh wait, I wasn't even showing it to you guys here. So this debate that you're seeing on your screen, Pascal's Wager tomorrow night, that will be here at 9 p.m. Eastern. And that one, there's no Kickstarter for it or anything. And so we are pumped for it. Please make it to this debate. You don't want to miss this party, you guys. You don't want to miss it. It's going to be amazing. And so thank you guys for that. And with that, we appreciate you. Thanks for your kind words. Adam Elbilius, as always, thanks for your time. Thank you, Adam. I appreciate your positivity. That really does mean a lot. I love it. There's the positivity and the encouragement that people are doing. It means a ton. Flatterthoroski Graskis says, why can't I use PayPal? That's a good question. So I know that some people don't like Kickstarter. And we're going to work on that for the next time because some people are just like, yeah, I don't like Kickstarter or I don't like Indiegogo, whatever. But we do have a PayPal link, Flatterthoroski Graskis. And so that is on our main YouTube page if you really want to do that. Otherwise, Flatterthoski, we do have a Patreon. If you want to, Patreon supporters will also be getting into the event for free with Matt Dillahunt or what was it, Michael Shermer and IP were inspiring philosophy. So consider becoming a patron as well. And then let's see. Megan C. Tannis says, I'll back at it. Appreciate. I don't know what you're back at, but good for you getting back at it. And then we had armed cadaver illustrates the thanks for your kind words and welcome for support. I love modern data bait. Oh, well, thank you so much. We appreciate that. That really does mean a lot. We do. Your support means a lot. And I'm super encouraged by that. One cool thing is Matt Dillahunt versus Hulk Hogan. We can try for that. That would be epic. But yeah, I do appreciate your positivity, you guys. That means a lot. ProSocialPessimist says, what time tomorrow? It's at 9 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Robert Bull says, James, sounds like you're winding down. So if so, peace out. Thank you. I am winding down. I'll be jumping off in just a few minutes. Flatter Earth Ossie Roscoe says, I prefer PayPal because I don't have reenter my entire credit card details every time. One click is easier than 50. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, like, we do at the main, if you go to our main YouTube page, Flatter Earth Ossie Roscoe, we do have a PayPal link there where, and I'll just get it for you. Maybe I'm being lazy. I'll grab this PayPal link and then if you want to use it, you can. But yeah, we are pumped. Oh, okay. Megan Satanus says, I meant I'm backing the Kickstarter event. Oh, well thank you, Megan Satanus. I appreciate that. And that's the thing is I would call you guys out by name, but Kickstarter asked me to not mention the names of people I'm supposed to like protect people's info. So that's, but I totally appreciate it. The one on stream or on the screen right now, armed cadaver, that's going to be 9 p.m. Eastern tomorrow night. So, oh, that's going to be a big one, you guys. I'm serious. I think this is just going to be, it's gotten a huge reception so far. It's got almost 70 likes. And so that one's definitely going to be a monster one. I think people are really going to be enjoying that. And so we do appreciate that. And, oh yeah, Flat Earth or S.V. Roscoe or PayPal. So yeah, I'm going to send you the PayPal link, Flat Earth or S.V. Roscoe. I'm going to put it in the live chat right now. I don't know if we can receive PayPal donations right now because I think that we triggered PayPal somehow, but I mean it wasn't even that bad. But yeah, actually Flat Earth or S.V. Roscoe, even if you could send like a dollar and let me know if it works, you don't have to, but it just, I'm kind of curious if that actually works since you were asking about the PayPal because I'm trying to figure out if we fixed it. Armed cadaver illustrates this, will cosmic skeptic come on any time in the future? I'm about to email cosmic skeptic within the next 24 hours actually because we have a person who wants to challenge his veganism. And so we are probably going to have cosmic skeptic on this month regarding whether or not veganism is morally obligatory. So that should be a fun one with cosmic skeptic. It's not confirmed yet. I've got to reach out to him. But Renee Matos Jr. says, what is Pascal's wager? I will let someone else explain it to you because I've got to run. I wish to explain it, but somebody else in the chat I'm sure can explain it. But in a way it's kind of like saying, well, what if you're wrong? Like consider the cost to risk ratio or I should say the reward to loss ratio and consider your probability of belief. I mean, it depends on what version they're using. If they're using an older version, it's not even that nuanced per se, but something to that effect. And so a lot of people would argue that it's practically efficacious to believe rather than not. But modern day things, Adam, let me know that I cannot accept payments. Oh, dang, bro. That's good to know. I'm so glad you let me know that. Adam Elvilius said he could not get it to work. So Flat Earth Ossie Roscoe, I'm guessing you also could not get it to work. I'm sorry about that. And let's see. Armed cadaver illustrates this. Have a good night and happy New Year, James. Thank you. That means a lot. You as well. I appreciate that armed cadaver. And so thanks, guys. Hope you guys have a great rest of your night or day, depending on where you are. And we look forward to seeing you tomorrow night at 9 p.m. Eastern. Oh, this debate is going to be a huge one, you guys. Honestly, it's going to be off the charts. So I'm excited for it.