 So if rights are a way in which to deal with adults, you know, pursuing their own happiness, you know, free of coercion and allowed or left free to pursue their virtues, what about children? So why start rights at birth? Why protect rights at birth and why not protect rights at some, you know, some measure of adultery? If you think about birth, so it's often put, I'm sure you've got this argument many times, like it's something arbitrary, birth is, you're just like drawing an arbitrary. What about a minute before birth? Yeah. And it is not arbitrary, birth is, and it's been for hundreds and thousands of years, marked as a major event, because it is a major event. This is when it now, when it is born and you cut the biblical cord, it's, you now have an independent functioning being. It's not an adult yet. It can't look after itself, but you have an independent being. And that's the sense in which children have a subordinate and derivative status. You wouldn't, you're not organizing political society if everyone's children. You're doing it for adults. And the parents then become really custodians of the child's rights. There's a way in which they don't fully have rights yet. The parent has to exercise all kinds of decisions about what will happen to the child, where it will live, how, what it's fed, how it will be educated and so on. It's the parents who are, and they have an obligation. I think once the child is born and is independent, they are then custodians in that sense. And what part of their responsibility is to bring the child into adulthood maturity so that it can exercise its own independent thinking life. And it becomes then fully the, it has rights and they're not exercised by the parents. And the parents don't like what the child's doing. It doesn't matter anymore. I mean, it's an independent, fully functioning being, but you have to see it. It's a derivative. You wouldn't can't start with everybody's a bunch of children and they have rights and so on. No, you would not have political society if we had a bunch of five-year-olds. And you can see like we're descending into, we've got a bunch of five-year-olds and you don't have a political... Running the country. They're not just the people that are running it. So what birth does is it creates this individual, right? It separates. So what about, you know, an hour before? Because I get this as a serious question. What about an hour before? Is it moral and then separately, is it, is it a violation of rights, which would make it illegal? Yeah, I don't think it's a violation of rights. It rights begin at birth because now you have an independent entity. Is it moral would depend on the circumstances? What is happening? Why you're aborting right before birth? Is it because there's a real threat to the mother? Is it because you've detected there's some real abnormality with the fetus or what is it? And if it's completely capricious, obviously it's immoral, but there's all kinds of decisions people make if they do it completely capricious or immoral. Capriciousness in and of itself is immoral. So this is just one instance of it, but it doesn't inform the debate much. And just think, just in this context, how many things parents do to their kids that are immoral? And the government can't come in and say, look, the way you're educating this child is really bad. I mean, I think in many, I mean, in essence, teaching a young child religion is immoral. You should wait till he's an adult and can think about these issues and choose for himself, not inculcate some dogma into him. But I don't think the government can come in and stop people from teaching the child Christianity or Judaism or things like that. So there's all kinds of things that are immoral, that are not illegal. And it's not something distinctive about some case of aborting the fetus. So what realm is the government responsible for the rights of the child, for protecting the rights of the child? I think it's essentially, it's the physical well-being of the child. And so when there's physical abuse, that is, you can say that the parents are no longer acting as the custodian for the child, respecting its rights, bringing it into maturity and adulthood. They're preventing that. And they're actively preventing that through physical abuse. And the state or the government can step in at that point. You could make an argument, I think, that parents have a responsibility to develop the child mentally in a certain way as well, not particular content. But if you really don't teach a child language, it doesn't learn to speak. I mean, it's pretty hard not to do that. You have to lock them up in a closet or something like that. Yeah. So there's usually will be physical abuse in order to do this. But if that level, I think you can make an argument that it's, that's child abuse as well. So it's not about the particular content. It's just not developing the mind at all. I think that's right. So let's see. So somebody says an hour before birth, the baby, it is distinct. It's a separate thing. It just happens to be tied by a cord. But it's not just happens. It's, I mean, to me, that's such a bizarre argument. Both means something. The baby comes out. It now becomes separate before it's in the mother, literally inside of her. It's not the same thing. You can't take it as, so, and this is where I think there's this intrinsic. It's, so somebody else says, but it has a unique DNA from conception. The DNA is unique to it separate from the mother's DNA. Isn't it a separate entity? Separate DNA doesn't make it a separate entity. A separate entity means it can function independently. It's not biologically parasitical on the mother. So, and this is true. I mean, it's not just about human biology. This is true about procreation for other species is, well, it's at certain points in time. It is not yet independent. And this is why birth, it's not just human birth, perfect in all kinds of when you watch animal shows and so on. It's a major event because now you have an independently functioning thing that is individuated. It's metaphysically distinct. And it's at a certain level, this is perceptual, that it's you've got separate things. And if the argument is, well, they're not really separated, it's all, then at a certain point, it's just you have to look and see. This is, there's a difference between something that's part of the thing, parasitical dependent on it and something that acts independently. And then before birth, it's not independent in that sense. And this whole argument about brainwaves and there's some consciousness maybe going on, and it feels pain, which is like a single argument, you know, morality starts with pain. None of that is relevant because it's still not a separated human being. It's not relevant from the perspective of rights. I've read a little bit of this. I think the science is bogus from what I've seen. And because it's all towards the, you already know the conclusion, we're trying to find ways to prevent abortions. And so here's some data that might, someone might fall for. But the idea that they, that this is established, I do not think is true. But even if it were, what it would mean is maybe they would change the way, the procedure for the abortion. Maybe you give some pain killer or something like that before, if they really, really thought this. And then there were evidence for this, but it would not change the morality of doing it. I think that if it is like, no, we're not ready to have children. We don't want children. We can't afford children. And it certainly doesn't affect it legally. And almost nobody has abortions in the third trimester. Because if you're going through those calculations, do we want a child or not, you do that early. And there is a cost to the mother of having an abortion late. This is not an easy procedure on the mother. So the more you wait, the more difficult it is emotionally, physically and in all kinds of, so it's almost always the case that a third trimester abortion has something to do with either the mother's health or something wrong with the fetus. And they're doing it that. And then I think abortion is a moral necessity. Because to give birth to a human being who's not human, it does not have the capacities of being human. Always going to be like the Zika babies. You remember the Zika where babies came out deformed and there was a whole, they were banning abortion. They wouldn't allow these women to abort even though the child wanted to was born would be in pain its entire life. And I can't think of anything cooler than that. Yeah. And that's the, so you've put it as there's an intrinsicism involved. That dresses it up philosophically. And religion is a form of intrinsicism, but it's it's commandment and sort of explicitly commandment. I think for the abortion issue, you have to think of it as they've been it's been commanded that at conception, God says there's a soul now, and now it's your obligation and your duty to minister to this and foster it the whole time, no matter what it does to your life, to your happiness. This is these are your orders. This is what's commanded. And you're going to hell if you don't do it. And that is the root of it. And I mean, I ran said, and I think this is true. There's no such thing as love for an embryo. There just isn't this thing that is not even remotely yet a human being. It's a potential that is like way far from actual. The idea that it's Oh, I've fallen in love with this. That is that there is no such thing. So what it is is no, I've been ordered that I have to do this and I'm going to be punished if I don't do it. And if you don't do it, I'm going to be punished. That is God said, we all have to do this and you're not doing your part. And that's the motivation for it. And what's what's astounding is, I mean, there are lots of atheists on here who are taking the anti-abortion position. And they're arguing vehemently that they're not Christian, and they're not driven by God. And yet so much of the modern world, the secular modern world, is shaped and driven by Christianity. Even the atheists, I mean, most of the atheists I know are Christians in most of the Jews, I know, are Christians in their morality and their approach to life. They don't even know it because the ideas are so powerful and are being part of the culture in such a in such a powerful way. It's sad. It's sad. And it's this so that we've had 2000 years of Christianity inculcating sacrifice. It's important to get for the abortion issue. So it's, I mean, Jesus on the Cross is the elevation of sacrifice as the moral ideal. And part of what Christianity pushes is the unintelligibility of the sacrifice. So the more unintelligible it is, the better. So if you think it's, I've got to sacrifice for my fellow man. And there's questions you can ask about that that are like, why do I if I've made money, why do I have to give it up for the guy who hasn't made any money? Like, what's he doing? And why shouldn't he be? And once he starts making money, then he has to give it up for other. Like it doesn't seem to make any sense. But if you say, look, no, you've got to sacrifice for God's sake, which is Jesus is somehow redeeming everything. Like he didn't do anything wrong, but he's somehow redeeming our sins and God's eye. Like, how does this work? And he's got son to boot, right? That whole thing is doesn't make any sense. All that you can figure out is, okay, he's suffering. Yes. Sacrificing. What does this accomplish? How does it accomplish anything? You can't figure it out. And that's the so it becomes sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice. So, and if you think of abortion, no, there's nothing actual that's gaining anything. You're sacrificing because God's told you who benefit. There's nobody around to benefit. There might be a potential they become. And, and a lot of people are losing. Like the woman or the couple doesn't want the child and has to bring it to term. It might endanger her health, but she has to do it. So the sacrifice is clear that there's someone gaining from the sacrifice? No. And that's part of what, if you really get the way sacrifices have been pounded into us, it's the more intelligible, unintelligible it is, the more, okay, I guess there must be some reason I've got to do this. God works in mysterious ways. So how do we, how do we differentiate between kind of approach the fetus and approach the human being, a coma, or somebody who's old and who is an Alzheimer's or see, or lost these rash, lost his ability to take care of himself? Why does such a person have rights? Well, they have rights. They're again, more similar to a child that they have rights. They were adults and so on. They're no longer capable of exercising their, if you're really talking of advanced case of all time, I've seen some where the person really can't function anymore. They're not able to exercise their rights anymore. And it's either you have someone now who steps in as now I'm responsible for this person and you're in effect treating them like a child. And I'll administer their financial affairs and make sure that they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. And then I'm not wandering into other people's property or driving a car and threatening people. Like I'm taking responsibility for this. And that is, yes, if you have someone who's doing that, then you have someone who's exercising and it's a real issue. If you don't have someone to do that, it's not just, okay, this person's free to go about and can do whatever they want. So they're no longer, when we're talking about an advanced case, they're no longer capable of rational action. And it is then it's, that's not the normal case about rights. But again, if you just think of them, there are these mysterious things implanted by God, then like, did this thing go away? Isn't it still in him? So is he's just like everybody else? And that's not true. Yeah. And suddenly somebody in a coma, that's not true. They, you know, if somebody is paying for them to be kept alive, then they'll kept alive. But the fact is that if somebody stops paying, then yeah, the plug, the plug is somebody says, would you pull the plug on all of them? Yeah, if nobody's paying and nobody, you know, there's no, there's no right to sacrifice my life, my income for them staying alive, right? And why somebody else's labor to stay alive. And you're starting midstream that it's like, would you unplug? No, I mean, one of the reasons to have a living will and so on is to appoint people, if I'm in a car accident in a coma and so on, that someone can step in and make decisions for me and say, yes, he would want to be put on a respirator and see maybe for a month that he comes out of the coma or not. And you appoint someone in advance precisely because you can't exercise it if you are in a coma. And it's not like you start off on a machine. So and then would you unplug the person? It's how does he get on a machine? And that all it has to be, you have to take responsibility for that. And if it doesn't, then there's nobody to do that. And you would die. Alright, so we have a few questions. Adam asks, uncle, could you comment on the insult to homo sapiens that's implicit in saying it's a person from the moment of fertilization by chemistry. It has unique human DNA. It has unique human DNA, but there's it's, I don't know what has been exactly is an insult to homo sapiens, but it's an insult to actual human beings to say that an embryo is you're just like an embryo. You're not just like an embryo, you're not even close to it that and this was one of the things that I think I ran found particularly shocking and it tells you that there's a non-rational mystical element in play. Nobody would equate a potential with an actual nobody wouldn't equate a embryo with an adult human being. And if you think of it in other areas, I mean, nobody equates you've got a resort, some materials, metals and so on in the ground with a corvette, like it's the same thing. It's just, no, one is potential if an enormous process is happens that you can convert all this into a functioning atom of it. They're not the same thing. And to equate them as though, yeah, no, they're just the same. You don't think of that in any situation except for here. Every cell in my skin has my unique DNA, but you don't confuse if I, you know, if I, if I scrape my skin, you don't think, oh my God, we've just murdered a part of you on. I mean, that would be bizarre. The fact that it has a unique DNA, okay, you know, it doesn't doesn't add or detract from this discussion at all. What we need today, what I called a new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think, meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist roads. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figured at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. But, but at least the people who like it, you know, I want to see, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this, and you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at urunbrookshow.com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show your support for the work, for the value. Hopefully you're receiving from this. And, and of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up, you'll know what shows are on, when they're on, you'll get notified. Right. So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support, like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one, all of those, please.