 pray sitting in for the great James Coons. Thank you so much for joining us tonight. We have T-Jump and Steven teamed up against Skyler and Kay on the topic of abortion. Would you like to introduce yourselves before we get started? We'll go with Skyler and Kay, then T-Jump and Steven. So go ahead Skyler and Kay if you want to give brief introductions about your channel, what you're up to, and go to the next slide after that. Okay thank you and we're going to hand it off to T-Jump and Steven. Yeah, no audio. Okay, muted. People are saying. Okay, so I guess, you know, if you can just do it like a really quick, there sound, there we go. So just do like a quick 10 second one because, or we can just jump right into, I mean, does everyone care about the introductions or we can just go to the next part, it's up to you guys. Let's go to the next part. I'm just going to just move all sex appeal anyway, so just to let this let you know tonight's format, we have 10 minute openings and we'll have an hour open discussion, moderate discussion if need be, and then 30 minutes QA. To let everyone in the audience know, we have debates coming up on science, politics, and religion. If you'd like to have reminders on controversial debates, we have coming up. Hit that subscribe and like button. I want you to feel welcome here no matter what your views are. So with that, let's kick it over to T-Jump and Steven for their opening statements. The floor is yours. Sure. So my position is that killing anyone is always wrong ever under any circumstances, and I think that even if we grant that a fetus is a living being, if it has consciousness that it has moral value and killing it is always wrong, then it's going to be wrong to kill it, but it's also wrong to force a woman to have someone else in her body without her consent or a man in that case too. So forcing a person to use their body for someone else's benefit without their consent is also immoral, in which case you are justified in removing that person who is there without your consent from your body. So much like the case of self-defense, if someone else has entered your body or has been placed there without your consent, you have a moral right to remove that person from your body because it is your property, your body, and so it's immoral to force someone to contain another person without their consent. Therefore, it is morally justified to support abortion for the exact same reasons it's morally justified to support self-defense. So even if it is the case that the baby is fully human and fully conscious, it wouldn't justify allowing that person who is in the other person's body to stay there without the consent of the body of the host. And so it is justified to abort other human beings if they're occupying someone else's body without their consent. And I will conclude there. All right. Thanks, C-Jump. So I totally agree with what Thomas said. Obviously we're on the same team, but also because of the kind of specifics that he said about that it is always wrong to murder a child if they are, you know, like, or any conscious being. I do also kind of lean heavily on the violinist argument. I think it's kind of most known by I'm sure that's going to come up in the open exchange. There is a noticeable kind of talking point or talking phrase that people will say, oh, that like people have sex for reproduction. I'm sure that people did in the very, very like earliest humans that yes, that we did have sex for for that, that it was about survival and about kind of, you know, all of that thing. Sorry to interrupts. The pictures are gone so they can't see anybody on this. Oh, yeah, yeah. I'm only after noticing that now actually as well. It looks like it's going to me. Let's see here. It should be good. It's good now. It's just after popping back up there, at least at my end. Yeah, I have no idea why it does. Now I can't remember where the fuck I was. Oh, yeah. That yeah, it's a thing that people say, or that like it's for reproduction. And, you know, the earliest humans it was because it was about survival and stuff like this, but much like in the way that like eating, that eating used to only be when you were starving, that our attitudes towards eating has changed and has, one might say, evolved over time. Whereas now we eat because we're bored or because we're peckish or because it's time to eat, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. There's and I think that the same can be said for why people have sex. I have never had sex with the goal of being reproduction. It has happened once and it didn't exactly end well, but that's a story for a different day. But I mean, people have sex for a lot of different reasons. People have sex because they're bored, because they want to bet, because they lost a bet, because they're waiting for the Domino's guy because, you know, revenge. There's a there's a lot of reasons why people have sex and I genuinely don't think that reproduction is one of it. It's obviously one for a lot of people, but it's not for everybody. It's it's kind of kind of wafted aside sometimes as being, you know, the bodily autonomy argument and stuff like this. But there's been a lot of court cases in the United States that have won based on the grounds of bodily autonomy. So clearly it means something. This is obviously Roe v. Wade. That's the biggest one. That's the one that everybody knows about. There is one for Planned Parenthood versus Casey and Washington versus Luxburg, just to name a few. So I mean, clearly these laws mean something. There is six states. There's Mississippi, Ohio, Georgia, Missouri, Kentucky and Louisiana that have introduced abortion laws that have like effectively banned it after six weeks. And there was no exceptions to that, to those laws. If I was to kind of ask everybody on the panel, obviously it's a rhetorical question and all the answer. If I was to ask everybody in the live chat as well, what people will think that the youngest person to ever give birth was? You might be kind of thinking something along the lines of, like, you know, a very young teenager, if not a preteen. Actually, no, that's not the case. The youngest person to ever give birth, her name was Lena Marcela Medina. She was born in 1933 and she somehow successfully gave birth at five years, seven months and 21 days old. Now, why do I bring this up? If she was to be born in any of the states that I just brought up, that state would force a child to give birth. Now, I'm not saying this as any sort of a thing. I am in absolutely no way, shape, or form levying the accusation against Kay or against Skyler that they would be in favor of this happening. However, what I am saying is their position enacted into law results in just this. And I'll leave it at that. Thank you for your opening. So you had about four minutes to spare. So that was a short opening, but we can add it to your question and answers or if you have a concluding remark, we can add to that whatever you guys want. So now we'll kick it over to the pro-lives side, Skyler and Kay. So when you guys wanna go ahead and start, we'll start the timer in your first word. Yes, first I wanna start by letting everyone know that my arguments tonight aren't geared towards medically necessary abortions because I don't argue against those. So I do have some nuance to my position. Well, let me start by saying that anyone who you have ever loved is here because their mother chose life. Life grants one the possibility of experiencing things like love, joy, sadness, beauty and tragedy. You get what the universe hands you. We must not end life in order to feel safe. In life, safety is not guaranteed nor promised. We cannot let our fear of what the future brings right our destiny. Oftentimes the things we fear about our future don't manifest themselves in the reality that we imagine. But when we let fear dictate our future, we allow ourselves to do things we never thought we'd do. Life is hard and cruel, especially for women. We live in a world where women are treated as male property and find themselves the focus point of male sexual desire. This is an example of devaluing of human life. Women are not property nor are these sexual objects. This devalue of life manifests itself throughout history in many ways. We must recognize that when we choose to measure the value of human life or how we choose to measure the value of human life has consequences. Slavery is a prime example of the devaluation of human life. Slaves were looked at as inferior, therefore having less value to their master. In modern history, Nazi Germany committed acts of genocide on the Jewish people. Their Jewish lives had no value to them. What we value defines our hearts, and I choose to value life and the potential that it brings. Even in the most horrific of places with no hope for any type of brighter future, two Jewish women chose life in Nazi concentration camps. One of the babies were born under weight and the mother hid her for an entire month before the Allied forces arrived and liberated that camp. Life finds a way. I ask the question, what do you value? We live in a world that does not value human life. We have abundances of wealth, yet we choose to spend it on expensive machines of war. For what, to protect life and liberty? We can afford it. It's our hearts that need changing. We have to start valuing all human life if we don't want to end, if we want to end abortion. We must recognize how we justify our actions and remember how others have justified theirs. In the end, you are left to your own moral conscience. Do you value life more than someone's man-made right to bodily autonomy? I choose life. And I'll end with a quote from Fred Rogers. Fame is a four-letter word. And like tape, or zoom, or face, or pain, or life, or love, what ultimately matters is what we do with it. And I say that how we choose to value life and how we choose a perspective on this world will make the difference that we need. And I'll leave it there, thank you. Yeah, so I'm going to echo a lot of what Skyler said. I think he said a lot of things very beautifully. I'm not just a pro-life activist. I'm what we call a consistent life ethic activist. So I believe that human life is valuable from the beginning of natural life to natural death. And I am opposed to anything that cuts life short for human beings because I believe that the right to life is an inalienable right that all humans have. I think that as a society and just as a species as a whole, things like abortion is kind of, it kind of sheds a light on where we are as a species. I see it as a travesty and I see it as society's grotesquely failing women and not giving them a better option than abortion. Just like my partner said, life is hard and it's particularly hard for women. And I don't diminish the hardships that women go through whenever they are faced with an unplanned pregnancy. I just come from the position that I believe there are so many other things that we can do to make the world a better place for women, to make society a more accepting place for women and a better place to bring children that were conceived in less than pleasant circumstances and unplanned circumstances into this world. So that's the position that I come from whenever discussing pro-life activism and pro-choice activism. I think there's a lot of common ground that pro-life people and pro-choice people can meet on to genuinely make this world a better place for women in particular because it's rough for us out there and unplanned pregnancy and the circumstances surrounding a lot of unplanned pregnancies is just one of the many, many hardships that women are having to face. And as a pro-life activist, I think that is our job as pro-life activists and our pro-life movement to make the world a better place for women so that they don't feel the need to have abortions in the first place. And I will leave my opening statement at that so that we can get into dialogue. Awesome. Thank you guys for your opening statements. We're gonna switch gears and go into the open discussion now for about an hour and within some, somewhere around there. And I will have to step in and moderate if any overtalking ad hominems and things like that. But I don't think we're gonna have to descend into that but the floor is yours, guys. Go ahead. Yeah, sure. I'd like to start. Kate, you said that essentially making women slaves and taking away their freedom to choose abortion would somehow make their lives better, improve lives of women. Is that what you said? Well, no, I don't see pregnancy as slavery. I think that whenever you look at abortion statistics and overwhelmingly women are choosing abortions because of socioeconomic and outside reasoning that whenever we're talking about lowering abortion rates there are so many more things that we can be doing. I don't think this is a conversation of we just need to make abortion illegal and leave it at that. But overwhelmingly whenever women are choosing to have abortions, even whenever they don't particularly want to, that wouldn't be their first choice if they didn't have all of these outside other reasons to do so. I think that there are many ways that we can improve the lives of women so that they don't feel the need to go and get abortions in the first place. Yeah, but that wasn't quite what I asked. So we can do all of those things you just said and still give women the option to get abortions. So specifically taking away their freedom of choice to be able to choose abortion, you're saying taking away that freedom, hence making them a slave in some respect would be better for them? Would make their lives better by taking away one of their freedoms? Well, I don't see killing other human beings as a freedom. I mean, we don't liberate one group of people by enslaving another group of people and saying that a fetus doesn't have the right to life even though they did not choose to come into existence in the first place is just putting our enslavement on another group of people that's not liberation. Well, if another group of people is trying to harm you or do significant physical damage to your body, it seems like you do have the right to kill them in self-defense. But a fetus isn't trying to harm you. Again, they made no conscious choice to come into existence in the first place and they make no conscious choice to where their location is or how their development is. It's just biological. Sure, but choice doesn't make a difference in this case. Like you can kill someone in self-defense if they're having an epileptic seizure and charging at you and there's nothing else you could do to stop them. There are many police cases of that exact thing happening. So the men's rare of the intention of the child makes no difference to the fact that they will cause a significant physical harm to the body. And so it is justified to remove them in self-defense. So I'm not sure why you're bringing up the intention. Yeah, but this is like arguing that if you, it's like arguing you gave the bad guy the gun and now like you're giving the bad guy the choice of self-defense in a sense. Like you chose to have the baby, right? We have mechanisms here. Yes, yes. I know how to make babies and I know that it's not that easy necessarily to have a baby. And if you have people wearing protection, both being wearing people wearing protection, at least taking proper steps here, like this isn't a self-defense case. This is like the baby is not personally trying to harm you or kill you. And if babies, if it's that type of thing where you're in such danger, right? Now you agree with medically necessary abortions. But if you're in a situation where like a pregnancy could kill you, you should probably be taking more steps than getting pregnant here. Right, so we agree about the medically necessary thing. That's not what we're talking about here. But condoms don't always work, birth protection doesn't always work. So saying that because they work majority of the time, therefore everyone who happens to get pregnant is responsible is just false. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Those are clearly two different things. And saying they are is a naturalistic fallacy or saying or an appeal to nature if you're at which one it is. But it's saying that well, because your nature designed you to have babies, therefore if you take this action that nature deems will cause you to get pregnant, therefore you're responsible for nature the way it designed you. But if I take drugs, I'm responsible for the high I get off of them. Like if I create any action that I commit, I'm responsible for the action that I commit. Yeah, but you're not responsible for the consequences of nature. So like, if you could take drugs and have it not like make you. I can go with that particular nature, it is. I'm the one controlling that specific aspect of nature. You're not controlling the consequences. Oh, absolutely. I'm the one sticking my penis into somebody and allowing it to go through the acts of nature. Absolutely. Skylar, you don't control nature. I choice. You don't control nature. You're just saying how I'm using the word nature. I'm talking about nature is how my body functions, right? The orgasm. I'm not addressing in a way you have no say in. And because your body was determined to be this way without your consent, that you're not responsible for the way that nature deems your body is going to produce other. And this specific thing we're talking about, you are. No, that's. Yes. If you have somebody asking, can someone get pregnant if they don't have sex? Technically, yes. Technically, yes. But you know what I mean. No, they can't. They're not good. Unless you go and actually do it in the lab or go and actually have it injected into you. You're not going to. If you use, if you don't have sex, you're not going to get pregnant. What is this? You have to choose to get pregnant. What does this have to do with the point? So if I overall point is you're trying to act like this is like some part of nature that can't be stopped. No. And that is therefore it's difficult for you to take. Hold on. Let's finish this point. Go ahead, T-Joan. So this has nothing to do with the ability for it to be stopped. Like, for example, if we imagine a universe where every time someone eats a cheeseburger, they have a chance of getting pregnant. Does that mean that they're responsible for the pregnancy because they ate a cheeseburger? Well, no. Yes, you don't eat cheeseburgers. If you don't want to get pregnant in the world, where do you eat cheeseburgers and get pregnant? It's kind of, it's called an appeal to nature fallacy. We know why that's wrong. No, no, no. It's called reality. Because if you don't want to get pregnant from eating cheeseburgers, don't eat cheeseburgers. That's called an appeal to nature fallacy. So saying that something that you're obligated by something because of something nature did that you have no say in and that it's therefore right or has some kind of obligation. No, no. Your nature didn't do that. You did that. No, you had sex. No, you were not distinguishing nature between the will and human desire. That's not what an appeal to nature is, Skyler. So an appeal to nature. I don't understand what it is, but you're not really articulating how I'm making fallacy. Go ahead. No, an appeal to nature fallacy is to say something is good or right or has some obligation because it's the way nature is. So like it is the way nature is that a human body will reproduce if a sperm and an egg come in contact. Are you saying that a human mind is nature? That a human mind decisions is part of nature? Yes, but that's not relevant to the point. So then what is the, just saying, well, if you're just saying that a human's decisions is nature, then everything is nature in the context of what you're saying. Everything is nature, but that's not relevant. And this is irrelevant. And just saying that because it's nature, it's natural. Skyler, so to say that just because something is natural, therefore it's good, is an appeal to nature fallacy. Now, something can be natural. I'm not saying just because it's natural, it's good. Okay, well, it seems like what you're saying. You're saying that it's just because... No, I'm saying that human beings have the decision to have sex and have babies. That's what I'm saying. Okay, but that doesn't... So my point is, is that biology, nature makes people sexually reproduce in a certain way that we didn't consent in. That's nature. So nature did something. Yes, the biological reproduction, the actual way we reproduce is nature. So we can't be obligated to abide by that just because it's natural, because if that's the only reason we're obligated to abide by it, that would be an appeal to nature fallacy. So... No, no, no, you're not making the distinction between like how we naturally biologically function, like how we reproduce, and then the ability that we have to choose whether we want to reproduce, right? I don't do things that endanger my life, like not wearing a seatbelt in the car because then I open the opportunity for me to die in a car crash. Just like you make, you choose the opportunity to have sex. You don't have to have sex with somebody. Skylar, so when I choose to have cigarettes and get cancer, we give people a chance to kill the cancer. You show us that it's totally a rich, rich life. Skylar, hold on. Reprecussion. Skylar, hold on. Hold on, let's teach them. Finish this one, go ahead, teach them. When I choose to take drugs and get addicted, we send them to therapy. When I choose to do getting a car wreck, you send them to a doctor. The choices you make don't make you obligated to live with the consequences because you didn't choose the consequences. If you choose the consequences, yes, you're obligated to the consequences. But if you didn't, if there are consequences of nature which you didn't consent to, you're not obligated to anything. We're not obligated to anything. We choose our obligations, right? Funny looks don't answer the question, Tom. Like if you were to respond, we don't, you're saying there's some kind of obligation. The obligation is up to us. We make our own obligations. If you're saying, and that's that's wrong, that's an obligated, you're obligated to carry the child. It's just synonymous use of the term. They're not saying there's an objective one here. They're saying that terminating life when there's an opportunity to give it up for adoption is wrong. That's called the option. You're choosing death over life when there's other options. And you've already agreed, Tom, follow the point here, right? So you agree that killing baby or killing fetuses is wrong, right? A woman has a choice to either give up the baby for adoption, which doesn't kill a fetus, which is the moral thing to do or not do it. Which one is the more moral thing? Giving up the baby is the more moral thing to do. Just like if someone's coming at you with a knife, the moral thing to do is to let them stab you. The babies don't have a knife. That's so ridiculous. It's such a ridiculous analogy. Yes, that's exactly what I said. I said babies are moral. And that would fall under medically necessary abortions anyways, anyways. No, no, no, no. It's not a baby with a knife. You don't understand the analogy here. So I pregnancy what it does physically inside of the body. If you just imagine a human being, a doctor causing the same physical harm to a human's body and saying this evil doctor who is going to come and do to your body exactly what a baby would, you would have the right to kill the doctor because the harm caused to your body is great. So babies aren't set in the human beings that can make choices. No, they're not the same. I don't understand. Babies aren't the same thing, Tyler. You're not understanding. So if a doctor makes sense, I'm not understanding, but you're making analogies. It seems like we're coming into an impasse to you guys. So I wonder if you could do this. I'd like to finish the analogy. Yeah, I would like to get Kay and Steven involved and hear a little bit if they can get involved here, it'd be great. I'd like to finish this analogy first. So if a human being, a fully grown human being is going to do to your body what pregnancy does, there's no baby in this at all. If a doctor, a fully grown human being is going to cause equal damage to a woman's body as a pregnancy would, the woman would be justified to kill the doctor, which means the damage caused by pregnancy is equivalent to great bodily harm, which is the legal criterion that justifies use of lethal force to itself to bits. And it doesn't matter if the doctor is aware or epileptic or whatever. Rare situations, Sam. Rare situations. It's not the majority besides the pregnancy. I'm talking about every single pregnancy. Any pregnancy at all, the amount of damage done to the body qualifies as great bodily harm. Great bodily harm is... So it's okay to kill fetuses, kill life because it harms the body in some way. Yes. So, okay. All right, I mean, I just have a different view. I don't feel self-defense. I don't think you're protecting yourself against a baby. That will be born, right? You might have to suffer. I don't know what thing in life you would expect not to have physical suffering over, right? But that's how life works. Whether you're exercising, whether you're doing whatever, whether you're working a job, you do physical damage to your body over time, right? And if it's too much, I'm sorry that if it's too much that you get some physical damage. Like I said, I gave the exception for medically necessary ones, right? So what you're talking about is situations where women can have adoptions, give the baby up, not have maximal harm, right? Maybe go through some harm of the body but still choose to end the life because, hey, you know, it's my right to do what I choose to do with it. Maybe somebody else wants to. Yeah, I just wanted to say just like very, very quickly. I just kind of felt just like very, very awkward when we were talking about like, you know, like drugs and getting addicted while somebody's sitting here smoking a cigarette. But anyway, I just wanted to ask Kay just because you had said to kind of pass it over to us, like, do you think that like anti-abortion laws work in the sense that they will like reduce the amount of abortions that are being done? No, anti-abortion laws by themselves do not work and we have statistics to prove this. And this is why my activism is the way that it is because you can't just take something away without replacing it with something. You see in states where they have programs that offer low cost or free birth control. You see abortion rates plummet. Like we need to do things on a social and even a legal level to help lower the abortion rates as low as we possibly can in order for anti-abortion laws to have even a chance of doing what the majority of pro-lifers think that they're going to do. Well, yeah, I mean, I would kind of agree on the expanding education of sex. I fully agree with that. Where I was kind of going though, I mean, like just to kind of like about these anti-abortion laws, I mean, like I kind of get that it's a little bit unique in my position because Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973. So, you know, the chances that like everybody here and that the vast majority of the live chat if they are in the US have lived in a world where abortions were legal and they were able to be done. Ireland only passed abortion laws in 2018. So it's extremely recent. And like we have like anecdotes and everything else to say that like making abortion legal, like making laws around abortion does not stop the abortions. I agree that there is other things that we need to do, but I mean, like are you against the abortion laws then because you're like saying that they're not decreasing the amount of them? I mean, I guess I'm just kind of confused on your position. Well, I struggle like I, as a pro-lifer, I support anti-abortion laws. Mainly these abortion laws, the whole purpose of these states that are passing these abortion laws, their entire purpose is that they're trying to get them kicked all the way up to our Supreme Court because they're going after the chance to overturn Roe v. Wade. And that's the point of them passing these extremely limiting abortion laws because they know that they're going to go all the way to the Supreme Court. And that's going to give the pro-life movement the chance to challenge Roe v. Wade at SCOTUS. And like they've been completely transparent about that agenda. But I do struggle because these states that are these extremely red states that are passing these laws currently, like they have extremely high infant mortality rates. They have extremely high maternal mortality rates. You know, they have foster care problems. They're not fixing the underlying issues that lead to abortion in their state in the first place. And whenever I see a state that has passed an abortion law, I'm like, great, you know, you've gotten like one thing under your belt. Now you need to address the fact that your, you know, maternal mortality rate is like off the charts, horrible. You need to do something about your foster care system. Like now that you guys, you know, all you Republicans have tackled the abortion, like you need to get your shit together in all of these other areas so that you're not just leaving women to die and poorly kept hospitals with bad staffing that aren't addressing their issues that are causing them to die in childbirth or recently postpartum. Yeah, I mean, I would kind of largely kind of agree with tackling all of these extra things. But I mean, it still doesn't really kind of, like I don't really kind of get why tackling all of, like tackling all of that is not, it's good for its usages and everything else like that. And it does extremely good and positive things, et cetera, et cetera. But it still doesn't change the fact that like, if something is physically everything else dependent on you that you like, you shouldn't be forced to continue giving it like nutrients and everything to do with life. Well, and this is kind of where I disagreed with T-jump is because he says that intention doesn't matter and in my opinion it does because he likes to, this is why we go round in circles. You know, T-jump and I have been over this in our one-on-one debate. We kind of just go in circles around these analogies because at the end of the day, there is nothing that you can truly compare to the relationship between a woman and a pre-born human that had absolutely no say or gave no consent to being brought into existence, cannot consent in how the development of a human being is and is in no way, can in no way consent to trying to harm you, has no intention of harming you. And in all of these other analogies, you can put intent into play and that does come into play whenever you're talking about self-defense. Whereas with a fetus, it is a completely unique situation where there is a human being that had no consent in coming into existence is not consenting, they're not asking to be dependent on a woman to develop and they are in no way intending to cause harm or even, you can't even say that they're trying to just survive because they're not, they have no way of consenting to any of this. And I do believe that that does need to play a part in these conversations because like T-jump has said, this is the ending of a human life. And yes, pregnancy, I've gone through it twice, childbirth sucks, it hurts. And we do have high maternal mortality rates in childbirth and that does need to be addressed. But we're talking about legally allowing it the mass ending of human life and just not just allowing it, but de-stigmatizing it and normalizing it and saying that it's a good thing to do. Well, I actually think we can do that in analogies. We can actually match that non-intention very well, you could say, like if we tied someone up and threw them at you or like a catapulted them at you, so they have no intention, they have no choice or tied them to a car and the car is barreling toward you and going to kill you. Do you have a right to blow up the car to save your life? Yes, even if it kills the person who's been tied up and there's no intention of harming you, you still have the right to kill the person in the car because if you don't, they're gonna kill you. So you do, even if there's no intention to harm someone, you still have the right to kill someone in self-defense, even if they have no intention or desire or control over what's happening to try to harm you. Their intention makes no difference to your right to kill them. Just going through the basic laws of self-defense of the four criterion of what constitutes lethal force of lethal use of force, it's literally stated that if someone's coming at you, whether they intended or not, you have the right to use lethal force to stop them. Sorry, my husband's talking to me. Yes, but like even in these analogies, it still doesn't perfectly replicate the relationship between a woman and her preborn child. This is like, this is her child. This is somebody that was brought into existence that shares your DNA, that is a little small piece of you. I don't think that we can logically compare that to a stranger or even another family member or even a friend. Okay, that's fair. Your child has been locked into a car and is barreling towards you. You would still be justified in blowing it up, even though you probably wouldn't. You would still be justified in doing that because it's coming straight at you. So even if it's your child that's tied up and has no control over it by some evil mastermind, you still have a right to kill them in self-defense. But I think that as a society, and this comes down to, it's very nuanced, but I think that you would have, even on the pro-choice side, people that are in support of abortion, I think that you would have a little bit of convention with that idea that you were justified in choosing your life over that of your child. And this was the whole point of my opening is that we justify things. Everybody has justifications for why they think this is a particular immoral thing. And that's why throughout history, this has happened, slavery, the treatment of women, these people thought the stuff was morally justified. What we've gotta be talking about is, is more like, is it these kind of justifications like we're worried the baby might kill us? Is it this fear of the future that we can't read that's causing us to have these abortions? Like, we should be dealing with not what could happen, but knowing, like we said, that we know that the better decision would get these babies up for adoption. Or I would really hope that in the beginning people would be more responsible. But if that's not the case, we should get these babies up for adoption. And we can certainly afford it in this country with the amount of money we spend. We can cut just a fraction of our military and we'd be able to do a lot more spending. That is true, but I mean, you're like kind of overlooking the fact that like most parents whether go or like most wannabe parents when they're going into adopt children, they want like, and this is kind of based on the stats. They want white, young boys. So it's kind of automatically getting rid of, and like this is babies as well. So they're kind of like cut off, let's just say it's two or three. So like two or three above, if they're in foster care, they're statistically not going to be adopted if there are siblings that have been taken out of a household by CPS. Like a wannabe parent, even though they might sympathize and stuff like that, they're not going to, like most people are not going to adopt two, like even children, not even like teenagers, but children, but they're not going to adopt one because they don't want to break up the siblings. So I get where you're coming from, I was like the idea of adoption. Yeah, sorry. Well, we create systems then that can protect these children. We can split atoms, we can put people on the moon, we can figure out a way to take care of childcare. The children in this country, yeah. Honestly, like I'm not going to, but I could seriously rant for days about how incredibly messed up our child welfare system is, our foster care system is, and our adoption system. The fact that we're basically using children as like something to buy and sell, the cost of adoption in this country is absolutely ridiculous. I've met so many people in pro-life activism that talk about wanting to adopt so badly, but they can't because they simply can't afford it because we see children in the adoption system as commodities and we charge out the butt to adopt a child. Families that are perfectly capable, middle-class families that could easily afford to take in these kids and give them a loving home are barred from it because of the extreme costs of adoption in this country. Well, we agree on all of that stuff. Like I think that we should absolutely offer opportunities, cheap opportunities for adoption and give women subsidies for pregnancy and time off work. All of that stuff matters, but we shouldn't in addition to that ban abortion, which they should still have the option to get an abortion simply because the nine months of harm done to their body qualifies under the medical definition of great bodily harm and they shouldn't be forced to suffer that without their consent. Forcing them to suffer that without their consent is slavery, it's immoral, you shouldn't do that. So in addition to all these things you're saying, which would be great, you should, they should still have the right to get an abortion to prevent the bodily harm that's going to happen to them just from a regular pregnancy without any complications. Is Gary talking to us? I think, yeah, sorry, sorry. I was going to say that I think they do consent. I think the CID, if you do the actions to get you pregnant, that's consent. You're consenting to get pregnant. Like if I eat Big Macs every day, right? And I keep eating like out and Coca-coles, I'm gonna, it's naturally, it's gonna make me fat, right? But I'm choosing to do the things that will get me fat. I'm choosing to do the things that will get me pregnant. So you have to consent it to that pregnancy by doing the action that gets you literally pregnant. That's literally- If you get into a car, are you consenting to getting in a car crash? Car crash, they're different than a pregnancy. How? How? Just using the same line of what you've just said, though, because if you eat the Big Mac and then you get fat, then that's your fault. If you get into a car and you get into a car crash, then that's surely your fault as well. Yeah, I can send- Using your same line of project. I would say that I'm consenting to the chance of getting in a car accident. Because I know that any time I step in that car, and I've been in bad car accidents, but I am taking a chance, just like any time I step out that door, just like any time that I have sex, I know what the repercussions could bring. And every time I do something, I measure them to see whether I'm going to do something or not, or whether I have to, to some degree. So consents means that you give permission for something to happen. The fact that you accept consequences is not giving permission for those consequences to happen, that you're accepting that they could happen. You can't consent to sperm, Tom. You can't tell your sperm to consent, but if you stick your dick in a blend here, your dick's going to get blended. You can't consent, that's what you're saying. You're reacting as if there's no connection between what people do and the reactions that happen. And then somehow they're going, like they have no fault in it, is what you're saying. No, no fault in it. No, that's not how it works. That's not how it works. They have responsibility in it. Actually, they have no responsibility. It's not interrupting. Yeah, hold on, let's finish. As you said, you're right. You can't consent to getting pregnant. You have no control over your biology, which means by definition, you can't consent to it. Now, obviously you can consent to sex, which is not consenting to pregnancies. That's the very thing that you know, Scott. That's an appeal to me. Yes, it is. If you're saying pregnancy doesn't, sex doesn't get to pregnant, is that what you're saying? Stop interrupting, Scott. So you can consent. You're talking as I'm talking too, so I'm trying to be back. I haven't finished my point yet. Yeah, let's finish this point. So as I said, consenting to sex is not ever consenting to pregnancy. By definition, we know that is wrong. We know logically we can prove that argument is wrong because it's an appeal to nature or naturalistic fallacy. You can consent to doing one action without consenting to consequences, which is why someone who takes drugs, we don't just say, oh, we're not gonna treat you because you consented to the consequences. No, we still let them go to the doctor because they didn't consent to the consequences. Literally, getting an abortion is saying, I do not, Scott, it's not a complicated, this is a complicated point you're making. I got it five minutes ago. You got it, Scott. So literally, I got it five minutes ago. Yeah, let them finish, Schuyler, and while I teach them, they'll go to you back after you, Scott. I got the point, we understand what you're saying. It's not about you, Schuyler, so it's about the audience. So literally, getting an abortion means you do not consent to this person being inside of you. You are imposing consent on them. You are trying to force them to consent to something, which they are saying, I don't want. So if they're literally saying, I don't want this, that's literally the opposite of consent. You can't then impose consent on them by saying, oh, well, you did the action that led to it, therefore you consent. Obviously not, because that's the point of the abortion, is they don't. When you sign waivers, like you go in a restaurant, like you sign a waiver because you're gonna eat something hot, right? Like you're consenting that things could happen to you if you eat these hot chilies, right? Like nature, these chilies are naturally, through nature, going to do something to you, just like pregnancy is going to. But you're responsible because you chose to eat the chilies. You knew with the chilies that what nature would do, but you chose it anyway. And what you're trying to do is basically say, well, you wanna take away the responsibility for the actions of people. And be like, well, since the baby, now you have a baby, this is step two, we're forgetting about step one, the action of people. And now you're saying, well, step two, well, since you have the baby, it is kind of imposing on you, it might hurt you a little so, you should be able to kill it. I don't see how that's reasonable. For someone who eats too many chilies in there, like getting sick, what do we do with them? Do we just point and laugh and say, oh, you're just stuck with it. Deal with it, or do we give them to the hospital and cure them? Sure, if you mean that killing fetuses is the cure for pregnancy, sure, that analogy, but. Yep, that's exactly right. Again, it's like it's the cure for economic arches. But that's just how you do it. Again, like these analogies, guys. These analogies, like again, they don't work because pregnancy is a completely unique situation, whereas if you choose to engage in sexual intercourse, knowing that pregnancy is a possible outcome and then say, well, I didn't consent to getting pregnant, so now I'm going to kill, end the life of another human being, this is different than all of these other circumstances, whereas like you go, you get addicted to drugs and you go and get treatment, or you eat something too spicy and you need treatment at the hospital. None of these situations, none of these analogies end in killing another innocent human being that have no consent of their own, no volition of their own, no intention of their own, is having their life ripped away from them because of the actions of two other people. But we can literally just add that into the analogy. This is covered in philosophy select. If some evil hamburger monster doesn't like the fact that you eat hamburgers and every time you eat hamburgers, he decides to kidnap you and impregnate you, do you have the rights or kidnap you and hook you up to a violinist to keep them alive because he doesn't like that you ate hamburgers, are you responsible to keep the violinist alive or can you just detach and let the violinist die? Yeah, you can just detach, like just kill the violinist because you didn't consent to this action, you didn't consent to being a part of this violinist. Even if you knew it could happen, even if you knew there's this evil doctor out there who's going to kidnap you and hook you up to a violinist to eat cheeseburgers, you still have the right to eat cheeseburgers. Like you aren't obligated to abide by these rules that have been imposed on you by an outside force that you had no rule, no say in. So we can literally add that in. So this analogy I just gave you, the violinist one that my partner mentioned at the beginning has a person's life in it. You didn't choose to be hooked up to this person, you were a victim of biology or nature or a psychopath. You have every right to detect yourself even at the cost of their life because you're not obligated to live by nature's rules or some psychopath's rules if you didn't consent to. Again, we're kind of just, like I said earlier, we're just going in circles with these analogies because this kind of just circles back to the unique relationship between it being a child, this is your child, and on the social aspect of the argument, whether or not there is a stigma around you choosing your life over your child's life. We could just make the violinist your child. We're not even necessarily even saying that it's not a unique engagement, but what we're saying is that if you don't have to provide sustenance, if you don't have to provide the qualities that is giving somebody else life in one instance, then why do you and someone else in some different instance? That's the kind of point that we're kind of getting at. What's the biggest issue that got you in that position? Well, that's the difference. In my analogy, you literally do that. You make decisions that get you into that situation. Sure, but in any, like yes, in some kind of wild scenario, like I take the chance of anything happening when I walk out that door. I can get chopped up by an axe murderer. I could be kidnapped by a serial killer. Maybe, I don't know, there's a tons of things that could happen. Yeah, you take that chance, but we should be real within how we view things and how things happen. If you don't drive a car or you don't get in cars, you're far less likely to get in a car accident. And if you don't have sex or you be more responsible, you are less likely to get pregnant. I'm sorry, people aren't going to get away with this idea that there's no responsibility on these folks. Therefore, they can go ahead because it hurts the mother and now they can terminate the life. They should have thought of that the first place. But you should have thought of that before you had the cigarette. So we're just not going to treat you anymore. But it's not... Yeah, yeah, go ahead, please. But in regards to treatment, again, in regards to treatment of cigarettes, it's not like you're just going to get treatment, like a life is ending and it needs to be a more nuanced conversation than that because like, yeah, you had cigarettes, now you have lung cancer, you need to be treated for cancer. Well, you had sex and you got pregnant. Well, now you have the chance to decide whether or not you're going to end the life of another human being. So that still fits into the analogies. I've already brought forward pretty exactly. So somebody kidnaps you because you did something they didn't like and they hooked you up to another human being. You had no consent to this. There's another human being there. If you detach yourself, if you're going to die, do you have the right to detach yourself? Well, but this analogy, like I love how you always phrase it as like, you did something that I don't like. I don't care if people have sex. Go ahead, have sex, have a sex as much as you want. Have protected sex, have unprotected sex. Like I'm not here to police people having sex. I love sex, I think it's great. I wasn't talking about you. I'm saying like if there was a psychopath who didn't like you doing something like eating a cheeseburger, so and you knew this. And so you knew there's this evil guy who just kidnaps anybody who eats cheeseburgers and hooks them up to another human being. So you know the consequences of the action. So I'm not saying you personally. And you'd still choose to eat cheeseburgers. I have the right to eat cheeseburgers and feel good about myself. And then the evil doctor kidnaps you and hooks you up to another person. Do you have a right to detach yourself even if that other person is going to die? No, I understand the analogy. And I wasn't trying to say that you were saying something more than what you were saying. I'm just saying that, we're trying to make some sort of bogeyman out of just our natural biological makeup. Yes, exactly. Nature is horribly, horribly more immoral, for sure. It depends on how your perspective is. Like this is just about your perspective here. Right, that's kind of like even the thing where you use the word right with your analogy, like there's no right there. It's just whether there's the person feel justified and unplugging themselves from the other person. Right? So like, so in the end, like, yeah, go ahead. That's what I'm asking you. So given my analogy, so there's an evil guy doesn't like you eating cheeseburgers, you ate a cheeseburger and you knew this was going to happen. He kidnapped you, hooked you up to another person. Do you have the right to detach yourself from this other person? In general? So if there was no, okay, if there was a way that I could help that person, right? And I chose to detach myself when there was another possibility, right? Like if I said, hey, if I can just wait here an hour with this person, if I'll have somebody come here an hour, they'll be able to detach me. Right? Yes, it would be more. Like if it's like, no, no, I'm just, I'm sorry, I'm out for myself. It's my selfish, objective morals in that situation. I'm going to pull a plug. Well, is there a time limit? So like, obviously, if you can't ever leave, then you would just find a place yourself. If it was an hour, you would wait the hour. But how about nine months? You had to sit there for nine months, would you? I think I would. Yeah, if it really meant saving somebody's life, well, so I'd give it somebody a kidney if I could, right? Like, I mean, that's, you know, maybe if they were really awful person, I wouldn't, if they were like a child molester, I'd probably say no. But if they're like, there's normal decent human being, like, I'm gonna be like, all right, this is gonna be- Let's be honest, if it's a child molester, or like, we're not just pulling the plugs, like, other things are happening. But I mean, it'd be moral to save the child molester, right? You'd be moral to save his life, to give yourself to save his life. I will admit, I will be completely honest here. I have been completely honest and like open about this. Like, I'm a consistent life ethic activist. I don't believe in any, I don't believe in the death penalty. I'm anti-euthanized and everything, but my one exception to this rule, this is where I'm horribly hypocritical, is whenever it comes to child abusers, like, I don't care. Like, if I saw a child abuser being beaten to death in the street, I'd walk the other way and I wouldn't lose an ounce of sleep over it. I mean, like, Skyler, you would say that you would give a kidney to save somebody else. Should the government force you to? Forcing a kidney probably not. It was probably like, yeah. Okay, so why are you advocating that the government force women to give birth? Well, because when you say forced to give birth, what you mean is, why are you saying the government shouldn't tell people that they can't kill their fetuses, they'll kill the potential life? So like, I don't view it in the sense of like, why are you making your, like to me, it'd be like, why are you allowing your children to live today? It's like, well, it's not that I'm allowing them to live. They're just alive and they're doing their thing. And I don't feel like I have the right to take their life. Right, but there's still a little bit of a hypocrisy here, because you're okay with the government not like forcing you to give an organ to somebody else, even if that is a life-saving organ and you not giving that organ is gonna kill that person. You're in favor of that not being something that is enforced by the government, but you are in favor of the government forcing women to give birth. Because if they're not doing it, it's gonna save somebody else. So in both instances, if you don't do the thing, then somebody dies. But why are you okay with it in one instance and not the other? But in an organ donation, it's not just not doing the thing, whereas with abortion, it's directly intentionally with intent to going in and having a doctor kill someone. Whereas organ donation, if you choose not to donate your organ, which I believe everybody should be an organ donor while you let your organs rot in the ground after you're gone, but you're not intentionally, you're not going in and stabbing someone that needs a kidney. You're not intentionally directly causing the death of another human being by refusing to give an organ. Yeah, I think potentially because like, if they're the only match to this person that they find and their time is running out, they only have a couple of weeks, maybe a month at max left. And they're saying to you, you're the only match that we found. If you don't give the organ like the chances are is that this person is gonna die. Now, I know it's a little bit different because obviously in an abortion, it's 100% everything else at that. But the point still remains is that it is a little bit of a special bleeding fallacy where you're okay with it in one instance and not in the other, even when both results, like both instances results in somebody dying. But again, like, and like you said, it is a little bit different. Like they still have the chance at life. And I've had this conversation with T-jump before about how like if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant would rather have had an abortion and we can just get her to the point of viability and give that child a chance to live. Like I see that as a win. Even if the chances aren't extremely high, she gets to like 20, 21 weeks. And we know that there's not a high chance of survival and she's down to either I'm going to have an abortion or you need to deliver this baby now. Like at least they have a chance. Whereas with abortions, there is zero chance that that life is going to end 100%. Two people go in, only one comes out. Well, actually it's back to my point with Skylar. So he said he would, if he had to sit there infinitely he'd detach himself, but if he had to wait an hour he would definitely not, he'd just wait the hour. So there's some like set amount of time where it's reasonable to wait versus not reasonable to wait. And that chime could be different for different people, right? Like if you have to support a family and you have to go to work the next day or your kids are going to starve, like you're probably reasonable to detach yourself within the hour because you have to go do stuff to support your family, right? Yeah, but this is like, what I would consider is like it's like imagine I was holding onto my son's hand on the edge of a cliff, right? And like I was the only one gripping his hand. And like I'm like, oh, I could probably hold on for two more minutes, my hands getting cramped, right? And I go with the baby. Like I think that what, or like over them. It depends on like what the situation is. Like what, like what's a reasonable and the, I get your analogy is like the idea of a reasonable amount of time. But realistically, if it's something that I can do I'm going to do it to save the life. Oh yeah, absolutely. I guess it would get to something like really absurd time periods that I'd have to maybe consider. Oh yeah, yeah, for sure. But that would be different for each person, right? Each person has a different life and what they have to do is different. Like many people have multiple jobs. They work two full-time jobs to feed their kids. So they don't really have the ability to invest in a pregnancy and what it could do to their body could cause them to not be able to feed their kids. And in those cases, even though it may not be medically necessary, it's still going to cause significantly damage to their life, which you really don't know. And so it should kind of be left up to them whether they have the right to detach themselves or not, right? You shouldn't force them to be like, nope, you're going to stay there attached to this person. Like they should have the right to choose for themselves, shouldn't they? Well, in those instances, like that's where we come in with, you know, support. Like we need to be supporting these women that are in these situations that they would rather not be in so that it doesn't cause significant damage. Women shouldn't have their whole lives, flipped upside down because they got pregnant whenever they didn't plan to. Well, sure, if there's no consequences, then abortion should absolutely just be illegal. But that's the point here is that there are consequences. So we have to incorporate those into the analogy. So in a perfect world where we can just solve all consequences to pregnancy, I agree, get rid of abortion because it's killing someone, you shouldn't kill someone. But that's not a realistic option here. So we have to keep in mind that there are consequences to pregnancy, to people's lives, to people's bodies. And many of the people who are getting pregnancies are poor people who have to spend a lot of time working and don't really have the option to just wait it out. There are serious consequences to their lives. A regular pregnancy can cause serious consequences to their lives. And so they should have the right to make this choice. And it shouldn't be restricted to them by made illegal or the government shouldn't be able to make this choice for them or you shouldn't be able to make this choice for them. They're the ones who should have the right to make this choice. And taking that away from them is, to me, seems very much like slavery. Well, I don't know if I call it slavery. But it certainly does limit their choice to terminate the life of their fetuses. I get, I'm kind of with you, Tom, in the sense of, like I wouldn't ever personally vote to change the laws right now if we didn't have protections for women. Right? Like that would be kind of a useless thing to do for us to just make abortion illegal and change nothing about our society and how we do things in our laws. This is why I have much more nuance and position with it. But on the other hand, though, I think that it's important that we really start to talk about the value of human life and what scares me about things is how we get to a point of how humans talk about fetuses. Right? How they talk, they don't talk about it as if it's someone's potential future or, I mean, I've heard people just say like a sack of flesh or cells like that. And that is not the way, at least anybody I've met who's been pregnant talked about their future child. Right? Those people, those fetuses usually have names and futures people imagine. What scares me is the way we as a society have just made it so nonchalant. How easy it is just, how easy is the abortion but how easy the decision to make the abortion because of fear of what the future holds has become so prevalent these days. So we're gonna check really quickly about 10 to 15 minutes. We're gonna wrap her up and get to super chats and I just wanna give you guys a 10 minute head start warning. Yeah, so neither me or my opponent made the claim that the fetus isn't alive. So that wasn't a part of either of our arguments. No, no, but I'm talking about the way that we treat fetuses. Even you throughout this debate, you constantly just said, well, you used it as the analogy as if it's a person with a knife attacking the woman. Right? No. You did make analogies about how dangerous the fetus was and you were making analogies about how it's almost like an attacker. It causes physical harm to the body. That was the analogy. Its intention, as I had mentioned multiple times has no difference. So it's drinking alcohol causes physical harm to the body. Yeah. Yes, yes. So just saying it has physical harm to the body doesn't give you an excuse to end the life, the potential life of a fetus. Yes, it does. It doesn't, no. If you're gonna. Well, I mean, technically under a constitution, yes, if you're saying subtle law in that sense. But if you're just saying like, we're not arguing necessarily the total legality of it tonight. We're just talking about abortion versus. Right, right. And I think that. Pro-life possession, yeah. I think the legality gets that right. If there is great bodily harm that's going to be happened to your body, you have every right to do anything required to stop that from happening. I think that's correct. I think that is the correct thing to do by the law and by morally standards. Yes. The natural function of pregnancy you feel because the natural function of pregnancy you believe is enough to where it's justified to kill life. Right? Yes. So just being born is justified enough for God to drown the babies in the Bible. Right? And you're saying, Hey, simply being pregnant, right? Justifies the woman in order to take the life of the baby. Yeah. Like if someone came at you with a bowling ball and was going to shove it up your butt, then yeah, you'd be. The baby doesn't have, but this is what I'm talking about. Talking as if a baby is a character with a bowling ball. This has nothing to do with the baby. It's not equal now. It's not equal now. It's not equal now. It's not equal to the baby. It's not equal to the baby. It's not equal to the baby. It's not equal to the baby. It's not equal to the baby. Skylar, this has nothing to do with the baby. Yes, it has everything to do with fetus. Skylar, the only thing I'm talking about here is the harm caused to the body. That's it. The analogy, if you take the exact same amount of harm caused to the body by pregnancy, take out the child, replace it with a bowling ball. Would, is that great bodily harm? If someone came at you with a bowling ball. It's not great. It's not great bodily harm in the same context where you're talking about. Hey guys. You're trying to make bodily, you're talking about as your pregnancy is this awful thing for women. A lot of women enjoy pregnancy. I can see you talking because it's just a terrible thing. That's what I don't believe. Hey guys. I feel like we're just going in circles and I really quick wanted to ask Stephen something because he said something about ectopic pregnancies. And it's my understanding. I have met like two or three in the seven years that I've been a pro-life activist that are against treatment for ectopic pregnancies. We consider them not pro-life. They're just crazy and stupid. But it is my understanding because you live in Ireland, like even whenever abortion was illegal, women did still have access to that treatment, correct? Only after 2014. Only after 2014. So before that, if like they had an ectopic pregnancy, like what was the course of action there? Like did Ireland see like a huge number of female deaths because of ectopic pregnancies? So I mean, I guess and no, there was one extremely famous case in Ireland in 2013, which was a woman was in hospital. It was in Galway in Ireland and she contracted septicemia because her baby died as the result of an ectopic pregnancy. There was two doctors that signed off that was like, yes, I know it's unconstitutional, yeah, yeah, yeah, but this is some serious shit when you need to get the baby out. The hospital refused to do it and she died. It caused like massive, you're talking about the Vita hella penna bar. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I couldn't think of her name, but yes, that is the exact person that I'm talking about. Yeah, so basically as a result of her case, Ireland changed its laws on if the pregnancy is a significant risk to the mother. But look, it may be anecdotal, it may be kind of, I'm plucking this out of thin air and trying to make something with it. But if this was allowed to happen once, it's not unreasonable to suggest that it might have been allowed to happen more than once. So I don't know the exact numbers on how many women suffered because of an ectopic pregnancy, but as I said, the laws was only there starting in 2014. Yeah, and I found her case to be super, super interesting. It got a lot of attention even over here. And I did read an article, it was by several doctors from like multiple different countries talking about how like even under Ireland's laws at the time, like the medical errors of the hospital staff there were just like astronomically terrible. And this is a conversation that like a lot of pro-lifers aren't willing to have. Like we talk about how, even if abortion were made like 100% illegal tomorrow, like women would still have access to life-saving care. But we don't talk about how like that would look in a post legal abortion society what steps we can take legally to make sure that women aren't in these situations. And I do think that it's important conversation to have because we don't want women dying from a septic pregnancy or a nectopic pregnancy where the fetus is very obviously not going to survive. Deliver the baby, try to save the woman. And I do believe that overwhelmingly the majority of pro-life people are on the side of life-saving care. And if the fetus does happen to not survive then that's an unfortunate outcome. But I do believe that it is a conversation that we need to dig deeper into and make sure that whenever we're having conversation about making abortion illegal that we are making sure that that goes a step further and making sure that women aren't in these situations. Yeah, there was just one other thing that I just kind of wanted to tack on to that. Even after that law was passed in 2014, there was still like, there was still a lot of kind of pushback from the hospitals that maybe a little bit of a, you know personal anecdote and stuff like that. I had said in my opening that, you know, that like whereas it wasn't my goal, I've lost a child to an ectopic pregnancy. And so even in that case, like when like she was going about it, she was diagnosed with having an ectopic pregnancy and stuff like that. Like we still had to fight to have the hospital do something in that case because it was before 2018 before abortions were legal here. So, you know, like even after it was kind of passed and even after it was done and stuff like that there was still a lot of extra work or extra kind of head work that needed to be done after that. I'm so sorry that you had to go through that. But here in the US, there is a concentrated effort to kind of change the way that hospitals and medical staff label ectopic pregnancy removal. Like if we remove, because it is still labeled as like an abortion here, whenever you have an ectopic pregnancy removed, there's a concentrated effort to change the way that those are labeled. So if it's not labeled as an abortion, if it's labeled as something different, then if abortion were to be made illegal or even cracked down on, that women would still have access and not have to go through so many hoops to get that life saving care. Because it is incredibly time sensitive to have an ectopic pregnancy removed as soon as possible. Mm-hmm. Yeah, no, I mean, I agree. She went to nine weeks after it was said that this was happening. So yeah, like it was still, it was getting to kind of a point where it was, I don't want to make it about me and we can move on after this, but I mean, yeah, it was, you know, it was still a pretty significant fight that we had to do to kind of have it sorted and stuff like that. Yeah. Anyway, not for that, maybe we can move on. It's not like it's a touchy subject. Obviously, I brought it up, but it's just, you know. Yeah, we're getting near the end here. We can wrap this up. So if you guys have a finishing comment or a concluding remark, that'd be great too. I don't have anything to add to the conversation, so. I think this is like, mine is Skyler, this is our revenge match because we both got our debate stolen from the debate tournament because we both got robbed. We did, we got robbed. So I'm sorry, Tom, for over talking to you a lot tonight. I was excited to get to talk to Tom. We're friends, so we don't need to. Are you kidding me? That makes it more entertaining. Yeah, it's better. It's better. Yeah, it was fun, man. I was so expecting to see Tom in our, I think we were, I swear, I thought we were going to be the two in the last round yesterday, so. Half the people got robbed on that one, it was. Yes. That'll be more in the future. We'll get to see more in the future, no point. Congratulations to G, you did a great job. God's engineer wanted. Oh wow. So we're going to finish it up there. That was a captivating discussion. We appreciate all our interlocutors for engaging in a passionate discussion, yet civil. So I think we're going to switch gears and go into the super chats unless someone wants to have a concluding remark and then we'll just go from there. So do you guys, does anyone have something to say before you go? Okay, I'm good. What happened to your creepy picture? Just lagging, I started lagging my screen I had to take them off, like, come on. You didn't want to scare any small children. So just one thing, praise. My co-host from my channel told me that he sent in super chats under the channel name. So it's going to look like I'm asking myself questions, but I'm not. Just wanted to put that out there. Sure, yeah. Sure, we believe you. Yeah. So we got Steven Steen, 4.99, the jokester. He says, two years ago, I got Tom Pregnant at a MDD live event. Mario fiction convinced Tom to keep our baby and now our handsome boy praise is hosting the debate. True story. True story. Oh my gosh. Good gosh, Steven. I knew I recognized that kid from somewhere. So here's, this is exactly what Steve was talking about, cider and pour for five bucks. How can a five-year-old physically or biologically give birth? I believe she had like a medical condition that caused her reproductive system to, like she went through puberty way earlier than she should have. That is possible. There is a lot of, like there is unfortunately a lot of other cases just like hers. They're a little bit older, but typically kind of like what happens in those situations, absent a medical condition is, and I kind of almost feel like I want to put a trigger warning on from this, because it's pretty fucking gruesome. Essentially, what happens in those cases is that the child is raped from the day that it's born and as a defense mechanism, the body goes into early onset puberty so that it can like survive the sex. Again, it's very, very gruesome, but essentially that's what happens because it goes into early onset puberty. Obviously a result of that is that you can get pregnant and so that's how it happens. It's very rare. I do want to kind of point that out as well. It is very, very rare, but these cases do exist. Yeah, and in that case of the five-year-old giving birth, she was that her biological father was also the father of her child, so she was being abused. And this was addressed to Steven and T-Jump, if you guys want to finish, you have the final remark on that. So we'll go to the next super chat, Mike Billers for five bucks to all. Have you always had your stance? Question mark, if not, can you share why you changed your mind? I'll take that first. No, I haven't always been pro-life. I grew up in a traditional conservative home, so I was always told that I was pro-life, but during my rebellious period as a teenager, it was just starting to become like a fad for teenagers to be pro-choice and talk about it, and I labeled myself as pro-choice for about two years, and then I had a pregnancy scare and the potential father of my child told me that if I was pregnant, that I needed to quote-on-quote take care of it, and so I started researching abortion and I was horrified and I have been pro-life ever since. I wouldn't say that I've kind of always been pro-life. I didn't even really kind of look into the argument. I was an extremely ignorant and very dumb teenager. I still am pretty ignorant and dumb, but I never really kind of thought about my position on it, and then obviously the case in 2014, as we were talking about, that came up and the conversation kind of evolved and evolved and evolved, and then the vote in 2018, that's kind of when I solidified my stance as being pro-choice. I would say that I guess I've been pro-life most of my life. I mean, I've given it much more thought in my older years. I grew up in a Catholic church when I was younger, it's probably where someone's come from, but yeah, I don't know. I think it's just gotten some nuance over the years and I've been more focused on it, but I think generally I've been pretty pro-life most of my thinking career, I guess. I had no position on it for most of my life, and I was researching the academic literature when researching morality and came across all the big arguments from the academics comparing point by point, all of the similarities between all the different analogies of when it's justified to take a human life and when it's not and do we hold responsibility for things nature imposes on us and when do we not? And just when you quantify it, it seems like it falls more on the side that it's an involuntary position on the woman without her consent and she should be justified in moving it just like any form of self-defense. And so that's what caused me to be pro-choice. Appreciate your responses. This is banned for life for 10 bucks. Thank you for your super chat. I don't like abortion, but I dislike children being born to parents who want them even more. Dislike children being born to parents who do want them? I've got to assume it's... So you think is that either a misquote or a mistype? No, I agree. I agree. 100% agree. Or is it a troll? Is it verifiable? Yeah, could be. Expensive troll, but... Yeah, I mean, you have to admire his commitment for those 10 bucks, you know? He couldn't... Yeah. So let's go to the next one. Will Stewart, THFC Ransford, 999. Thank you for your super chat. Tom, an appeal to a nature fallacy is something being good of natural and or bad, if not. How does this apply for being responsible for the consequences? Are you not guilty of the fallacy, fallacy question mark? No, so two things there. One is that saying that, for example, pregnancy is good or that you have an obligation to carry the child to term because it's natural would be an appeal to nature fallacy. A fallacy fallacy is saying that there's a fallacy in the argument there for the conclusion is wrong. And that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that their justification is fallacious. But their conclusion could be right for other reasons, but that justification can provably be shown false. So we don't need to tell us... I don't think I'm qualified to be here anymore because my brain just died. Yeah, and we have to go by priorities. So we just had a hundred dollars super chat from Zir Rafa. My gosh, thank you for your super chat. That's praise. That's five bucks. Oh, well, that's the check money or five bucks or whatever. Okay. That was a good face palms, that was a face palm moment. Okay. Well, I might as well just do it anyway. So, okay, for at pro life, which is worse, child molesting or child killing, if a chance of life is more important than lack of suffering, why is your hate for the pro choice side, not at least as strong as for pedos? One is self-defense of your body, one is not. And honestly, like you can look at any of my content on any platform, my hatred for abortion and my hatred for pedophiles is pretty frickin' eagle. Yeah, in fact, I think we even made it, we even talked a little bit about it during the discussion, like we talked about how much we don't like pedophilia. Yeah, I think we can both hate both of them. I guess like we can both... Would chipper go burr? Yeah, I don't know. Here. Gotcha. So, here's Layman for $5 and give you a super chat. I asked this in every abortion debate, does everyone support making all birth control free through taxes? Yep. I do, yeah. Free birth control, let's do it. I guess. That's a unanimous, yes. Then we got Chris Gaiman for $4.99, Kay, why not just work to provide all women the resources they need to hopefully avoid abortion but leave the practice legal? Laws don't work, so what? Question mark. Well, that is mainly like what the fight is right now for people like me. I mean, we are working to lower abortion rates as much as we possibly can through social means, but whatever, at the end of the day, whatever it comes down to it, even if we eliminate all socioeconomic reasons, there are still going to be abortions that happen. And being that I believe that life begins at conception and I oppose killing human beings from natural start of life to natural end of life, I'm going to be opposed to elective abortions in any case in scenario. Thank you for your response. So we have Zorbu coming at you, Skyler. If you think pregnancy is always a choice, what happens if someone gets pregnant from rape? Is that a choice, Skyler? Well, I don't think all pregnancy is a choice, but yes, there are people who have gotten raped and had children. All I'll say is that I don't see why those folks, that potential life doesn't deserve to live at some point. Like we don't blame people for the sins of their father, right? Just because you're genetically, they may be genetically related to someone who commits such a vile act, certainly doesn't mean that child one day commits such a vile act and that person could grow up to save many lives or have very positive influence on humanity, so. Gotcha. So Zorbu again for another $5, protection doesn't always work. And if you say that's a medical problem, then how do the doctors determine that? So let's direct it at everyone, I think. I don't think that birth control not always working as a medical problem. I think it shows signs that we need better options and we do. I don't like the idea that birth control is almost 100% their responsibility of women and that we have the option of completely fucking up our hormones or having to have something implanted, a little piece of metal or plastic implanted inside us. I think that the market does absolutely need to be pushed against more for better options and for options for people of all genders. Ramen, I agree with that. I would take a pill. Like if there was like some pill that would make sure that my wife would not get pregnant, 100%. I just need to get the sniff though. I think that'll probably be the most effective out there. Do it guys, out there. Don't make you women. We do need to normalize. We need to normalize the sex misguides. Seriously, it's so invasive for most men and they don't even need to put people to sleep. I think nowadays it's like with a laser. I don't even think it cuts you anymore. It's literally a laser and you don't have to worry about it anymore. And then instead of making women take these drugs that mess with your hormones, cause all kinds of other problems. Yeah, I don't. Step up, man. Take the birth control. There you go. So we have another super chef, Zorbu. Again, the third one in a row for $2, Zorbu. Do impregnated rape victims consent to being pregnant? Of course not. I don't think anybody like made that argument. We're not arguing that rape victims consented to getting pregnant. I make the argument against abortions in cases of rape for the exact same thing that Skyler said. We don't punish innocent human beings for the acts of somebody else. I don't think that life is any less valuable because of how they were conceived. And I don't think they have any less of a right to life because of how they were conceived. There are many people throughout history that are products of rape and they've done amazing things and made very impactful moments on other people's lives. You wanna talk about, yeah. If you wanna talk about rape, go out and educate men on not raping women. Gotcha. This is Mark Reed for $5, Skyler and Kay. Why would a woman suspend her right to bodily autonomy in this specific case? Because like I said, multiple times throughout this conversation, this is ending the life of another human being and not just any other human being. This woman's offspring, this woman's child, a piece of her, a part of her that had absolutely no consent in being brought into existence and has no consent on how the trajectory of their first nine months of life plays out. I agree. Thank you for your response. We got for Ron Salas. If I said that wrong, I apologize for butchering that. For 9.99, pro lifers, what percentage do you assign to a mother versus fetus in regards to a value number? Question mark, 50, 50, 60, 40, et cetera. How did you derive at that ratio? Are you saying like how do we look at them like in terms of equality because I see all human beings as equally important and equally valuable and I think that's consistent? Yeah, fair enough. Fair enough. I don't go into my head and think, okay, 51% for the woman, 49% for the fetus and because of X, Y, like... I don't think anybody does that. He's obviously suspected, yeah. I mean, obviously there's some sensitivity to it here, but... So, the next one, cider and port. So, yeah, we've been explained with that. So, thank you for your five-dollar super chat. Stephen, what improvements to sex ed are you advocating for? I mean, I think that the amount of sex ed that people are getting now is like... There's a value to it, but I think that a lot of it is kind of a little bit... ...useless, I guess, in a way. I mean, we were told in our sex ed that this is the vulva and this is the UV. I don't need to know that. And I mean, if I'm having sex with somebody and I see her ovaries, I've made a colossal fucking error. I think that, you know, with sex ed as well, I mean, it's the whole thing... I'm not necessarily advocating that the people who are giving sex ed go into a massive amount of detail, but all I will say is, the first time that I was having sex with a woman and she asked me to choke her, I was like, well, I missed that slight in the fucking PowerPoint. So, yeah, there's a lot of improvements that I think needs to be made to sex ed, but yeah. Gotcha. Thank you for your response. More than it asked me to tell me. We're good. Yeah. So, Ken Hoven, CPA for two dollars. I've had it up here with fetuses. Much. Yeah, I can't stand Steven's either. I agree. Them fetuses, though. Yeah, we'll go for Connor for five. Connor, D for five dollars. Thank you for your super chat. If a woman can revoke consent during sex, can she do the same thing during pregnancy? It's not the same equivalent, because if you revoke consent during sex, then all you have is, you know, probably some douche that's pissed off if you revoke consent during pregnancy, another human being dies. You want to respond to that teacher I'm receiving? No, that's correct. Yeah. OK, so we go to Sigma and me for five dollars. What does a collection of cells become totes? A real boy, no killy, killy question mark. I'm not sure where he's going with that one. Life begins at conception. It becomes totally human at conception. Whether or not it's a boy or a girl is written in a genetic code at conception. I mean, what is it, six weeks and there's a heart to beat in a circulatory system already by six to eight weeks? Something along that line. People don't even know they're pregnant, usually do about six weeks most of the time. Oh, and in response to, kind of in response to that whole sex ed thing, like I think they should go super into detail. I think that everybody should learn at the full extent of pregnancy throughout all nine months and maybe less people will have sex in a responsible place. Yes. Gotcha. We'll go to the next one. Steven Steen coming at you. Next analogy loses the debate. Oh, Steven. Bring it in, sunflower. So we'll go to the next one from Korag Nightwoof. Skyler, love you, man. I'm a big fan, but would you say eating is consent to choking on food or swimming is consent to drowning? So when I eat food, I am acknowledging and consenting at the possibility that I could choke on it. Same thing with going swimming. If I go swimming, I'm consenting that there is a danger that I am putting myself in, especially here in Florida because we have alligators in our water and you don't mess with alligators. But yes, I do feel that you, whatever I make a decision to do, whatever X, Y and Z, there are things and repercussions that can come from it. And I try to limit those bad things that can come from things by avoiding them. To some degree, I don't know. Gotcha. Now Korag, again, for $5, thank you Korag. Thanks for this debate, the secular way. This is how it's done, keep them coming. So we have, we're gonna go to Sunflower for five. You guys wanna respond to that real quick before we go to the next one or? Okay, thanks. Appreciate it. Yeah, thank you. You're welcome. Sunflower for five bucks. What's up Sunflower? Pornography is among the most harmful and ubiquitous things in the modern world. It should be more heavily regulated. Opposite of that. It is actually. Yeah, I was just gonna say the first part, let's say, but it's just factually untrue. Even without kind of getting into the rebuttal of it, it's just factually untrue. In many, many ways. I would just say maybe some of the online porn sites like Pornhub probably could do better at how they upload their videos and verifying, people are over the age of 18 because that's kind of, they've had some problems with that in the recent year, but I don't particularly have with adults watching adult entertainment in general. Yeah, I agree. As long as they're not exploiting children, like live and let live. Yeah. Got you. I think for your response, Sunday worship for $10, cats can terminate their own pregnancies at will. Is that immoral? If humans could do that, would your position change? Does the fact that humans require a third pretty to abort change its morality? It would be kind of, I don't know, like imagine, could you imagine like someone at nine months pregnant, you'd be like, no, I don't want this. And then just terminate the pregnancy at that point. It seems like that would be pretty heinous at that point. I don't know, like the cat's thing is silly, but like, I don't know with the idea of like humans, if they could do it, whether it would be moral or not. I guess, I don't know. That's a weird question. But it seems like in most cases, it would still seem moral to me. I mean, the fetus is still being killed. So yes, I still consider it immoral. Yeah. Gotcha. So with $5 super chat, you didn't say anything Mike, but thank you for your super chat. Thank you for contributing to the MDD. So the next one under that is Radamus Odd for $5. Thank you for your super chat. How about we substitute the violinists you wake up attached to when your son or daughter still think it would be easy to just attach T-jump? What was the question? Oh, it's basically if it was your son or daughter it's that it's just straight here. I would be more likely to attach if that was the case. So what? There's T-jumps. So you're saying I'm attached to my wife right now. Hey, I think Thanos was a great moral character. He just wanted to bring balance to the universe. I mean, what's all right about that? You got to read his backstory. He killed all of his children because it was he started with them because he wanted to be the hero. He's like, you know what? I'm going to do it to everybody else. I'm going to do it to me first. This conversation just took a super dark turn. Yeah. We'll go with Mary Hull for $5. This is a country's coming to you, Skyler. Skyler fiction to be consistent. Are you also in favor of mandatory donation for people who are clinically dead? Oh, that's a good question. I would, yes, definitely. Yeah, I feel like I could be convinced of that. It doesn't seem too of a... Even though I have this weird fear that somehow I'm going to come back to life one day and now my organs, I won't have them. And then whatever I do. But I guess if they could bring them back to life, they could probably fix the organ issue. So yeah, I guess I would do that. It seems fair. Well, that concludes the super chats. We have two questions from Samuel Little J. Holm. Here's the question. So you guys can respond to this if you want. How is it that letting yourself be stabbed, more moral, to let yourself die? If that other may go on to wrongfully kill others? So if someone's coming to attack you with a knife, the moral thing to do would be the jainist absolute non-violence that Jesus turned your other cheek thing. It would be more moral to not harm them and just to take the moral high ground and to accept that they're going to harm you rather than to harm them back. What they do in the future isn't your fault. So you wouldn't be held responsible or you wouldn't be immoral to not kill them if they're going to kill more people in the future. That would be contradictory. So the moral thing to do would be to turn the other cheek or to let them hurt you and just take the absolute non-violence route. If I'm not going to harm you no matter what, that is the moral extreme. And Skyler, Katie, when you respond to that. Nah, I've got none. Nah. Well, that concludes tonight's show everyone. It was very entertaining, a lot of fun. Do you guys have a concluding remark before we go here? Do you guys want to promote your, like anything else going on later? Like an after show or anything like that? I like Skyler's new mustache. It's nice. Yeah. How do you see it in the mustache? It's where the power is now folks. It's where the power is. Had to get something to compete with the chair. I mean, come on. Yes. I was like, oh my goal for yesterday for the chart tournament was to distract all of you with my mustache, like to come in and just throw you off your game. Like I can't stare at Skyler. Why are you with him with this ridiculous mustache on him? But it's growing. I mean, it is literally growing on me. But I is actually, I'm really actually starting to like it weirdly. And I don't know if I should. It kind of, I don't know if I should live this life with a mustache show. We'll see what happens. Yeah, this was great. I had a lot of fun. Thank you everyone. This made a fun debate and it was incredible. Yeah. Yeah, I just, I just want to kind of second that by saying that like this is my, I think fifth debate and like all the four previous have been somewhat of like dumpster fires. And this was like ridiculously cordial and I absolutely loved it. I didn't even have to shout at anybody. It was delightful. So yeah. Thank you to everybody who's here. Yeah. I don't do, I don't do blood sport type debate regarding at least regarding abortion. I don't think that it's a conversation worth having if you're at the point where you're like yelling at your opponent, I'd rather have like, I never say that I'm having an abortion debate. I say I'm having a conversation with people that I disagree with on abortion because this is a conversation that's incredibly complex. And there's a lot of like middle ground for people to meet on. And you can't do that if you're yelling at each other. Well said. So if we would push everyone to like and subscribe and push on that alert box, so make sure you hit every stream we have. We have a lot of upcoming awesome debates coming up. So with that, we thank our interlockers again for participating in tonight's debate. And we're gonna call it a night.