 There we go. Welcome to Modern Day Debate, everybody. Tonight we're going to be debating. Is abortion morally permissible? Yes, we knew we were on mute, but we didn't want to keep you guys waiting, so to kick us off, Ashley, the floor is all yours. Well, damn, I introduced myself so well the first time. I don't know how I'm going to top that, but hello, what is mean? Not sure. Every day, Ashley, XOXO, and tonight I will be taking my favorite stance of pro-choice on is abortion morally. What is this again, morally permissible? Permissible. I like that word. So, you know, me and my long-winded intros, I was told we had up to 10 minutes, so I hope I don't. I'm just kidding, it won't be long. So, the topic of abortion is undoubtedly one of the most controversial and passionate topics that can be debated. A huge reason for this is that it touches on so many different aspects of life and culture that it's almost too much to wrap our minds around it. For instance, why do you think that human life is valuable at one moment, but then not the next? So, the arguments in favor of abortion tend to break down into two broad categories, one of which is called the personhood argument, which is an argument about moral status and then tries to associate certain kinds of capacity with moral status by saying, well, you're not a person unless you can do X, Y, or Z. Or you're not a person until you can formulate a conceptual thought or a desire and then pursue that desire. That's a very famous philosopher, Michael Tubley, who said the only bearers of rights are those who can formulate a desire for rights. If you can't formulate a desire for rights, then you are not a person and therefore you don't have the rights and entitlements of a person. One of the problems with that argument is, well, there are newborns who can't formulate future directed plans and desires. Does that mean that infanticide is okay? Michael Tubley would say, yes, it is. In fact, he wrote a famous essay in defense of abortion and infanticide. Then there's Marianne Warren, another famous philosopher of personhood who says that there are five traits that we associate with personhood and most of these relate to cognition, to thinking and communicating and formulating future directed plans. I don't find either of those beliefs persuasive because first of all, the enterprise of the strong and able-minded setting forth criteria for the weak and vulnerable so that they have to meet this criteria in order to qualify for protection of law strikes me as a problematic enterprise. Secondly, even if you put that to the side, the kind of human beings that are swept into this category of nonpersonhood goes well beyond the unborn. Many argue it would then have to include infants, people with dementia and the disabled or comatose. To me, a theory of personhood that includes those people and their categories is going in the wrong direction. Now, the other common argument that many make when debating abortion is bodily autonomy. The idea here is that a woman is uniquely burdened by a pregnancy. Only she is directly and adversely affected by that. Her life, her body, her mind, her future are all encumbered by this invading being, this being that is making a claim on her bodily support. And women should not be required to give that bodily support to this third party. They should have the ultimate freedom to decline to support the life of the unborn child, which is where you end up hearing things like viability. Because people say, oh, if viability is when the child is no longer uniquely dependent on the mother, then we can say that a baby brought to term and birthed could also be considered nonviable as it's completely dependent on its mother. Now, this is, of course, assuming that the hypothetical here is that the mother and the newborn are the only humans in this equation. Therefore, is it morally acceptable for the mother to leave her baby to starve or simply kill it? This bodily dependence argument is most famously made by Judith Jarvis Thompson, a philosopher who uses an analogy of a woman who's been abducted by music lovers while she's unconscious. They attach a violinist to her kidneys. She wakes up in a hospital bed and there's a violinist who's attached to her body. The doctor shows up and he says, well, we're sorry that you were abducted and somebody served this guide of you, but we can't detach him from you because it would kill him. And that's not morally permissible. So you're just gonna have to lay here in that bed for nine months while your kidneys clean his blood and keep him alive. This analogy is supposed to appeal to the intuition that it's an outrageous injustice to impose on one person the obligation to support another person's life with his or her body. Now, what that analogy misses, of course, is that it would only apply in the context of rape, because in the context of human pregnancy, the relationship between the mother and the unborn child is not a matter of forced impregnation. And moreover, they're not strangers. They're already bound together and connected to one another and some kind of cosmic relationship of kinship and genetics. So I think any analogies that involve the use of force like Judith Jarvis Thomas's don't quite work to make the point that I think she was trying to. I understand and I do not intend to imply that these arguments accurately represent my opponent's positions. I'm simply pointing out that when debating whether an abortion could be considered morally permissible, the conversation typically circles back to these main talking points. Normal healthy people don't want to think about abortion. They don't spend a lot of time discussing the nuances of the bioethical questions that we'll undoubtedly get into tonight. Sometimes people can get caught up in some very tough situations and most of us don't want to impose a strong view onto them. My argument then is this. I don't logically see how there can be a solution, a valid argument, or a shared opinion on the topic of abortion. We should agree to meet somewhere in the middle. I'm prepared to defend my position that a reasonable and logical person would feel the same. All right. That would be the end of Ashley's introductory statement. Thank you so much for that statement there. And I want to remind everybody that modern day debate is a neutral debate platform. We host debates on science, religion, politics, you name it. And what we're talking about tonight is abortion morally permissible. So hit that like button if you enjoyed juicy debates like the one we're having tonight. And we're going to kick it over to Sonvy for her up to 10 minute introductory statement. Thanks for being here, Sonvy. Thank you. So quickly I'll go over why I'm pro life. I believe that all human beings deserve an equal human right to life and abortion unjustly aggresses upon another human being. Therefore, abortion is immoral. For the sake of this discussion and clarity, I will define an abortion as an elective procedure intended to end the life of a zygote embryo or fetus. This definitely addresses cases of quote unquote medical necessity, which aim to save the mother not to kill the preborn child. Now I'll kind of get into why pro choice arguments, I believe fail in terms of their morality. I know Ashley touched on this a little bit. So first with personhood and second bother the autonomy. Personhood arguments assert that the fetus embryo or zygote is not a moral status is not a person like you or I. There's different views, consciousness views, desired views. And for this discussion, I'll argue that if abortion is permissible under this view, then infanticide must also be permissible. Yeah, most people aren't willing to accept like Michael to at least position of infanticide being morally permissible. Yet they do accept abortion being permissible. So it's just trying to rectify that inconsistency we have in the abortion discussion. And so that's why it kind of a syllogism I like to use for abortion discussions like this is infanticide is not morally permissible. There is no morally relevant distinction between abortion and infanticide. Therefore, abortion is not morally permissible. And you can attack any of those premises or conclusions within this debate. But yeah, for those reasons, I'll argue that abortion is not morally permissible. And the logic of arguing it is extends to very bad conclusions that we would not accept to be moral. So thank you so much. And I'm excited to get into this debate. All right, well, thank you for your introductory statement. And everybody, if you like what you're hearing, check out our guests in the links in the description. And if you're listening to this on podcast, they will be linked there as well. We're going to kick it into an open floor format for our discussion. But I do want to remind everybody that we are going to have a live in person event. It's Saturday, September 16. It's going to be in Houston, Texas. And that's also linked in the description. So definitely check that out if it's not already past that date when you're watching this. And yeah, we're going to kick it into open floor discussion. But at the end, we will do a Q&A. So if you want your questions to be expounded upon, because we usually let those first questions really dig into more open discussion, get them in now. All right, let's go. Okay. Yeah. So I did want to clarify something, though, because I think I was a little confused in your opening statement. You are arguing that abortion is morally permissible, right? I am arguing that there is never going to be an end to this argument. There's never going to be an agreed upon solution for the abortion debate. So that I guess then in that way, it would be more morally permissible to come to some kind of meeting, some kind of, I guess, what would you say, compromise? Okay. And what does that compromise look like? Like, do you believe in restrictions on abortion in a specific week? Yeah, you would cut it off. Yeah. I wouldn't say a specific week. I think that I, again, that's touching on the personhood argument. I think that that can be argued in circles for days. But if we had to absolutely nail it down, yeah, I think the partial birth or late term abortions, in fact, most any elective abortions I could see an issue with. But again, there's no way that you can, there's no way that you can regulate everything and make everyone's decision for them. And in the meantime, you're putting a lot of other people and their people in danger and at risk. So I don't see how you could feel like it's morally permissible to have like a blanket, like it is, it is just wrong period. And I refuse to see how it could ever not be wrong. So with elective abortions, do you think that elective abortions are moral or immoral or neutral? I think that they're kind of immoral, but I support ones right to make that decision for themselves. And why are we here debating this? I'm so confused. I'm not their, I'm not their creator, right? Why are we debating this topic? If you think they're a little more creative, there's some, but yeah, some more questions. I've got a couple for you. Are there any at all instances that you would see an abortion at all being morally permissible? Let's go back. It's not in the way that I defined what I'm referring to and I'm referring to abortions. I don't think it's ever immoral. So, okay, so in the case that it would put the mother's life at risk, that's a medical exception. I address this. Yeah, like when I say I'm against abortion, yeah, when I say I'm against abortion, I mean, I'm against an elective procedure that aims to terminate the life of the pre-worn human child. But cases of medical necessity, the intention behind those procedures isn't to terminate the life, it's actually to save the mom. Let's get into that. Let's talk about that. I could argue that for days. What about in the cases of rape or incest? What do you think then? Sure, like you could keep appealing to the 0.5%, but I don't think that that justifies. Not, I'm asking what you think. I'm asking how is a rape baby different than a baby. I mean, how is that any different than a baby? It's not different. I don't make that exception. It's still wrong. You shouldn't be able to... That's what I'm asking you. So yeah, it's still wrong. That's not moral. It's not moral to kill individuals conceived out of assault. Okay. Okay. And how do you define a medically necessary abortion? How do you define that? Is the same standard of liability we apply outside of the WIM to like self-defense sort of cases, which the standard is whenever your death is foreseeable based on the current circumstances. So there's factors we could point to that foreseeing to death. That's the standard we use in law for liability. I think it's a good one. I like that. I like that a lot. Can you see how there could be any like great areas in that whatsoever though? What about like, let's say the mother has cancer, right? And we don't know for sure that that cancer is going to kill her. But where she lives, it's illegal for her to get chemotherapy if she's pregnant. So then her life is being put at risk technically. She is going to get worse. She can't get the treatment that she needs. What do you think of that? In that scenario, what's more morally right or wrong than the other? Yeah. So even then, I don't even think I would fall under my definition of abortion because that the intention would be to save the mother not to kill the pre-born child. Like the why behind that procedure would be in order to save the mother's life because she has a medical diagnosis of cancer. It would not be to terminate the pre-born child's life. They mostly what they can even induce them early and still give the pre-born child the best possible chances of survival. That's not true at all. So actually, it's not true. We can get into this. That's fine. But what's my, so how early could you have? Okay. One thing at a time. Yeah. Sorry. So in the scenario that I just gave you though, I didn't say that it was going to save the mother's life to get chemotherapy. I'm just saying it gave her a better chance, right? But the survival rate behind chemotherapy is to save the intention. Okay. So your argument is we'll just do like a little cross examination. I think is what we're kind of getting into here. So we'll let Ashley ask a series of questions. I think that's kind of what we're naturally going towards. So we'll let her ask her question and then we'll give you your chance to respond there. So Ashley, I was just trying to answer Sonby's question of why we're here. Yeah. Thank you. I think we're here to debate morality of abortion and where that line is drawn, Sonby. For me, I see it as a very, very gray line. And I feel like you do too, but you put definitions on things that aren't realistic. It's not reality. That's what I'm trying to kind of pick at and understand where you stand on some of these, some of these thoughts or viewpoints. So in the scenario we were just talking about with the cancer, you're saying the intent behind the abortion though was that it would extend the life of the mother or might possibly save her life, right? There's a certain percentage that it could, but without the schema of therapy, the baby's life is 100% coming into this world. The baby doesn't have cancer. So I don't understand your intentions. And then it kind of, to me, I guess the way I'm reading it is it seems like you're making up your own moral code. And I'm just trying to understand what that moral code is. Well, firstly, everybody kind of makes up their own moral code. I don't think there's anybody in the world that I could fully, fully agree with on my own. Maybe there is, but it'd be hard press to find when everybody makes up their own moral code. Second of all, I would say that the intention behind giving chemotherapy to an individual is to, the intention behind that is to alleviate the cancer and then to save the mother's life. The intention behind that is not to harm the pre-born child. That is a side effect of that. And hence why it's not considered an abortive procedure, right? Like chemotherapy is not an abortion. No, he's not allowed to get the chemotherapy because she is pregnant. I don't support that. No, you just said, you did, when I very first made that argument, you were saying that that would fall under the medical definition of medical necessity under these medical exceptions. I'm telling you, there are gray areas to this. No, I'm saying I wouldn't consider that an abortion. It would be permissible. Because in my opening statement, I defined abortion as a procedure that has the intent and backing to end the life. You actually defined it as an abortion. Sorry. Yeah. Well, definitely, I guess I give you a chance to respond, but we'll let you wrap up your thought there, Sonvi. Yeah. So when I say I'm against abortion, what I mean is I'm against any procedure done with the intent to kill the pre-born human child. Chemotherapy is not done with intent to kill pre-born human child. Hence why they do it to non-pregnant people, right? That's why it's not an abortion. So it wouldn't even fall under what I'm saying. I'm just gonna make your kid come out all fucked up, but that's fine. Yeah. And that child still has equal rights, even if they have disabilities, in my opinion. Okay. I'm starting to see where your, where your moral line is blurring. Just wanting to get to the bottom of this. Yeah. I do think it's interesting. Pro-choicers are generally always appeal to the 0.5% of all procedures instead of actually addressing and saying, I think 99.5% of abortions hundreds of thousands that are done in the United States every year are immoral. Are you able and willing to say like, 0.5%. Are you, are you willing, pregnant women that you're saying have cancer that need chemotherapy? 0.5%. Less than that. Less than that. Less than 0.5%. Less than 0.5% are done for imminent dangers to the mother's life. Now you're changing the goalpost. I just said when I described this scenario, I said there's a percentage that it could or would save the mother's life, right? I'm saying, oh no, I'm talking about, you were talking about everything. I'm saying that out of all of the cases of pregnancy and all of the, these things that you were considering like a blurry gray area, that this does not address the majority of what we, you and I are both agreeing are abortions. So like the 99.5% of cases that abortions are done in the United States are not up to any type of, the utilitarian point of view, because that's kind of the greater good, right? So that's, that's kind of what my question was. Like, do you agree with me that 99% of abortions in the United States are immoral? I do not agree with you on that. I do not. I think that, I again don't think that life is black and white is what you're making it out to be. Like I said, I think that there's many nuances to this, as I said in my opening statement. And I think that you are trying to pick a point and stick with it, but you know that you know it's not right. You know it isn't. It's a chess game, right? It's the Queen's Gambit. I get it, respect to the game, but like I'm trying to actually get to the bottom of your thoughts on this, not just like murder is bad. Well, to be fair, I was going to say, I timed out around like five to six minutes that you were asking Sonvy questions. So I'm just going to set another timer here for five minutes and let Sonvy ask you some questions. I get excited. I'll mute while you do that. And I'll just, I'll be a good girl. Thank you. Oh, that's all good. So I'll let you ask a few questions there, Sonvy. Absolutely. Same as she just kind of did. And then we'll try to go to more open format. So as I've stated, the intention of abortive procedures is to end the pre-born human child's life. 99% of abortions in America are done with the intention to kill the pre-born human child. I need to hear an argument or a justification as to why it's moral to kill pre-born human children without any type of medical necessity. I've yet to hear pro-choicers be able to do this without appealing to this minute percentage justify the 99%, right? And then we can like get to it because I think we have to address the majority before we address the minority in this discussion. We have to break it down piece by piece. So why are abortions done to kill pre-born human children morally permissible? That would be a question there for you, Ashley. Okay. So here's what I'm saying, Sonvy. And I don't know if you're just not, like if I'm not making myself clear, I'm probably not. So I understand that your argument is the 0.5 or the 1%. Like you're basically, like in my point of view, you're saying screw them, we're going to talk about the majority of this. This is the real issue, right? We're not worried about this other stuff because it's not as many immoral or moral things, right? You're saying we need to address the majority, the first, the first part first. Like you're saying you're, you guys are always talking about this minute percentage, this minute percentage out of, out of 4.5 billion people, how much is 0.5 or 1%? There are not 4.5 billion people in the United States. In the world, in the world. There are not 4.5 billion people in the world, though. But six point, what is it now? Jesus, the last time I looked at this world population, but whatever, do you, do you understand the point? Do you understand what is the exact point? So here's, here's what, here's the way I'm going to frame this. So let's say there was a disease that killed 99% of people that inhabited it. And then there's the same amount of people that got disease number two, yet only 1% died, right? If we were to say which one should be focused on scientists into curing first, it would be the 99% fatality. And I think that's why we can definitely address the second one. I'm happy to do that, but I don't believe my question was answered. My question was, are, well, I'm the one doing the cross-ex, if I remember correctly. So if, what makes it permissible morally to electively end the life of the pre-worn human child? So then we would, I guess, I guess we're going to come at an impasse for this because that is my entire point. My entire point of the argument is that it's not black and white. I'm not sitting here saying, well, I'm going to give you a reason why, and still I don't agree with your statistics. I don't agree with that. I don't think that you and I probably have the same exact opinion of what constitutes a medically, like, I know the laws pretty well, and I know where the loopholes are on these. And I know, I know how many lives it puts at risk. So I'm wondering like what you're considering, right? Because even in some of these laws, especially the trigger laws, especially the heartbeat laws, the trigger states and all these things, like a lot of these laws, right? That they're putting into place where they're saying like, well, if the mother's life is at risk, right? Do you know that like, it's not even clearly spelled out what exactly like constitutes as the mother's life being at risk? But in so many instances, say that you're actively miscarrying, but because the fetus still has a heartbeat, they can't actually do a procedure called a dilation and keratage in order to get her out of that situation faster because that child's still alive, still has a heartbeat. And in many cases, they have to wait until her life is at risk, which is often sepsis and ICU. And that is a real thing that really happens. So here's what I'm saying. It's not as black and white as you're saying. This isn't, and how are statistics made? Do you know how every single abortion statistic is made? I actually do. I could, I do know how much data is collected on abortions. And that's what drives me crazy about absolutists. Like, I just, there is no absolute, you know, yes, murder is bad. Murder is bad. But let's talk about, is murder absolutely bad always? Well, no, self-defense. Self-defense is considered murder under the law. So now, so we're specifically talking about legally because most abortions also, self-defense isn't considered murder. You're not charged with murder. If you kill somebody, get self-defense. If you kill a baby illegally, it's not like considered against the law. So I'm with you. We're on the same page. Murder is bad. I think that if I imply murder, obviously you knew that murder was illegal. So then obviously I'm talking about the bad kind of murder, Sondi, not the good kind. There is no good kind. But if murder is always universally bad to say like an infant, why would it not always universally be bad for an embryo? And I will reiterate, I do not think that my question was answered. Like, once again, I said the majority of abortions are done with the intention to kill the child, not to get a DNC and save the mother from going into septic shock. They're done to kill the child. That's the majority of abortions. That's not true. But I mean, it is true. And I'll link a study from Guttmacher from the CDC's data really quick about that if you'd like. We have that study pulled up right now, actually. I like Guttmacher. I like their data. What I'm saying is that- Guttmacher isn't a, wait, how do you know what specific study I'm studying? How do you know what specific study I'm about to cite? No, you're just, Guttmacher is a database, not a specific study. Because there are, there's literally a few really popular studies about abortion. I have three of them pulled up here. One of them is talking about the majority of abortions being elective. Elective abortion under your definition would be murder. Murder would be bad. That's what I'm referring to. Are we talking about the same study? No. Okay. What's the, what's your- So I'm, I'll put it in chat. It talks about how states actually define what is considered medical necessity and the amount of abortions that are actually done due to medical necessity. Yeah. Okay. So they don't actually have though a newer study on this. The last one that I see here was like a 2021. Is that true for the one you have pulled up? I think that 2021 is a fair assessment of what we're talking about in 2023. Oh, it's actually a huge, huge difference in the abortion laws since then. A huge difference. What about, is 2022 good? I don't, Roe v. Wade literally was overturned like a year and a half ago, almost two years ago. So how long does it take? Two years ago, right? It was about the summer before last. How long does, no, it was like a year ago, as a little over a year ago. But Roe v. Wade was overturned. From 2022 when, yeah, well, here's what happened when Roe v. Wade was overturned. That's when all these state by state decisions started, started happening. That's when all these trigger laws, that's when the heartbeat law, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Virginia, I mean, West Virginia, North Carolina, that's when they all started implementing these super crazy abortion bans, which falls under what you're talking about right now. So I think it's relevant. So again, the study that I cited, I literally just looked at it, it goes over New Jersey. So it has states in there that have protected the access to abortion pre and post Roe. So this would be accounting for that. And even when we account for states, even when we account for states that have, you know, had abortion legal irrespective of this Supreme Court returning Roe, it's still true that the vast, vast majority of abortions are not done due to medical necessity or imminent danger to the life of the mother. And I think to deny that would just be the reality that I will concede, that I will concede, but not the way you asked. Not the way you asked it the first time. I still don't, I don't think it's 99.5% of abortions that are happening in America. I'm not going to concede you on that statistic. And I, as we're speaking to the study, what you welcome to share if, if you like as well. Yeah, I know. What are we putting in there? Yeah. Do you consider, like, for instance, the 10 year old, I just have yet to hear an argument as to if, if it is morally permissible, I think maybe one way I could better phrase this is say we have a mother who's financially stable. She just simply does not want to be pregnant because she does not want to get birth, which 40% of women that get abortions. Okay. That's a fact too. You want that steady in chat? Can I finish? Go for it. So is it morally permissible for somebody who say, I'll even say like, they're financially stable. She just doesn't want to give birth. Would you say it's morally permissible for them to get an abortion with this? So you do realize my opening statement or like right after that, that I do agree with you that like, I don't find it very moral. No. Then, and I think that's what I'm trying to get at is that I don't know why we're having discussion then because the over the majority of I think that you believe you're on this high ground of like morality, but you're not seeing all the nuances in gray area. You're looking at this as if it is a black and white problem and it isn't. I thought I made that very, very clear from the beginning. So let let, I think one way to frame this to address a lot of pro-choicers concerns on this is let's take self defense laws, right? Do you think that sometimes it's hard to determine if a killing was justified or not? Never. I never think that. What do you think about the Kyle written? I think that that's a really ignorant question and it's insulting to my intelligence. That's what I think. Like, what do you mean? Do I think that like, of course it is, why do you think that it's just like we're talking about now? I don't know why you would take that personally. I didn't mean it like that. I was just saying like, that logic of how sometimes like jurisprudence can be hard to determine application law specific cases. Yeah, that applies to every facet of our lives. That's why we have a court system where you evaluate evidence in front of a judge. And I think the same should go for abortion. Like it's wrong to kill your infant. It's wrong to kill your child, right? So the same should go for abortion. We should have the same laws and protections in place. Okay. I see what you're saying with that. What about though? And again, you're going to pick at me and say, you keep going. I'm going to go for the gray area though. What about in the instance of the 10-year-old girl that was raped by the 27-year-old that did have to leave the state and get an abortion but had this not been an option for her that she would have been, I will say, forced to carry out that pregnancy and give birth to that baby? In that instance, if you were that 10-year-old little girl's mother, do you think that the more moral or immoral decision would be to get an abortion for your 10-year-old daughter or to let her have the baby? Probably be emotionally scarred, but let's not even talk about, we'll talk about physical, right? The physical repercussions for that. Most likely she will be unable to ever get pregnant again. It's a huge chance. Like I think a 60-something percent chance that it would completely ruin her uterus and her reproductive organs. That's your 10-year-old daughter. Like for me, I actually have a 10-year-old and I bring this up because this case was one of those where I saw the gray area and I thought, oh god, it's not just about killing a fetus. This is so much more. If that was my little girl, that's a gray area, Sunby. What about in those cases? Because according to you, rape and that's a life and like it's just not morally permissible to do it. So obviously, are you in this hypothetical, you're presenting me of my daughter, are you saying that her life is in imminent danger as well or no or yes? This actually is not a hypothetical, it's a fact. That's about my daughter. Hypothetically, I'm saying if this were your daughter, Sunby. Yes, which is not because I don't have a daughter. Exactly. I get it. I'm saying the situation. I can't hear anything. I'm sorry. I was saying we'll let you ask your question then we'll carry on from this point. Okay. So I honestly am having trouble hearing truly. I am sorry about that too. But what I meant was the situation I presented to you, that is a real thing. That is 100%. That is a fucking fact. Like you can look it up. This actually happened. What I'm saying is that was my aha moment. I'm just wondering if you have any aha moments. I'm wondering if you could imagine yourself hypothetically being the mother of that little girl and still having the position that it's not morally permissible to take her cross-statelines and get her an abortion and possibly better her life by astronomical levels. I'm saying that you seem to think that it's either moral or immoral, that there are no degrees of morality. And I don't understand that point of view. I know I am trying to ask a clarifying question so I can give you a proper response as to how I'd react in the scenario. So in this case, is the pregnant individual's life in imminent danger? No, I told you exactly what was already hypothetically going to happen. I said that her reproductive organs are most likely going to be... Oh, like she'd have infertility, but not death is what you're saying, correct? That's exactly right. Actually, I don't know if complications were to arise, but with our medical advancement in America right now, probably not death. Okay. So I have two options. One, I let both of my grandchild and my child live, but my child is infertile. Or two, I kill my grandchild and my child is fertile in the future. I think I would opt for both of my children. You see the only deal. That's it. That's cringy. So you see... No, I'm written honestly like a 10-year-old girl that was raped by a 27-year-old immigrant man being taken across state lines to try to get crazy. That's the new story. I'm just quoting the headline. Yeah, go ahead. Like literally quoting the headline. Do you think I'm racist now? Is that what that face was about? No, I'd show a weird detail in there. It's the fucking headline of the story. I think you're weird for saying that you would make your 10-year-old daughter give birth and ruin the rest of her life potentially. I think that's weird. Over a person that we don't even know the potential of. You have one person that you know the potential of. You have another person you don't know the potential of whatsoever. You don't see how ever do you... Okay. So like the potential to have a fulfilled, boisterous, happy life, right? You don't need to have the potential for a fulfilled, boisterous, happy life in order for me to believe you have the right to life. That's why I don't believe in killing depressed people or suicidal people. We shouldn't just tell them that life doesn't matter and kill them. No, you don't have a happy life in order to have the right to life. I believe all humans should have the right to life regardless if they're going to grow up in poor circumstance. I think that you can't just end their life because of that. That's what my argument is. And I would like to hear... I get it, but I think that if you have a justification... One second there, Ashley. No, I really couldn't hear it cut out. I really, truly, I'm not always trying to interrupt. I genuinely couldn't. I can't hear sometimes when you're still talking. I apologize for that. I really do. No problem. Carry on. Okay. In the cases, this is kind of what I was talking about earlier. I believe that all humans have an equal right to life. You think that sometimes it's okay to aggress upon humans in these circumstances, right? It seems like you do too. You just find that those are very few and far between instances. I know. I do not think it is okay to do an intentional procedure to kill a pre-worn human child. Then what would be the point of bringing up all of these... What did you call all of these rare situations when we were speaking about this earlier? And I said to you, like for instance, with the chemotherapy, right? The chemotherapy would actually kill the fetus. You do realize that that's what chemotherapy will do to a pregnant woman, right? As a side effect, that is not the intention of chemotherapy. And this can be proven by the fact that... No, then you do believe that it's okay to kill them. It's about intent. That's what I'm trying to say. And that's what I said in my opening statement. We'll definitely give you a chance to respond. That's what I said in my opening statement was the intention. I literally... And anybody can go rewatch this, rewind. I literally said I am against procedures with the intent to end the life of the pre-worn human. That's what I said I was against. Okay. Well, then we know the intention of chemotherapy is not to end the life of pre-worn humans. And we know this for a fact because they give chemotherapy to non-prime people. Then why would they deny it? Why would they deny the embryos? Why would they deny the embryos? Fetuses and embryos, right? They sometimes do not live as a side effect of the chemotherapy, not as a direct causation for their death. The intention of the chemotherapy once again is to treat the cancer, not to kill the child. Right. Okay. Well, in the situation I'm talking about and in this state, it was actually denied. Chemotherapy was denied to the woman because it would kill the child or might kill the child. So I guess the state then in that instance thought that I guess their morality, you know, kind of supersedes jurors because they really just knew for a fact that it would 99.99% chance that it would kill that person that was inside of the pregnant woman. What you're saying is it would be okay to go ahead and treat this cancer and as a side effect, we know the kid's going to die. But the intent wasn't to kill the kid though. The intent wasn't to kill that baby or murder that baby with those chemicals and poisons. No. So then it's okay. I'm trying to understand like where your moral compass points because it seems to me like you believe in this absolute, you know, you're like an absolutist with murder and not murder. Only when it comes down to things that don't fit your argument or suit your point. This is about morality. Morality. That's what I said. So how is that morally permissible? How is it morally permissible to make your 10-year-old give birth to a rape baby? How is it morally permissible to let a woman die or let a baby inside of a woman die because you're increasing her chance of survival of cancer? How is that morally permissible? And these are stances that you are taking. That was a minute and a half. So we'll let Sonvy go for a minute and a half now, okay? I've never been timed when I've been talking before. It's like so funny to me. It's okay. We had a lot of monologuing going on the other night and I had to be careful to make sure I was trying to give equal time to everybody. I like it. I dig it. I dig it. It keeps throwing me off because I'm like, damn, that was a minute and a half. Oh, yeah. Actually, it was a little bit more, but that's all right. Sonvy, we'll kick it over for up to, well, maybe a little bit more than a minute and a half. Hey, have a minute 45, Sonvy. Go to town. There you go. You brought up that. I forgot what question was asked besides the second one. I know there was two asks. So one of them would be, you just presented a case to me of where it seems like I can disagree. I don't necessarily agree that the people who, do you know what triage is? I'm assuming you don't, but I don't necessarily agree that the people who acted in that manner were acting in accordance with what is moral in the bioethical discussion with fetus embryos and stuff. I am allowed to disagree with those people and say, no, the intention of that procedure wasn't to kill the fetus. Therefore, chemotherapy should have been permissible, right? I'm allowed to disagree with you. What they, and that's okay. People do disagree with me, just as you do, right? It's totally okay to disagree with me. That's why we have these discussions, but that's why, if you didn't want that response from me, don't interrupt as I'm speaking. Yes, Queen. Go for it. Just let me finish. More 10-year-old should get birth and raise baby. And then now to address your scenario. It is because, like I said before, I'll reiterate, I believe all humans have an equal right to life. If I'm able to save two lives, I minimize death and I minimize killing one of my grandchildren in the scenario you presented. I think it is good to not kill people and to maximize human life. So yeah, I would pick two lives of people being alive rather than one. And that is how I see that scenario. I don't think it's okay to aggressive on another human being unjustly. Okay. So it does sound to me like you dance back and forth between a utilitarian point of view and then just your absolutist, like I believe in the intent is what makes it murder. Because right now, just then you said, well, it was for the greater good. I'm saving two lives versus one, right? Saving two lives versus losing one. Now, in my scenario of legalizing abortion or keeping it legal, it makes abortion safe. And we have seen statistically throughout history that when we make abortion illegal, abortion still happens. And more people die, more people die. So that's where I'm saying your moral compass to me seems totally fucked. Because I'm like, I don't see how if you really truly believe it in the greater good or you believe you could save in this scenario, I could save two lives. Like, okay, well, in my scenario, you could save thousands. Like, I don't understand that logic or definition of morality. And I will be silent. Okay, I'll address that from a statistical perspective. First, people think like, oh, with pro-life laws, more people die. Well, that just wouldn't even be possible because we have hundreds of thousands of portions every single year. And even if we were to accept the utilitarian standpoint, which I did not mean to make. But even if we were to accept that, under the pro-life view, it would still be far more lives that would be saving than ending. So I don't see how that makes any sense. But in the long term. Sorry, I put you on mute there. We'll let some of you wrap up her point there. From a statistical perspective, countries like Poland, how do you explain that they have a lower maternal mortality rate than Canada, for example, that has abortion legal, like clearly advancements in medical technology have a much greater influence than the availability or not of abortion. We are saving more lives by banning abortion than ending them. Good day. Good day. Back to you. I could throw statistics around too. So how do you say that a couple of obscure cases, like you said earlier, that tiny percent that we have where it shows that we can save more lives, right? That's absolutely ridiculous. Do you know that there's between the time Roe v. Wade was actually put into motion in 2001 that we saw a huge decrease in abortions, actually? I feel like that was kind of, I feel like the fact that making abortions legal, decreased people getting abortions and decreased women dying from back alley abortions would completely support my argument that it's the morally best thing to do overall. And the argument you keep making of the greater good that you don't mean to keep making, but you do, I feel like it would support that as well. I don't understand how you're using it. You're going to cherry pick things. Like you're telling me I'm cherry picking the 10-year-old rape case that you support, that I'm cherry picking the cancer patient that actually happens more than a 0.5% of the time, by the way. And you're going to sit here and tell me some BS theory after you know nothing and you didn't address the fact that legitimately what I'm saying data shows legal abortions in the United States decreased the amount of abortions being had. Also decreased the amount of people dying from botched abortions. Explain that to me. Okay, so you think having abortion legal is the causal factor that decreases the rates of abortion? So now we're going to go into what causes somebody to do this, to do this, to do this. What you just stated was, quote, legal abortion decreased the rates. I think that that is a factor. I think that we have data that proves that that is a factor. I don't think that we have data that proves that making your 10-year-old give birth to a rape baby isn't going to starve her for life or ruin her. See, like I'm just saying, I'm just saying, like the things that you're supporting, you don't have data of. You're just saying that it's on some weird level. I never made the argument that SA of a child isn't obviously going to be traumatizing for them. I think she just really made that up. I think we're clear. A strong man point. What I did say was that it would be pretty relevant. Well, let Sonvy can finish her statement there, unless you lost your thought. That happens too. I have no words. I think we all know I have no words for everyone. All right, we'll kick it back over to you, Ashley. What I'm seeing tonight, Sonvy, is you taking a stance of what you claim to be morality and in order for it to suit your argument or prove your point, you stick some nuances behind it, which is exactly what I said you would do in my opening statement. Exactly. Then you cherry pick data and statistics and facts that support your point of view from around the world. When I show you facts and data and statistics right here in America, when earlier tonight you criticized me for not talking specifically about America, like you're all over the map, sister. Get it together. I don't know. That's all I got. That portion rates were decreasing long before 2001. In fact, no, that's not what I said. Actually, sweetheart, I never said that you said that. Let me read just let her keep yapping like a dog. Like literally, that's precious, Sonvy. Well, I have to be able to get a sentence out. Well, earlier you had a chance and you didn't have shit to say, so it's not my fault. I'll mute. Okay, thank you. Okay. Now to address it from a statistical perspective, as I was saying, abortions were decreasing far before 2001. Right. We've seen a steady decrease in abortion rates. And most studies suggest this is due to increased medical advancements and contraception, right, more access to contraception. So abortion rates decrease naturally because unwanted pregnancies decrease. But there is no not having abortion legal, for example, doesn't increase somebody's willingness to not get an abortion. I would need to see some data that suggests that people are like, Hey, my state allows abortion access. So I'm reluctant to get one now. I would need to see some data that points to abortion being legal as the factor for why people don't get abortions. And I don't think that exists. But I do want to also point out that we are so far off the discussion of morality since we're talking about jurisprudence, like whether or not abortion is moral is not relevant to the question of is it legal and what's been happening in the States? You've made that relevant several times by bringing up legality yourself. You're the one that started by bringing up legality in the first place. And then also, I've heard you say, Sanvi, that you believe that life happens at conception. I've also heard you define conception by saying that that is when fertilization occurs, right? You just admitted yourself that a decrease in abortions was due to contraceptives. Do you believe then that contraceptives are not a type of abortion that was made legal? Per your own, per your own. You don't understand that? You know that. So let's take the most commonly used, let's take the most commonly used contraceptive in America, which is obviously a condom, right? Condoms do not abort. And we talk about making them condoms were never illegal. Don't change the goal. But she's changing what she just said. I think it's cute. Go ahead. Don't patronize me because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You called me a dog earlier. I said access expanded. Don't patronize me. I'll get out of here. All right, let's meet yourself. We'll continue on there, Sanvi. Thank you. Is she muted? She is right now. Yes. Okay. Access to condoms expanded from the period from the 1950s all the way up into the early 2000s. I can put a graph in chat if you would want, by the way, it's like literally such a sharp increase in people that began to use them. And yeah, using that does not negate the idea that a fertilized egg is a human organism. I can put, if you don't think life begins at conception, we can address that point. But life does begin at conception. That's when a human organism begins to exist. And obviously, increased access to contraception and increased knowledge does lend itself on how to properly use contraception does lend itself to decrease pregnancy naturally, right? Okay. So actually, it's from 1973 to 2001. It went from 29, like 29.1 per, 29.1 per 100 abortions to 11.2 per 100 abortions, specifically after Roe v. Way. First of all, Sanvi, the dog is barking. And then second of all, you specifically said that making conscious, having birth control legal and access to, which by your own definition, most birth controls don't prevent the egg from becoming fertilized, Sanvi. That's a human being that's being aborted every time someone has sex. It's true. You don't, oh, is that not abortion? It's not abortion. Can you answer the question? Condoms? Do you think that- You're not preventing- I'm not talking about condoms. I'm talking- And that's what I was talking about. Just hold on. Well, actually, can I- Okay, so then- So then- So then- So the data that you were preventing and the charts, we're not just specifically talking about prophylactics, Sanvi. We're talking about the pill. We're talking about IUDs. We're talking about the copper coil. These are the things that most women are using, and these don't prevent a woman from conceiving life. And by that very argument, then I was right. Making these abortive procedures legal did, in fact, help. It's proved to me that it's condoms that fucking did this. That's the most ridiculous argument. I was trying to put it in the chat, but it won't let me put that picture, so I will send the link to the- You can paste it, mail it to me. No. So I'd rather put the link to the study, so I would just do that. But even so, a fertilized, first of all, I don't like you answering my question quickly. Do you believe that life does begin at conception just around the same page? Okay, solid. So what I'm against specifically is anything done post-conception with the intention to end the life of the psycho embryo? That's exactly what these are. And if we're talking- You don't know how birth control is going to end there. Okay, I'm not speaking. I'm literally not, unless you take care of it. I'm literally not going to speak. She's on mute, so. Okay. If we're talking about IUDs, hormonal birth control, and things like that, then yeah, naturally, I would be against them. That's not what I was talking about. I am against IUDs and hormonal birth control for women and stuff like that. I'll quote you from earlier. Guys, you can rewind it and see what she actually said. And you can actually look up the data right here. It's a thing called Google, and we can see that it's not specifically prophylactics that cause this decrease that's on the same. It's actually widely known and talked about that women being able to have birth control options and contraceptives is what decreased this. Prophylactics can be a small part of that, sure. Mostly for preventing STIs, right? But by your own definition of what is life and when does it begin, it still happens. And these prophylactic, I mean, these birth control options, hormonal IUD, copper, whatever, they're preventing that life from forming and growing. I that that is a huge fallacy in your entire, like, you're ridiculous. I don't think you know what you believe. That's not quite what a fallacy is. A fallacy is when you have a flaw in reasoning. At best, this would be a misrepresentation of empirical data, not a fallacy. Second of all, second of all, that's not a fallacy. That would just be misinformation or disinformation, not a fallacy. I encourage you and implore you to use that term more correctly. Second of all, I heard you said I'm against IUDs and hormonal birth control. But I'm saying that condoms did decrease the rates of abortion because they decreased unwanted pregnancy and so did knowledge and access of how to properly use them as contraception. And keep in mind, there are other methods of contraception besides IUDs and hormonal birth control for men, especially like a vestectomy or something. But I do think that anything that is done to harm a human organism post-conception is wrong, hence why I believe IUDs and hormonal birth control. I have a question, Sanvi, and I'm being dead ass. When did you hear me use the term fallacy before today? I have not watched you before today. You haven't? Because that was the only time I used that word today in this debate and you just said you heard me use it before. I was just interested. I would not take the time to watch one of your debates. No, I don't think you were. I think that you have been trolling voice chats and someone told on you and that was an exact argument that was had when they told on you and you left the voice chat. That's cute. What's a voice chat? I've never spoken to you besides today. That's how you went, literally what is a voice chat? What is a human? We can only talk about the United States, but let me bring up fucking Switzerland. Like what? How have you ever want to debate in your life? I'm so confused. I'm honestly exhausted talking to her because she can't even like you contradict yourself. What is a voice chat? When did I have never spoken to you before today? It was probably just patrol, just pretending then. I just thought it was a really weird coincidence that that just happened and that was a whole that specific word fallacy and the whole thing. And then you just said that I just thought it was a coincidence, but that was derailing. So that in and of itself would be derailing or strong manifesto arguing about it. I'm not intending to do that. I'm not trying to pick apart something else and do that. So it's fine. I just thought it was a really interesting little little comment. I don't believe I've ever voice chatted with somebody on YouTube. I don't even know you don't even know what it is. So I believe you. So anyways, they said that this would be what 30, 45, 50 minutes and then 30 minutes of Q&A. I think I'd rather talk to somebody that has something like solid to ask or challenge personally, unless Sanvi has something. I mean, I do like I'd like to ask a few questions because I feel like we still have a major disagreement that we're not addressing. Yeah, we still have like 10, actually about 15 minutes of what would be the open discussion. I believe you. So yeah, if you got a question there, Sanvi, we'll we'll fire it off. Yeah. So do you think it should always be illegal for a parent to kill their infant? Yes, I think infanticide is wrong. I think murder is wrong. I think that things that are illegal and defined as such are wrong. That's just an appeal to legality fallacy. No, it was one of three things that I said I felt were wrong about it. Overall, I agreed. So I conceded. So whatever your aha moment is, go for it, unless you're stalling. Okay. I was just going to ask, do you, are you an absolutist, as you say, in the regard that infanticide should be illegal? Should we murder children? Yeah, I'm pretty, pretty much not about murder the murdering of infants, babies, children. I'm not about. No, of course. Yeah, I guess. Are you an absolutist when it comes to not allowing someone to stick their finger up your butt unwanted? I mean, that's a dumb question. Like, that's what I'm saying. That's the equivalent of what you just asked me. Like, are you an absolute? Like, no, you either are an absolutist about certain things and ideologies, or you just know that inherently one thing is wrong versus one thing is right. What are you getting that? So I would not say I'm not going to obviously tie it back into this discussion, right? I hope so. Would infanticide be permissible if the child in question was conceived out of assault? If the child was inside of an existing child that already had statistically better chance of living, if the child were just already born? No, I don't think it is okay. I do not know how I do believe that there is a certain. No, now we're actually getting to the conversation when we can talk about birth and like why you think being outside of another body makes it more realistic. Okay. This is okay. Go for it. Yeah, sure. I can argue my actual moralities and beliefs. So let's do it. Okay. Yeah. So because of the fact that the fetus is within another body versus when the fetus is born, you think that makes a difference in the moral permissibility of ending its life. Is that fair? I think there are exceptions and I'm not an absolutist when it comes to that. I think that there are exceptions. Like let's say that the child that was already born in this hypothetical world, right? We like our hypotheticals. Let's say that this child and we knew that this child was going to be the next Hitler. Yes, fucking kill that child. Yes, I will do it all day, every day. That wasn't my question. No, but I'm just saying like I'm not an absolutist about that. When it comes to knowing, when it comes to a hypothetical, it's not even hypothetical that in the instance of abortion, when it's your 10 year old child, there's no hypothetical there, that that is most certainly going to be a very fucked up experience physically, mentally, and for many, many years to come. But statistically, if we know already that this 10 year old child who's pregnant, right, is already happy, healthy, well adjusted, no malformations, no genetic disorders, and has a good chance of growing up and being a betterment to society in those situations, then I would identify as like you did earlier, what is the greater good, right? I would say that statistically, and for the better greater good, that it would be more beneficial to go ahead and end that life. If you're trying to catch me in like books, sometimes there's going to be exceptions. Okay. Do you think it's morally permissible for a parent to kill their infant if we know the infant's only going to live for till six months, thereby being a hindrance on society monetarily and not being able to contribute anything? So if they're not a betterment to society, if they're only living the six months, do you think it's okay if the parent kills the infant? Now then, if you mean kill the infant by bludgeon the infant in the head or smother it or like cut it up into pieces, I'm just going to be graphic here, no, I don't, I think that's kind of fucked up. But if, if I'll get there, I will get there, I promise. But if by killing this child that's not going to live past six months, you mean not putting it on constant life support with a tube down its throat, where they, like basically the infant can't survive without the help of machinery anyways. I don't know if I would consider that killing or murder. It's almost like a DNR, right, like a do not resuscitate order. I would kind of consider that the same. It's like this life is either going to be viable on its own or it's not going to be viable on its own. So just to make an exception and now just abortion earlier in this conversation, you mentioned the dilation and curterage, like a DNC procedure. So do you think it would be morally permissible for a parent to let's say dismember the infant the same way that is done to pre-born children in this hypothetical? I'm, I'm honestly confused. Are you asking me, is it okay to dismember the infant that's already born that's not going to live past six months? Yeah, the same thing that you are advocating should be allowed to done to the pre-born. Do you think it should be allowed to be done to the born? No, I don't. I think I've already made a clear definition on it. So then it's not about the betterment of society, because even when I give you an example of an infant not being better for society, you think it's wrong to kill them, but you don't, you're picking a part one. No, that's silly. That's absolutely. And my specific example of talking about the betterment of my fucking child that's already alive and here, not society. In another example you gave, I said, if I knew that this baby was Hitler, I would be okay with terminating it because that is for the betterment of society. I did not mention shit. That is what I said. I said betterment of society in that scenario, Sonby, keep up. That doesn't mean that I'm an absolutist, which I've also denied being. So no, in every, there's no blanket, yes or no black or white answer for any of these. I didn't say that in every instance it has to be for the betterment of society. Okay, so I think that we can weigh the moral right, sorry. It has to be for the betterment. I didn't hear you. I was trying to. So it has to be for the betterment of the pregnant individual. Is that what you're saying that it's okay to end the life? Absolutely. If that pregnant individual is my 10-year-old daughter, yes. Yes. That's why I'm not an absolutist. Do you see what I'm saying? Okay, again, I think that this logic, if you're saying in order for it to be to the betterment, if killing the infant was a betterment to the parent, like they would have to pay less. They would bury them in the backyard. Nobody would ever find out. And they would make their life a whole lot less stressful mentally, physically, emotionally. I'm sorry. Didn't we already say that like I thought more, I thought that abortion electively when there was nothing wrong? Like, didn't I already agree that I didn't think it was a very moral thing to do? That's not what I'm speaking about. Oh, okay. I'm giving you, I'm testing that logic. I'm saying, say we have an infant that is making the parent's life extremely hard mentally, physically, emotionally, and it would be a betterment to the parent's life if they ended the life of the infant. It would make their lives far better, way easier. Do you think that that is morally permissible? No, I don't. I don't think it's more. That it is also not morally permissible to end the life of the fetus. Thank you for becoming pro-life. And the life of the fetus that's in my scenario I gave was literally inside of my 10-year-old daughter? Like that was the only time I gave that scenario that I was like, yeah, let's fucking do it. Let's go. That's what I'm talking about with gray area. Because I'm not agreeing. Hold on, hold on. You made a bold statement because I'm not agreeing that a child who was born and living with somebody and they were like, man, things would be so much better and we could go to the corner store and get like way more beer and like, you know, hang out and party with our friends if we just dismembered this child. This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard and how are those two things? This is what I'm saying. You're the absolutist, not me. You don't see a gray area and you don't have a moral compass. If you don't see the difference in what you just proposed and a 10-year-old little girl being forced to give birth to a rape baby, then I don't know what to tell you, sister. Like, that's fucked up in my opinion. You're the one with like, I don't know. Congratulations for being pro-life, Sonny. Sounds really morally, you know, admirable of you. You're a real gem. Thank you. I wish I could say the same. But moving on to the topic, the reason why I asked in that scenario about the parent and the child's relationship was because now you're saying, well, the fetus isn't existing inside a body, but an infant is not. So what is the argument as to why? That's not what I said. That's not what I said. That's not what I said. I think you said that verbatim. You said it exists inside the pregnant individual's body, whereas the born child... When did I say that? When did I say that? That was an argument of mine, though, Sonny. I never said that, why it's okay or not okay to kill it. You're the one referring to it as a fetus. I've been calling the baby or a person the whole time. I never said that because it's in or outside of somebody. That's why it's okay to kill it. That's not correct. Okay. Do you know what a distinction is? Do you know what this is? What do you mean, do I know what a distinction is? I think, I think you started it when you called me a dog earlier. I'm not going to be very nice to you after that. I've never seen you get like this heated or shitty with someone else in a debate. So I'm a little flattered, honestly, but... Well, this might be a good time to kick it into the Q&A. As you can tell, we're having a lot of fun. It's quite the discussion we're having here. It's spicy, hot to the touch, everybody. So let's try to keep our super chats nice and light. Starting off with Thunderstorm and keep those super chats coming in. 999, what if the state chooses between child and mother out of convenience and investment and potential with a coin toss lottery with proceeds going to the winner sponsored by BlackRock and Vanguard? Well, I don't know if there's... Is that legit? Like, I don't feel like that's legit. That's just... Yeah, let's continue on from there because I don't really think there's too many thoughts we have on our panel about that because it seems kind of like... Maybe I should have read it with a voice. The Craw Daddy 029, $5, modern day debate. Shame on you for letting someone come on here and voice their opinion on pro, our word, anti-choice and anti-consent. I don't know what that is supposed to be. I'm sorry. Maybe that's towards me. I think that if you see, in my view, it's wrong to unjustly aggress upon any human being. That includes rape. Rape unjustly aggresses upon the non-consenting party. That includes abortion. Abortion unjustly aggresses upon the non-consenting party. The same reason why I'm against the initiation of force in one case. It's the same reason why I'm against the initiation of force in the other case. The anti-consent comment there is interesting because babies don't consent to being killed in abortions. All right. Any thoughts on the other side or do you want to carry on? No, I want to carry on. I like that answer. That was good with me. All right. Coming in from Chandler, $4.99. Winsanvi, lose haters. It's a compliment for you from Chandler. Always appreciate people saying nice things rather than putting money in for super chats that I won't read because they're just mean. Richie Constitution, $10. Ashley, I disagree with you, but that was a great opening, except for the last 10 seconds when you said only a reasonable and logical person would agree to meet in the middle. Life is always worth protecting. I agree. Life is always worth protecting. My argument is to what degree or level of protection and how do you determine that? I think that people, I've never ever had this discussion with somebody who's hardcore pro-life that has been able to convince me otherwise or actually debate that gray area or that point with me. But I appreciate it. Thank you. I did put a lot of work into that opening. I'm pretty proud of it. All right. We'll carry on from there. Glaucoma, $4.99. Ashley, how long did it take to copy my opening statement from our debate two weeks ago, paraphrase it, and yet somehow make it dumber? Oh, live chat is just as spicy as our debate. That's from Glaucoma. Actually, that was actually a question I would like to answer. It was addressed to me for $4.99. You know that they asked me to debate you on here, and no one wants to debate you just like I told you, I'm never going to even fucking fuck with you again. You're so bad faith and you're a liar. But I think it's cute that you think that I took that from you. I will say, I did see Glaucoma debate somebody else one time, not you. It was a man, and I thought Glaucoma did very well. Was very poised, very kind. I think we have a lot of similarities in our debate style. Maybe that's what rubs certain people the wrong way. It's why I declined to do this with you three times, but whatever. Finally, after the third time, I was like, all right, fuck it. I'll do it, but not with Glaucoma involved. So here we are. You're welcome for the show, ladies and gentlemen. All right. Well, if you're enjoying this, hit that like button and share this in those spaces where everybody likes to squibble and squabble. Pointless, Poppy, 999. One, sex is most often used for social bonding, not procreation. We'll let you guys have some time to expound on that. He's got a couple questions here, but for 999, we'll go through them. So sex is often used for social bonding, not procreation. Yeah, I don't know. I don't think there's a question in there. I think what I would say and what's kind of undeniable is that a causal consequence of that is one of them is obviously, you know, procreation. I agree. All right, two. Conception can happen without intent. Yeah. Yeah. Conception can happen without intent, but that doesn't mean you're not liable. Like if I pushed somebody off a building and I didn't intend for them to die, if they die, I'm still liable. The same would go for sex and pregnancy, if that's what you're trying to ask about. If that's not what you're trying to ask about, send in another super tech, because I'm not sure where you're going with that. 17-year-old rapes a 10-year-old. That too. It's her fault. Why would it be her fault? It's just, I'm just memeing. I don't know. I mean, ever since you told me I'm barking like a dog, I'm never going to look at you like a serious person. You know, you can get heated and you can go a little bit back and forth, but to actually insinuate someone as a dog or a bitch, right? Like that was so immature and disgusting coming from somebody who is supposedly so poised. So at this point and from that point on, and the fact that you can't actually make any argument at all. Listen, guys, I think that, I think that maybe, I said you were barking at me and maybe that wasn't the nicest, but you literally go back and rewind. You really do need to let the opposition get their point across and let the opposition speak in full, because once you interject, it's hard for us to get back on our train of thought and to actually get to a productive discussion. And I've probably debated hundreds of people. I've won awards for debating. I've debated nationally many years. I have never had an experience like this where somebody consistently interrupts and disrespected me like this. I'm not sure why. Like I don't just go around disrespecting people in debates. I've never had an experience like this, but I guess there's the first time for everything. You have to learn how to deal with difficulties. I've watched your debate with Destiny a few times because I wanted to get your talking points down and he interrupted you constantly and you never, you never said anything like that to him. So I would disagree actually. I would disagree. You were yelled over. You were constantly interrupted, but you had a lot more respect for that. And you didn't say, somebody meowed, am I? I can't. Destiny is very respectful towards me. I'm going to inject you. So we don't get too much talk. Call me a dog. We have, we have Destiny on here from time to time. So we try not to discuss people that aren't in the chat. He's a very, he's a very respectful debate. No, I like Destiny. I'm cool with Destiny. I'm just, I was just pointing out. Oh, for sure. I don't think, I don't think you were making too much of a diss track. That's all good, but we'll wrap this point up three. No one has the right to your body, including a fetus abortion can be morally permissible. So I'll adjust that nobody has the right to your body thing first. I think there are certain circumstances where your child certainly does have a right to your body. Like say you give birth at home with the cabin in the woods. I would most certainly say you must use your body, expend your energy in order to cause somebody or make sure that child doesn't die. And in the same way, I would argue that it is not moral for you to then kill your child. Yeah. All right. This one coming in from as rec 90, right to bottom, bodily autonomy overrides the right to potential life. No one should be required to use their body to sustain someone else against their will. Okay, I'll adjust that. So firstly, I would argue that a fetus is not a potential life. It's a life with potential and should be treated as such human dignity, human respect. Now, with the nobody has the right to use your body thing and the right to refuse, right? I don't think this is necessarily true in all cases when you look at it. Like, if your child needed you pick up the phone and call somebody in order to save their life, you would not have the right to just like, well, I don't want to use my body to pick that up. So I don't have to do that. No, like there's certainly cases where you have duties and obligations to prevent harm or prevent somebody from dying. And most certainly, even if you don't agree to that, you have the obligation to not use your body to harm or kill somebody else. The same way drinking during pregnancy would be wrong. Yeah. All right. I got a message from from a buddy here asking for an impression. I'm a sucker for it. So here's a Peterson. Let's carry on. Manga fan Dan, five dollars. Why doesn't the pre-born baby have bodily autonomy? I think they should. I think that if the pregnant woman is drinking, not for the intent to kill the baby, but maybe because she has an addiction, then the intention behind that wasn't to harm or kill the baby. And maybe it's the same as chemotherapy. All right. This one coming from Chandler for $1.99. There's not really much of a question, more of just an ad home. So we'll skip on over to Pointless Poppy for $9.99. Sanvi, what about forcing the development of a fetus into infancy, a state where it can perceive the world and be somewhat self-aware is moral to you? What business is it of yours? I'm kind of a fuse. I think this is an anti-natalist argument that creation is not moral because the capacity to be conscious means the capacity to suffer. This is usually how that argument is outlined. I think you would need to warrant, firstly, why creation is bad. I think creation is morally neutral. And secondly, how you can harm something just by allowing them to be conscious. Why that suffering, they have the capacity to suffer would mean that any other capacities that they have are overrided. But yeah, I think the anti-natalist arguments are weird because you would effectively just be criminalizing sex. I'm suffering from your consciousness. All right, let's try to move it on you. I made you think. Spicy, spicy people. As rec $95, the Bible advocates for abortion. Numbers 511231 NIV. Thoughts on that? No, that's a common mistranslation that pro-abortionist site, the numbers. That first was actually about infertility, not abortion. That's why it's the bitter water of her womb. And second of all, God's commands or God's actions towards people aren't what our commands for humans, right? There's two distinct entities, God and human. And we have different abilities and powers and commands. And what God does is not something that a human should do necessarily. But yeah, go ahead. I was just saying, I was surprised they didn't bring up Exodus 21. That would be, I don't know, I think more of a, I think that would be a better argument for that stance that he or she was taking. I'm not sure, but. All right, well, let's carry on. Damien Gershwin for $2. Even at all, feminism will destroy civilization. Yeah, based. All right, let's continue on. Not much of a question there, but I figured I'd give it some gusto. Thunderstorm 499 says, Son V1. Well, there you go, you have a fan. It's always nice, better than, like I said, the diss tracks because we don't want to skip your super chat if you're just being nasty. No matter what kind of spice you hear on the screen. As long as it's with the Braggs, I'm okay with it. I kind of enjoy the cringe, so it's fine. I just meant, like, don't spare me. That's all good. Damien Gershwin for $2 says, Keep your legs closed. Chances are you'll be fine. Thoughts on that over there? I'll kick to you, Ashley. Um, I mean, obviously some, you know, the .5% of rape victims, you know, out there, you're not talking about those, I assume. Other than that, yeah, I mean, actions have consequences. That's part of life. It sucks sometimes. All right, any thoughts on that? Or do you want to carry on? Yeah, that's fine. Damien Gershwin strikes again for $2. If only women were in power, we'd have world peace. No, we'd just have a bunch of dead children. Creepy. Alrighty. And honestly, like, okay, I need to say something about this. Women, whether you like it or not, men help the world go around. They perform like 90% of difficult jobs in society that you do not have the capability, the capacity, or the interest or willingness to perform. So have some respect. Stop with them, Ms. Andrew. Men, you are needed in society, especially masculine men. They're needed. I love masculine men, not really. I'm sure you do. Alrighty then. Let's continue on. Name underscore 7861 for $5. Ashley, in the cases where there is no rape, no incest, no deformities and no medical necessity is abortion morally permissible. I like the seventh time. I don't think it's a moral thing to do. I don't think no. I mean, I wouldn't do it whenever I've heard of somebody that has done it. I kind of cringe a little and I feel bad. It's not a good thing. I don't think that having even an elective procedure to actively murder a child inside of you. No, I don't think that anybody should look at that as like, hey, this is a really morally great thing to do. I think everyone should just get on board. No, I'm not on board with that. I enjoy debating the gray area and I enjoy actually trying to get to the root of why people feel like they have certain moral stances when I think that it's, I don't know, maybe I'm just cynical. All right, we'll carry on from there. Keep the super chats coming in. We'll keep the conversation flowing. Let's see. I got a scroll on up here. Immigration Avenue for $20 to those who have knowledge of alien films. If a face, hugger in beds, xenomorph into your body, is it a moral to remove the alien before it is born because it absorbs the genetic traits of its host, including intelligence. I like this hypothetical. I like it a lot. I would get rid of that alien, probably, but that's hard. It's not a human being, right? That's on the other side there, zombie. I don't have that many thoughts on that. Yeah, that's fine. I agree. All right, we'll move on from the alien example, but thanks for the super chat. Charles Laner, $4.99. Actually, if the fetus were conceived, sorry, if the fetus was conceived in grape, but, oh, he's paraphrasing. Thanks for that. If it was conceived in grape, but has been in the womb for 8.5 months, would it still be morally permissible to abort? I think that a lot of people failed whoever the fuck is thinking they won an abortion at 8.5 months. There's so many things wrong with that question. It's an unrealistic question. And then if we were to go back to what the reality is right now with our current laws, that is, again, unless life is in danger, it's not possible to have that kind of abortion or murder anywhere. So I don't, to me, I don't entertain questions like that when there's not, I can't see a realistic scenario where that would happen right now. I mean, I don't know, morally, I also specifically didn't say all rape victims. I mean, in my last debate, I argued with a pro-lifer that the rape, she was agreeing that we should be able to abort all rape babies. And I was saying, that's kind of fucked up. Like, it's not their fault they rape babies, you know, in my specific scenario, it was a young child that was bearing an older man's, you know, baby in her womb before her body was capable of even being able to go through some trauma like that. So it, you know, I don't know, I just don't think that that's, I don't think that's a fair question. I don't think that's one of those high questions, but, but you made me think, thank you. I'll address that because a lot of people have this idea that late term abortion is like such an unrealistic question to ask when, first of all, they occur more frequently than any of the scenarios that you presented. Second of all, the study that I specifically put in. I didn't present in the scenario. And how often do they occur? You can't just say shit like, I'm screen, I'm screen sharing, please like read the thing. So this study went over how most states define an abortion done out of medical necessity and like why late term abortions like 8.5 months are actually done. And she's not even here. The findings suggest that the reason that they're done are not to do to severe fetal abnormalities or to save the women's life. They're actually done with healthy women and for healthy fetuses and for the same reasons that first time. You're, you're so, you are so wrong. Where, where was this study from? Oh my God, this is such for sure right now. Do you even know where the term partial birth abortion came from? You know that that was, so a partial birth abortion came from, it's actually Congress made them illegal in 2002. But no, do you know where the term partial birth abortion came from? The technical term for a partial birth abortion is a DNX, right? That is the technical medical term for it. But you can say that my SETI is horseshit. It's from Gootmacher. You said yourself Gootmacher is credible and you said you have three. I believe that they are, but I, so would you mind, I'm looking it up. I'm looking it up. Can you see my, can you see my screen? I honestly cannot. I cannot. I can't read that. You, it's, it is an entire page. Okay. Let me try to maybe zoom in to the high. I don't have it. Did you post it in the back chat? Actually post it in the back chat. I did. Do you see it? Oh yeah, I can do that then. Yeah. I can pull that up. I'm not. Ryan, are, are they able to see it? No, Ashley. Okay. Okay. Because according to Gootmacher, as this says, most late term abortions are elective that on healthy women with healthy fetuses and healthy pregnancies and therefore the same reasons that first trimester abortions are done. And I think if you're going to use Gootmacher as a credible source, accept their data, right? Like if I'm saying that if you're going to claim that they happen way more than I say they do, which I said that they were very rare. I can't read this, but tell me what are the stats on that out of, out of abortions? How many are actually done? Because that was the only claim that I made. I, and I said that most often it's because of some kind of life threatening or medical or fetal abnormality situation. If I'm incorrect, if I'm, if I'm incorrect on, if I am incorrect on that, I will concede. But I also want to say that I did say that this is not common. This is not, this does not happen very often at all. And it's been mostly abandoned outlawed even before Roe v. Wade was overturned recently. So I want to know the stats on, you said it happens way more often. How often is this happening? Because the reason is, is because the term, I just really quick though, zombie, and I'm being so genuine right now, but the term partial birth abortion, it's actually political propaganda and it's a fear monger tactic. And what you're doing, in my opinion, perpetuates that, that mania of people thinking like women are just out there eight and a half, nine months pregnant, just murdering these babies. And I just, I just want people to be realistic about it. If it's really happening that much, sorry, I'll set up. I can see your. So yeah, I'm all for being realistic. Hence why I'm citing you a study from a source that you deemed credible from an institution. No, I appreciate that a lot. And that's why that's fine. Maybe you can go into the YouTube chat because I think they have a good view of it. This source, being a realist says that most late term abortions are done on healthy women with healthy fetuses and are not due to medical necessity, right? So I think this completely disproves the narrative that, oh, women only get abortions in the late term if something really bad has happened to them physically. I didn't say only. I said, I think that most often that's why. So if it is not. And that is false. And that is false according to the blur. Okay. So how many are there? You said it was a ton. You said it happens way more than I'm saying, which I never even said a number. I literally said it's rare compared to the abortions that are done and that it was mainly made illegal and outlawed before Roe v. Wade was overturned. And I also said that the term partial birth was made up by a political party, actually a for-profit political party that was funding candidates, Republican Party candidates, and it was a fear monger tactic. I watched a documentary about that part, which is like where I'm getting that from to be fair. I can't, I could pull it up though too and I'll post it. Again, again. Yes. I'm not arguing that the majority of abortions are done in late term. Obviously, the majority of abortions are not done later. What I, you know, what you said about, is that, right, that's fine. But you were saying that I am saying, women do go out, women do go out and get late term abortions for non-medical reasons. Women do go out and get late term abortions for non-medical reasons. Yes, they do, right? And I'm not saying it happens often, right? I'm not going to make that claim, but I'm do, I am going to push back on the pro-choice narrative that late term abortions only happen or are political propaganda or only happen due to necessities like generally from the mother's health or the fetus's health. That is not true. Gutmacher literally did a study focusing on women who had abortions post-20 weeks gestation, right? And they concluded that they were doing so because of unemployment reasons, because of educational reasons, because of their partner and them and their relationship dynamics, breaking up and such like that. Those were the most reported reasons. The most reported reasons were not physical health. So I hope that disproves this pro-choice narrative that, you know, late term abortions only happen for medical reasons. Let's go back to the main screen. And yeah, just as I add on here that I saw in the chat, would these abortions lead to the death of the fetus or the child, I guess, at that point? I didn't see that in there. I was kind of reading it. I was like, do these resolve the death? And also, if it didn't lead to the death of the child, then they would call it a live birth. Okay. I was just curious because I saw that in the chat. I was reading it and I was like, okay, yeah, you know, that's maybe an interesting idea. But yeah, we'll move on from there. Also, I didn't get my chance to read that. So also the specific example she brought up, or the chat or not, Sonvy brought up was eight and a half months. The study she referenced just now, she said post 20 weeks. When that's not what most people consider to be partial birth abortions, first of all, which is kind of where I brought that up. Also, whenever you brought something up that I said, you know, I'm not exactly sure on that. I might not know all the stats as far as like the reasoning behind it. I think one of the first things I said was like, if I'm wrong about that, sure. But you made a claim that it's far more than I'm saying that it happens a lot, which my whole point was spreading that rhetoric and that propaganda. And then you literally just denied that you ever made that claim. So I don't know, just it does happen a lot more than you're saying. So, so give me and I'll prove this to you. Give me an estimate as to how many elective late term abortion procedures, you know, after 20 weeks, which is what it's find us. How many? I'll give you an estimate that it's far. How many do you think happen in the United States per year? I think it's far less than the ones that don't, which is the only thing that I said. The burden of proof. No, how many do you think? Give me a number. No, you said it's far more than I think it is. The burden of proof is on you, Sonny. I never gave a number in the first place. I said it's far less. I said it's less frequent. It's more rare. I said it doesn't happen as much as people think. I know statistically it is not the average or the normal abortion being had. You are the one that said I was wrong about that. The burden of proof is on you. No, I never said you were wrong in terms of percentage. You said it didn't happen. I think that you're wrong in terms of here's what I was saying. There are more elective late term abortions in the United States than there are cases of pregnancy and abortion resulting from SA. Do you agree with that? Okay. Do you agree with that? What does that have to do with the price of T and China? That's what I was saying, was you can't sit up here and say, oh, that's so rare to the commenter, right? But then you're addressing a scenario that's even more rare. Okay, Sonny. Does that make sense? I mean, sort of, it's kind of you're reaching with that one. I don't blame you. I mean, you've had a rough night tonight. I would be reaching too, but literally, that is not what happened. One of my favorite things to do after these things is clip the shit that people say and then exactly the opposite of what happened. I don't know if I'll have the stomach to do it, but maybe in a few days. That year, ridiculous. All right, let's carry on from there. Great argument. That really refuted my point. Well, let's carry on from there because we got a few more super chats to go. Can you keep those questions coming in, by the way, guys? You know, we still got a bit of time here to burn. So if you got some questions, put them in there because we are getting near the end. And I see you have lots to say in the chat. So, you know, turn that into a super chat and we'll ask that out. The internet for $10, this is a pretty intense question. So just don't mind me here. Sonvy, if I attacked you and you got you pregnant and you had the option to get an abortion, are you seriously going to have my baby? I'm just a rando, but you'd be willing to have my kid in that scenario. Sounds like a weird, like, fapping question, right? Yeah, I think that's the question. I saw that come up. I think they were kind of asking me to, like, have their kid. We get it. Sonvy's cute, but don't be a creep. Come on. I mean, I read it because I mean, I think maybe they're just trying to really, like, tug on, maybe I shouldn't make that gesture. But either way, they're trying to tug on moral heartstrings. Okay, anyways, let's carry on, you know, trying to make it personal. So pointless poppy, pointless poppy. A fetus didn't consent to being born. Yeah, so I address these arguments often. So first of all, the concept of consent can only be applied like post-creation, right? So, like, when we have something like a child getting medicine, they don't necessarily consent to that, but we consider it moral because it's done in accordance with the child's life and flourishing. And birth is one of the things done in accordance with the child's life and flourishing, whereas abortion is not because abortion, obviously, by terminating the life, they have no other further capacities. But by giving birth and then by nourishing your child and by not, you know, committing child neglect and all of these things, it's in accordance with what's virtuous. So that's why I think that distinction matters. So the Gupmeyer Institute literally said it's 1% or less of late-term abortions. Yeah, I never denied that. Oh my goodness. All right, let's move on from there. Great victim. What's 1% of 900,000? I don't know. What's 100? It's 9 billion, Sandy. It's 9 billion. 8.6 billion. I did look that up earlier. 8.6 plus billion. Are you rounding up the power of five? I'm not sure what's being, like, do you seriously not know? Earlier we were talking about what 1% of 900,000 is. Earlier we were, I was baking a joke. Earlier we were talking about the population of the earth. I said 4.6 billion or something like that, which actually I think isn't the earth 4.6 billion years old. And the population of the earth is somewhere around 8.6 or whatever billion. And I said, Jesus Christ, it's really jumped in the last several years. And I was making a joke about that. But I understand we'll keep it strictly business and name calling from here on out. Let's try to behave ourselves. 970, name underscore 7861 for $2 asks, Ashley, is there any case where abortion is wrong? Where it's wrong? I guess, I don't know. How would you define wrong the same as morally permissible? I think that, I don't know. I think wrong is morally impermissible. Thank you, Sonby. Thank you for that. What I'm saying is that I think that you could define it in multiple different ways. I think you could. Wrong versus moral. How do we, how do we say the two or what? And then, and then I think just like with, I'm not going to lie, that one like irritated me a little bit. That one did, that one got to me. Your banana hand's going up there like that. I got, I got a little perturbed for a second. Sorry. Yeah, I think that if, if there are cases where I think that it's not quite moral, the reason I think that wrong is sometimes different than moral is because I do look at things. When I hear the word wrong, is it wrong? I think I'm going to get in trouble. I think maybe that could go into legality as well, Sonby. So I think that that's why I think there might be a difference that I might want a little more clarity or specification on is it morally permissible? Right? We're talking about a philosophical philosophical question here. Is it moral? What is moral? And then we're talking about right and wrong. Are we talking about law of the land? What, I don't know. I hear a different connotation or meaning behind the two words, but you and your manhands go at it, girl. Okay. Let's try to carry on. I'd rather have manhands than a man face. Oh yeah, burn. What's wrong with my face? All right, pointless poppy. Leave my binkies alone. 499 from pointless poppy. Sonvy, you appealed. So this is for Sonvy. You appealed to the neutrality of creation when people have an issue with you forcing them to create. No one said creation wasn't neutral. Yeah, so that's what I'm saying because I think the original question was babies don't consent to being born. And that's why I said they don't need to because we do what's in accordance with their flourishing and parents consent on behalf of children while they're still underage. So part of that would be like if your infant needed medicine, you would give them that medicine even though they don't consent to eating or something like that, right? Because you're doing what's in accordance with their actual well-being and that is true for birth. And that's why I am not against birth. Yeah. Thoughts on the other side? I am also not against birth. All right, we'll move on to our last super chat here as of right now unless we get any more in. And the last one is from Abraham Tardiff. And it says, Ryan looking mad cute today only simped for Ryan. That's right, mad cute. And I have feelings about that, but I'm not going to expound about it. So yeah, I think that's the end of our super chat. So we're going to do up to one minute per side to give their final thoughts on this spicy interaction. And we'll kick it over to, well, Ashley, you open. So yeah, we'll kick it over to Sanvi for your up to one minute closing. Are there no more super chats? There are no more super chats now. So we'll move into one minute closings unless we got, oh, we got another one. Oh, two more. Okay, never mind. We'll get to those one minute closers, everybody. We'll read these questions because I think, I think Sanvi wants to get to them. Franco, sorry, go ahead. What was that, Ashley? I said, I do too. I'm agreeing with you. Alright, yeah, well, we still got a little bit of time here to burn everybody. So we'll try to stir up a little bit of conversation here. Franco, Trigelio, or Trigelio, five dollars. Ashley, what's your factors when it comes to a life worth protecting? Conception, sorry, conception, consciousness, or birth? Question My factors are, I don't know, to be honest with you, I don't want to have a debate by proxy with Sanvi Sims. She couldn't bring up these questions or points on her own than that's on her. But I think, again, that we can all define our own, and Sanvi agreed with me on this, we all define our own morality and where those limits lie. So in the examples I gave tonight, I think it was very fucking clear that whereas Sanvi thinks the 10-year-old that was rich should have that baby, and I don't. And I don't, I don't understand that whole part of it, kind of like one of the only examples that I agreed with an abortion, and I would do it again and again and again. But I'm, I am a mother, ironically enough, right? Any thoughts on the other side or do you want to carry on? No, I think we can carry on. All right, we'll wrap up these last super chats, everybody. So no more super chats after you hear this announcement, okay? And we're going to wrap it up from there. So this one coming in from the internet, that was that kind of off base question. Let me just read this right quick to make sure it's not too strange again. Okay, okay. I think, I think they've, they've removed the element of themselves. So I think it, hopefully this will ring out as a genuine question we can get into some discussion. It says, my last question was a genuine question because these pro-lifers are only pro-life until something happens to them. So if she got attacked and pregnant, I guarantee you she's getting an abortion 100%. Thoughts on that, Sanvi? Yeah, so first of all, I'd like to point out that the majority of essay victims actually don't get abortions and their regret or willingness to have gotten an abortion decreases months and years post birth. So like they, the turn away study is a really common one where they asked women 5% of the women that did get an abortion agreed that it was the best decision. Can I, can I please, you're going to derail and straw, man. That's not what I was. Let's let Sanvi wrap up like that. Yeah, that's not what I'm addressing. I'm not saying that most women don't get abortions. I was specifically talking about essay victims. Yeah. So first of all, let's let it be a sliver. So the majority of essay victims do keep their children and they're like the turn away study, which has surveyed them months and years, like after they had given birth and, you know, continue raising the child or whatnot, their regret for abortion just went down and down that. And I'm not that I think that that matters to the question, per se, but I do want to give that for context and how most situations. I'll elaborate because I know that study really well. So I'm glad you brought it up. Really? Who was the author of the study? Very glad that you brought it up. Who was the author of the turn away study? I don't know, but I can tell you the stats. Most studies that I know really well, I can probably name the author. Most movies that I know really well, I can't actually. You can name an actor and you can't name actors in the movies you'd like. I'm not good with names and things like that. How is that? How about a date of publication? You're such a caddy little thing. Do you know about what year it was? Garfin, your claws, girl. Or I'm not like, wait, wait, wait, wait. Sorry, Ashley. Let's just let a zombie ask her question. We'll kick it back to you. Don't worry. Was the study first published in a book, a website, an article, do you know? Okay. See, like I said, most studies that I know well, I'll be able to tell you these things. So clearly you don't know it that well. But now getting on to the actual meat of that question is like you can say that. Actually, this was a study that was taken place. I can't remember her name, but I know that she was at a convention when she first learned the stats of what was going on with women who were, it was right during Roe v. Wade and all the upheaval over that. She did a 10-year study with 1,000 women over the course of this study. Now this is all just from my brain. I'm not sitting here Googling this. This is me and how many times I've read it, Sonby. So if I get one little thing wrong, go to town banning hands. But I'm just saying she, she sat there with, for 10 years, 1,000 women and studied them in regular intervals. You can pick many things. In fact, I love this study because I think that it would probably support your argument and my argument, which in the end is exactly what I'm saying. There are gray areas. Anybody that, if you haven't looked up the turn away study, please do. It is a based-ass study. And the stat I was trying to bring up is that of the women who did have abortions during this study, right? Because she studied women that could, women that couldn't, different socionomic backgrounds, all of this, right? Of the women that did have an elective abortion, 95% of them actually went on at the end of this 10-year study to say that it was the best decision. It was great for them. Was it difficult? Sure, but they were glad and they would do it again. There's so many things you could take from that study. That's not what I think. That's why I'd be confusing it. I'm specifically talking about the study done by Dr. Diana Green Foster. I don't know what you're citing. Oh, Diana Green Foster, the turn away study. That's the one, yeah. Oh, what university was it? Was she a professor at? I don't fucking know. You have not read this study. We are on totally two different wavelengths because she specifically surveyed and researched women who did keep their children, who were, for example, denied abortions. Did you study both, you moron? There is a whole section of the study of women who did go through with abortion and women who didn't. There's the entire study about the reason why it's called the. That is where they came up with the statistic that 60% of women that get abortions are in poverty and they already have children. What are you fucking talking about? Because you googled something 15 minutes ago and you call people bitches that you just meet online. You think like you are pathetic. I didn't call you a bitch. I'm sorry, you called me a dog, a dog. You were barking at me. You literally wasn't. I literally was being way nicer to you than I am now. I'm sorry that you can't take a little heat, sweetheart. But don't fucking fuck with me like that. You're so bad faith and ridiculous. Okay. Anyways, now I'm going to actually address the study because the whole point of the study is it's called the turn away study because for some reason the women's study couldn't access abortion, whether it be to their partner being abusive, whether it be to they were just talking. You're so fucking. I cannot with you. My God, you fucking. We'll just let Sonvy close out for this question here. That's not what the study was though. But regardless, I think we might just be confusing them and we can move on. But can we post the study for everyone to read? Because I'll tell you exactly what I'm talking about. God, you are the most bad faith in the whole plot. You can do a screen share if you want, if you have it ready. Or we can always deal with this on another occasion. No, for sure. So yeah, I'm specifically talking about, like I know the 95% of women don't regret their abortion type thing. That's not the type. That's not what I was trying to tell Sonvy. I was more so getting at was, the majority of rape victims do keep their children and the happiness. You know why that is? Did you read the turn away study? Because it explains it pretty well in there. Yeah, I know. A lot of the time it's because they were in abusive conditions or they were too far along in their pregnancy to be. They didn't have access. To be denied. And that's why I was addressing it because this commenter asked me about like if I was assaulted, for example. So that's why I was. Is that why? Is that also why you addressed other things that had nothing to do with anything we were talking about? You interrupted me and didn't let me hang up and answer it to a question. Well, to be fair. That was addressed to me. Like this question is to me. It's not to you. You answered a question that specifically addressed to me earlier. Don't act like this is one-sided. There has been a little bit of interrupting going back and forth. I'm sorry I'm interrupting now. And called me names. I've never done that to someone on a debate before tonight. Never. But we want to move on to the next question I think from there. So let's do that guys. And yeah, like we said, we knew this was going to be a juicy one. So give that like button a smash there if you're enjoying the heat. Name underscore 7861 for $2. Ashley, wrong is immoral. Again, I have a different definition for it when I hear the word. I think that they can vote. I think that one is more philosophical in nature. And I think that the other could be both philosophically and in the physical world or the law of the land. So that is where my hesitation was with that. Also, I saw I'm not going to let it go. But like I keep seeing like people it's like, Ashley, you flipped her off like your trip. No, she literally in the beginning of the debate called me a dog. And said I was barking like a dog. That set the tone for me. And I will never forget it. And I will be if you want a barking dog, I will fucking bark. I will fucking bark. All right. Let's ask the last of these super questions we'll carry on. Toilet bowl earth. I love your name for 99. We can't know what kind of person what kind of person will be. What is the point of the Hitler hypothetical Ashley? Also, well done, Sanvi. Thank you. The point of the Hitler hypothetical was because she was bringing that question up in reference to me justifying the abortion of the 10-year-old little girl, right? And because it was for the betterment, right? Then she said, well, would you like in aborting the fetus or the child or the human that's inside the 10-year-old girl that is your daughter in this hypothetical, right? Would you justify that over the baby that's already been born and us ripping them limb from limb? And she said, are you an absolutist, right? Meaning like earlier I was making absolutist type claims. But then I went on to say that I find that there are exceptions to rules because I do believe in gray areas and morality, you know? So in that scenario, I said, look, if the killing of the fetus inside of the person and that person's my 10-year-old daughter and it's for the betterment of her, yeah, I'm going to be okay with that. I'm going to be about it. If the kid were killing, which I still never agreed that ripping them limb from limb, I thought that was kind of a creepy analogy. But if we're going to rip them up into pieces after they're like six months old because in her analogy or scenario or hypothesis, the parents were going to be happier and less broke, you know? No, I don't think that's okay. But if the kid were Hitler, then I guess there's a gray area there. Like if it's going to save, you know, 6 million Jews, sure, let's do it, I guess. I don't know. That's why, like, I don't know. I just thought that was kind of one of those I'm going to back you into a corner moments, but it's not. You know, it's not. And that's why I brought up that hypothetical. It wasn't a classic like, well, if we know this kid's going to be Hitler, well, what if the kid cured cancer? Like that's that's one of those hypothetical arguments that I find boring and redundant, which is why I used it, because all of Sonvy's arguments tonight have been the same arguments that everyone uses all the time constantly. But at the end of the debate, I never saw a moment where she could actually prove to me that she has a real moral compass and that she knows exactly where it points. I was going to try to move on from there, but I kind of call on out Sonvy, so I'll give Sonvy a chance to respond. All good. Yeah. So I don't really know what to say to that. I think every point that I've made in the debate has been pretty clear. I guess there's only so many discussions on abortion literature. So it does happen to be limited in what people can and do say. And obviously, many people and philosophers have come before me talking about this who I've learned a lot from. Nothing wrong with that. I would actually encourage you to look at some pro-choice philosophers rather than just trying to make things up as you go, because clearly it's not going very well for you. Okay. So you had me for a minute. I was agreeing with you, and then you went back to the petty little salty child. That's fine. I'll be petty and salty too. I bet you that I've read a lot more shit than you have, because I have a lot more talking points. I have a lot more thought. I've put a lot more thought behind this. And you are literally like a walking meme of an abortion debate. You honestly don't even have skills outside of debating trans people or abortions, which are two of the most nuanced, annoying, and that's like doing a fucking algebra equation over and over again, the same one, and then claiming to be good at something. Okay, Ashley, would you like to debate me on metaphysics or epistemology next? Yeah, let's do it. You want to? Let's set it up. Okay. Okay, great. I think that'd be great. I will know how liberal to be. If we get to do that, then I also want to pick a topic that we can debate. Yeah. Would you like to debate me on metaphysics, epistemology, anything that I am knowledgeable about? Yeah, I just said yes. And then are you a theist? No, I'm not a theist. Not at all. Okay. We can debate the metaphysics of theism, then. That's solid. All right. Well, we'll definitely have a talk about that. Hold on. I will debate you on that. And what I said is that then I would get to choose a topic that you would debate me on. In good faith, I don't know much about this, but I guarantee you before our debate, I will be fucking studied up. And I'm still going to run circles around you because you are a basic bitch. I'd rather be a basic bitch than somebody that's never picked up a philosophy book in their life. Who said that? I don't need your knowledge in this room. All right. We need to move on. I've never read about philosophy. Never. What? Never. I'm literally the only one that quoted any philosophers or their beliefs tonight at all, at all. You googled something for five seconds and thought that you knew the ins and out of a study. You sit there and giggle to your little side chat because it's comforting to you because you know that you're getting fucking roasted. And you performed horribly. I think that you have a lot of insecurities that need to be addressed. I don't know. Like, you've done this towards other people you've debated as well, including me. Not really. Honestly. If the chat offends you, you need to simply not look at the chat. The way I look offends you. You just don't need to pay attention to it. I told you at the beginning, don't look at the chat. I think trolls are funny. You literally have... Because you suck at this argument, you were... All right. You guys are muted right now to the live stream. We need to move on. I understand. We need... We need to move on from here. Okay, we can... I'm sorry. We're off the debate topic. And I understand that there's been some mudsliding going on and there might be some heated emotions. But let's try to get back to the topic here. Name seven, eight, six, one, two dollars. Ashley, what makes abortion morally impermissible? What makes abortion morally... Actually, you know, tonight, Song-V, is that how it's... Savvy? Savvy's changed my mind. If she were to have been able to be aborted, I would have thought that was very morally permissible. I'm just trolling at this point. Like, I don't fucking know anymore. This is... Well, thank you. I always do appreciate jokes about my death. Okay, I appreciate being called a bitch and nagged every five seconds. And then after I literally respond to you kindly... We're going to put you on mute again if we can't move on from here. So let's get back to the question. Pointless Poppy. We've got two questions here. We're going to go to closing statements, guys. Pointless Poppy, 499. Song-V, flourishing is irrelevant to whether or not we should create life in the first place. I don't think it's irrelevant. I don't think it's irrelevant because, like, firstly, we would need to get their standards of what it means to be good. But I would say the only way to flourish is to first exist, right? So existence is a necessary prerequisite for flourishing. That's why I would need you to warrant why flourishing is not the standard of value and life isn't the standard of value, but rather something else is. And that's why creation was bad. Like, I think that that is a burden that the anti-natalists have to answer. Many thoughts over there, Ashley? No, I'm just laughing. I'm just having a good time. All right. Well, glad to hear it. Let's carry on from there. We got one last question, and I'm not reading anymore, as I warned you guys earlier. Damien Gershwin. $2. Chat wants the heights and weight. Oh, what? No, Gary, get out of here. That's not legit. We're not doing that. Yeah, I'm six feet. I'll answer your question. I'm six feet, and I'm... Yeah, I'm really skinny. Anyways, all right, so... Ask for your height and weight. Get out of here, you Damien. I don't mind the answer. I mean, it's... It is irrelevant, but I don't mind. What kind of question is this? I mean, that's fine. Let's move into our one-minute closing statements. So, Sanvi, the floor is all yours. Up to one minute to give your thoughts on the discussion. Yeah, so I think, unfortunately, today, the discussion was supposed to be on the morality of abortion if abortion is morally permissible. I do think at the beginning of this debate, and as has been reiterated, Ashley said multiple times that abortion is sometimes morally impermissible, but sometimes permissible, and that it is a great area in her own words. I do think that if you do look at the majority of abortions, they are not due to rape or medical necessity or something like that. So you would have to concede that the majority of abortions are immoral, hence, rendering this proposition kind of useless. I wish we would have discussed that going into this debate, because the morality of abortion is devoid from discussions about jurisprudence, and it is devoid from discussions about legality. We're specifically asking the question of, do the prenatal have the right to not be aborted, and if the prenatal does have the right to not be aborted, is it superseded by bodily autonomy? Something like that is what we should be addressing in arguments like this. I wish we wouldn't have gotten that off topic, but it was a good discussion nonetheless. All right, over to you, Ashley, for up to one minute, your closing thoughts. Yeah. First of all, you're a great host. You've got the classic radio voice. I love it. Everything you say is funny. I actually got you, Sanvi, so many times tonight. I caught you in so many logical loopholes. You didn't address many of those points. I feel like you were at home and I'm attacking me from the get-go. Now, if anybody saw the last 30 minutes, obviously, is a different optic, which I admit, that's fine. I get a little spicy. It's part of why people like having me around. But if I were you, Sanvi, I would actually look more into having deeper discussions about things rather than looking at these debates as some kind of chess game or algebra problem. I understand that debate is like that. I get the back and forth, but it's not a formula that you can just win by making the same argument every single time or, I don't know, making bad faith arguments. Being, I don't know, I just found you to be incredibly immature whenever you couldn't actually win, I guess, a point that I brought up, you felt it to laughing, giggling, and calling me names. So if that's a W, then very good job. All right, everyone. Well, that's the end of our discussion there. So our guests are going to be linked in the description, along with tickets to our live in person event, which is September 16th in Houston, Texas. I'm going to ask for surgeon to tag our modern day debate discord and a theme of our modern day debate discord. You can check that out where we are debating 24-7. You can find me there and all kinds of voice chats that you can jump into and work out your debate skills. So yeah, let's close it out with a little guitar and thank you to our guests for being here and don't mind me. Thank you. All right, thank you. I had fun. Not going to lie. It was fun. It was fun. Cheers, everybody. We'll see you. We got debates lined up for the next three days. So stay tuned and it's going to be a lot of fun. Cheers, everyone. Thank you. Hello, everybody who's still hanging out. We made it. We gave it to the end of our debate. We had a little bit of music. We had a spicy conversation tonight. And good news, we have a whole weekend of debates lined up from what I know. So stay tuned for that. I think you're going to be seeing Amy tomorrow and she's going to be moderating. So you're going to get rid of this mug for a while and the handsome devil himself, James, is going to be here on Saturday and I'll be back Sunday for some more shenanigans. But I do hope for whoever's hanging out there that you give the stream a like. It helps us out. Share it out in your spaces where you enjoy having these discussions. But yeah, and one last quick reminder for anybody who hasn't heard about the live event that our tickets are in the description. And that's going to be September 16th in Houston, Texas. So if you're in the area or you can be in the area, make it down because we're going to have some juicy debates. So yeah, it's time for bed. Indeed, Anathema, it is definitely time for bed. So to everybody, yeah, why are you still awake?