MAGA Fan STRUGGLES To Oppose Abortion

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-17

[00:00:00]So therefore providing a kidney uh to a child that will die if you don't give them a kidney would be ordinary care. So you think that the state should be able to force into providing a kidney to a child?

[00:00:08]>> No. Because keeping them alive is it my child or is it wait no no my child or a child?

[00:00:13]>> Your child >> like if I have taken on the burden of parenthood and said that I'm going to keep them alive by ordinary means.

[00:00:20]You're you're obiscating on that because >> but you said keeping them alive is ordinary means.

[00:00:26]>> I sent an invite to Taylor. Taylor is a conservative content creator and debater. I ran across her. She was running a live stream of her own on Tik Tok debating a handful of prompts such as that feminism has been bad for women and girls and abortion is immoral. I asked her to clarify on her position.

[00:00:44]Taylor thinks that abortion should be abolished in all circumstances outside of those where the life of the mothers on the line and inside of those circumstances where the life of the mothers on the line. They are very very rare. Taylor, welcome in.

[00:00:57]>> What's up, Dean? Thanks for having me.

[00:01:00]>> Yeah, I appreciate you for being here.

[00:01:01]So, yeah, the reason once again why I reached out to you is because I want to try to give some better representation to the right. For the people who tune into these live streams frequently, especially as of recently, then you know that the people that we've been getting up here, I mean, have been, I don't know, maybe able to pass a third grade level math test if if if even. So, I don't know. I want to give some better representation to the right. I reached out to Taylor. Let's go ahead and hop into things. What I specifically wanted to talk to you about was your claims about abortion. So, tell us what do you think about abortion?

[00:01:36]>> Sure. Well, first I'll say thanks for the compliment, I guess. Um, and number two, my my my main point about abortion, I'll say my very simple position is that it is generally wrong to unal alive innocent human beings. Um, abortion always unalivives an innocent human being. Therefore, abortion is always wrong. Okay. Well, I mean the syllogism wasn't followed because P1 said it was generally wrong. Then the conclusion is that it's always wrong. But I mean that aside, >> no, I can tell. Sure. Um and I can I can um clarify the generally wrong because I I can say that primaascia so like on its face it's it's wrong though I can think of very distinct situations in which it may be morally justified to unal alive an innocent human being to save the life of another.

[00:02:17]>> Okay. Yeah. And I want to focus >> where my Yeah. Go ahead. I first want to focus in on the exceptions that you make because I always like to start there.

[00:02:24]The reason why I like to start there is because I think that you could be pro-life while holding an exception for victims of rape. Now, you disagree you don't hold an exception for victims of rape. So, why do you think it's wrong for a victim of rape to access abortion?

[00:02:38]>> Sure. So, I'll start by saying that um rape is an atrocious situation. A pregnancy coming out of rape is an atrocious situation. I would say that if I were to show you several ultrasounds, you could not tell me which one was conceived in rape versus not. Um, if I had a room full of human beings, I would say that you couldn't tell me if any of them were conceived in rape versus not.

[00:02:58]Um, so generally I would say that the way someone is conceived does not point to their worth as a person.

[00:03:04]>> Okay. So yeah, Charlie Kirk ran the same argument. I've never been a fan of it.

[00:03:08]You you tell me that well if you were to show me a room of people with some of them being conceived by rapes and others not or if you were to show me the ultrasound of a fetus that was conceived by rape and the other isn't that I wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two. Therefore, we shouldn't uh allow a woman who was a victim of rape to access abortion. Well, see the thing is is the reason why I think that victims of rape should be able to access abortion has nothing to do with the way the production of a rape pregnancy looks. It more so has to do with the fact that I see no reason why we would obligate a victim of rape to be forced into providing their bodily resources against their will to the life of a fetus. I just can't see any reason why that obligation would exist. And I actually want to start by asking you a hypothetical question. Are you familiar with who uh Max Herby is?

[00:03:55]>> No, not off the top of my head.

[00:03:56]>> So Max Herby is a real kid. He is a 15-year-old kid who is in need of a stem cell transplant. If he doesn't get the stem cell transplant, he is going to die. Now, here's the thing. Max Herby has a very unique type of stem cell.

[00:04:14]This also isn't a joke. In response, his father, Juan, uh, started Cells for Herby or something like that. I forget its name where they are sending people whoever requests one a free stem cell testing kit when they then take those kits uh ship them back to Max's father.

[00:04:30]Max's father sends them to a lab and they've been trying to find Max a match.

[00:04:34]So far they've tested 45 million people.

[00:04:36]They have not been able to find Max a single match. This means that it's possible that there either is not a match for Max alive and if there is there might be just one person. The question that I want to ask you >> is if you okay had sent your stem cells in for testing or maybe they just got a hold of them somehow the means don't matter and then we figured out you were the only match alive for Max's stem cell type. Do you think that the state should be able to legally compel you to give some of your stem cells to Max, even if the exhaustive cost of giving your stem cells to Max would be to be physically connected to Max for 9 months? There would be significant pains and stressors on your body, both physically and mentally. And there's even around a 3 to 5% chance that by the end of these 9 months, you'll die.

[00:05:29]>> No. Um, I'll say no. And for several reasons. Number one, I think that parents have a special obligation to their children. So, I think that's going to explain a lot of the way we view the world as far as parenthood. Why um I have an obligation to my toddler that other people do not. Number two, I think that um we are as parents or as people or as as the medical community, we are obligated to give people ordinary medical care. Um, we are not like that's why I wouldn't say that I am obligated to give let's say I get in a car accident and they need a new kidney. I wouldn't say I'm obligated to give them my kidney even if I caused them the injury that gave them the kidney injury.

[00:06:09]Um, because we're not obligated, we can't obligate anyone to give extraordinary medical care. Um, pregnancy I would say is ordinary care.

[00:06:17]This is just the ordinary way that the human body works. This is how we've all come into existence. Um, so no, I would not say that anyone is obligated, especially if I'm not their um, mother.

[00:06:28]I would say that maybe your hypothetical would even be stronger if you said that I was his son or I he was my son. Um, but yeah, I think that morally people maybe it would be a great thing for me to do, but no, I'm not morally obligated to do that.

[00:06:40]>> Okay. So assuming that the same level of exhaustive cost was onset by giving uh Max your stem cells as the exhaustive cost that is onset by pregnancy, would you have an obligation in that circumstance because they'd be the same level of care?

[00:06:51]>> No. Meaning I'm not saying ordinary care as in like the level of stress it puts on my body because it actually might be it probably is less stress for me to give you my kidney like operationally like less recovery time than like a pregnancy is 9 months. Postpartum can be really rough. I'm talking about what we consider ordinary versus extraordinary.

[00:07:11]>> So do you think the first do you think like the first woman ever pregnant would have an obligation to maintain that pregnancy because at that point it wasn't ordinary care is extraordinary care. There's only been one circumstance >> ordinary maybe let me define the ordinary care in the fact that my womb has one purpose. That's that's what it was made for. My womb was made to bear children. That doesn't mean it's required to bear children but that means that that is what it's for. Now my kidney is for me. My kidney is not for you. It's not for anybody else. It's not even for my child. Um, but it is for me.

[00:07:40]So, I'm speaking mostly about natural law that the way things are and we can observe and they make logical sense. So, my womb is for children. So, having a child reside in my womb, that is ordinary care versus giving someone stem cells that are for me. Um, that would be extraordinary care.

[00:07:56]>> Okay.

[00:07:56]>> So, I think the first woman pregnant was like, what's going on? Probably, but that doesn't make it like immoral.

[00:08:01]>> Okay. So, it goes down to the ordinary level of care. Do you think that >> I would say that's the differing Yeah.

[00:08:06]Smaker.

[00:08:07]>> Sure. First question. Do you think that the purpose of the uterus is prescriptive or descriptive?

[00:08:13]>> I would say the womb uh the purpose of what I'm describing as the purpose of the womb is um descriptive.

[00:08:21]>> Okay. So it's so it's descriptive. Okay.

[00:08:23]So you don't think that this is what like you know like the universe was designed to be used for because you're a theista or whatever. Okay. Yeah. Well, I what I would say in this circumstance is I just don't see this as being morally relevant in the slightest. Yeah. Sure.

[00:08:34]We could observe that a descriptive uh usage of the uterus would be to like house I mean uh a fetus to you know develop it in uterero to term and then to give birth to it. Sure. Because that's uh a way that uteruses have been used in it in in in the past for sure and that's a way that uteruses will be continued to use in the future. I just don't see that as morally relevant because all that I see is morally relevant is well what exhaustive causes onset for the person who is pregnant.

[00:08:57]And I also want to be able to attack the first suggestion that you made here about the uh parental obligation that exists. So, I do agree with you that parental obligations exist, but I don't agree with you that parental obligations exist because of a genetic because of a genetic relationship. And I feel like I could prove this. So, >> I agree.

[00:09:13]>> Okay. So, it's not because of a genetic relationship.

[00:09:15]>> I agree. In like adoptive Yeah. Like an adoptive situation, I would agree that you have special >> Well, if it's not because of a genetic relationship, well, then what kind of parental obligation would a pregnant victim have?

[00:09:23]>> It can be, but it's not. It can be, but it's not only. I would say that that's like a sufficient condition for obligation.

[00:09:29]>> It's not exhaustive. Correct. But it's Yes, it is. is sufficient, but it's not necessary.

[00:09:34]>> Why do you think being biologically related in the sense of this fetus sharing 50% of your genetics, even if it was created through uh through pro through the process of rape, would generate a parental obligation?

[00:09:44]>> Well, what I'm going to say is maybe it wouldn't necessarily generate a parental obligation in the sense that you could you would have to raise it. I would say that um it it prevents you because Dean what we're ultimately going to like have to reconcile is um what is in the womb we have like that's ultimately what this debate is going to come down to. Um because what I'm not saying like this kind of um language of like you're forcing them to be pregnant, you're forcing them to care for them is a little dishonest because what I'm actually just saying is I'm not allowing them to kill what is inside of them.

[00:10:25]>> Yeah, I absolutely do think that pro-life legislation that doesn't make an exception for victims of rape is forcing victims of rape to maintain pregnancy. They didn't choose to be pregnant. Now they can't terminate the pregnancy. Sorry, you keep on cutting out and we can't hear about. I know. I'm sorry. I'm getting a I'm um the prevention of killing is what I'm interested in.

[00:10:45]>> Okay.

[00:10:46]>> And the quotequote prevention of killing in the circumstance seems to be leading to you forcing pregnant rape victims to maintain their pregnancy. I could prove this with use of an analogy >> in the but in the same way that me saying you I can't kill my toddler is forcing me to continue parenting her or continue caring for her even temporarily while I find her home. That's the difference between that. saying >> the difference between these two examples would be in that in some cases when we have good enough reason to infringe upon somebody's bodily autonomy i.e. the state forcing them to not murder their three-year-old child it is not wrong to do so but when we don't have sufficient reason to infringe upon somebody's bodily autonomy i.e telling a victim of rape that they have to give doicile to the fetus uh in their uterus and provide them their bodily resources.

[00:11:31]Well, then that would be an example of the state forcing somebody to be subjugated to conditions that I'd compare to torture and ultimately would amount to human rights violation because there's not sufficient reason for the infringement. Now, back to the analogy that I made about uh Max Herby. You did inevitably tell me that you don't think that you would have an obligation to provide him your stem cells even if it caused Max Herby's death. Now, I would say that this could be compared to a victim of rape being pregnant. The first reason being well that it seems to be the case that under the pro-life worldview especially your view you think that the state should be able to force them to provide their bodily resources to the fetus. Uh because if they were not to then the fetus would die yet when we apply the same logic to Max Herby uh you you yield a varying conclusion that being that the state shouldn't be able to force you to provide your bodily resources to Max Herby because if you if you weren't to then Max Herby would die.

[00:12:17]You attempted to provide two symmetry breakers. The first was well a parental obligation. You think that somehow in some way uh like uh pregnant uh victims of rape, okay, have a parental obligation to care for the you know multisellular organism grown inside of their uterus because there's a genetic relationship. First and foremost, I just think it's impossible for like 9year-olds for instance to have a parental obligation to a child because they're a child themselves. Yet under your view, you would say that well if anyear-old was impregnated, well then they would be they would have a parental obligation. Can non-parents have parental obligations? That seems weird.

[00:12:50]Also, it just seems really arbitrary.

[00:12:51]You just seem to be baslessly positing that a genetic relationship spontaneously creates a parental obligation. I don't see any reason for that to be the case either. But even if we were to accept that view, like if if I was a father and uh my child required a kidney transplant and I was the only match for the kidney that they needed alive, even though I'm their parent, I don't think that the state should be able to force me to give my child my kidney. Would it be a good thing to do?

[00:13:16]Yeah, sure it would. Is it something that I would inevitably do? Yeah, sure.

[00:13:20]I probably would, but should should the state be able to force me to? Uh, absolutely not. And then you just said that you agree. Okay. Well, you just threw the parental obligation out the window.

[00:13:29]>> No, no, no. I agree that parents are required to provide their children with ordinary care, much like I am prov I am required to give my toddler food and shelter and water, but I am not obligated to take her to Disney World or something like that. like I am obligated to provide her with the ordinary care and I am certainly not allowed to unalive her um because taking care of her may have some sort of exertion on my body. So I would say that in your stem cell example, denying care is different from directly killing, right? So denying someone a kidney or a blood transfusion or something like that, that is different than directly killing. Like if I had someone that needed a kidney transplant, I could say big difference between saying I'm not going to give you my kidney and coming over and like slitting their throat because I don't even want to consider the option. Um people victims of rape and I know this is an emotional argument and I know this is why you guys use it. Um the fact of the matter is that even victims of rape are parents. They have they are parents.

[00:14:23]They have this genetic um connection.

[00:14:25]And I would say if you talk to victims of rape that ended up keeping their children, they would describe themselves as parents. They would describe their children as their children, as people that they cared about and loved as their children. Um not saying it's not a tragic situation, and I agree with you that well, you didn't say this, but I would say that there needs to be a lot of resources for women that have this happen to them. Um, there should be a lot of pregnancy centers that help women that are in this situation unexpectedly.

[00:14:51]Um, but again, I don't think you're showing me why they are then allowed to infringe on the fetus's rights to life.

[00:15:00]So again, that's what it's going to have to come down to because you're going to have to contend with my first claim, which is that it is wrong to kill human beings.

[00:15:07]>> Okay.

[00:15:08]>> Generally, like very 99% of the time.

[00:15:11]>> Sure. So the first thing you said there is well even though it seems like emotionally incorrect or whatever you know victims of rape are still parents okay and if we talk to victims of rape that had their child they describe themselves as them loving their child okay so the first response I'd have here is well when we're talking about like for instance like a that was raped a pregnant girl rightation >> yeah I don't think that ayold girl okay like for instance could conceptualize of what pregnancy is or could truly conceptualize with with informed consent of what parenthood is so like I I like and for that reason Are they? But Dean, are they biologically apparent or just are they?

[00:15:45]>> If you define a biological parent as as as the >> genetically is if you define a genetic and or biological parent, okay, as the producer of an offspring and then we define a producer of an offspring, okay, as one of the two parties involved in the creation of said embryo, then yes.

[00:16:07]However, I think that parenthood is much more than a biological relationship.

[00:16:10]Like for instance, like in society, a sperm donor uh who donates their sperm to a sperm bank and then that sperm is using the creation of a embryo that is then bought 30 years later by a couple, right? We're not going to look back at that original sperm donor as a parent because for the most part when we use the term parent in society, we're not just merely describing a biological relationship, but more so uh a parental obligation uh that would be onset uh and then present a duty of care for the child. And because that sperm donor wouldn't possess a duty of care for the child, that's not somebody that we would call a parent unless we were to be hyper specific, okay, about like the genetic relationship and biological uh uh uh uh parental hood. Now, the next thing that I want to say here would go back to the example that I made about the kidney.

[00:16:52]Okay. Well, you said well that a parent wouldn't even have an obligation to donate a kidney to a child's if the child needed it and the parent was the only possible donor because of the duty of care. It's extraordinary. Yeah. I would say that the uh duty of care for a pregnancy on a victim of rape uh especially a that is raped would be extraordinary.

[00:17:13]>> Um okay. So so again um and I agree with your your statement about that parenthood is more than genetics. Like I agree with you that like adoptive parents are still parents even if they're not the biological parents. Um, again, I agree with you, um, that again, like I'm just gonna I don't mean to just keep coming back to this, but at what point is it okay to infringe like like Dean, can I ask you, do you put any limits on abortion ever? Would you say that you are fine with abortion up until 9 months?

[00:17:42]>> Yeah. So, of course, moral limits on abortion. Uh, legality is a little bit differently. Uh, I treat a little bit differently because that's more dependent on the pragmatic outcomes. But before we talk about my view on abortion, we need to finish flushing out your view on a rape victim's access to abortion because you still standing 10 toes one moment. You're still you're still standing 10 toes down on the position, right, that a victim of rape shouldn't be able to access abortion because of like the parental obligation and the duty of care being ordinary. So I dispute both of those two things.

[00:18:09]Okay, we've already went over how a quote unquote genetic uh relationship to an offspring doesn't generate an obligation and a duty of care to provide for extraordinary needs. I do think okay that a pregnancy would be an extraordinary need uh for a victim of rape. I absolutely do.

[00:18:25]>> So lack of parenthood. So when I enter into this idea that genetics are not the only thing that makes a parent. If I say okay an adoptive parent you know you can you're you're still a parent even though genetics that doesn't mean that the biological parent can unalive the child.

[00:18:39]That doesn't mean that I have my toddler who I want to give up for adoption or I have a newborn baby and I'm going to give them up for adoption. That doesn't mean that just because I don't really want to take on I can't conceptualize this idea of parenthood that doesn't mean I can kill them. But that does mean that I can give them up for adoption or I can get rid of that parenthood obligation. I'm still their biological parent. So again, this obligation I'm talking about is the I'm more you you keep playing back to the victim of rape, which I understand, but what I'm also focusing on is the victim of the abortion in the womb and saying that that child has a right to where they are safe, where they are naturally ordered to be and where they are at no fault of their own. So I'm speaking about that victim, >> okay, >> as well. And and I agree there should be care for the victim of rape. I have no am trying to minimize that suffering. I completely agree. That's an atrocious thing that happens.

[00:19:31]>> Yeah. So, this is what I'd call rhetorical slide of hand because now you're trying to shift the goalpost away from what we already agreed on. If uh a parent would have to provide a kidney to their child in order for the child to live, we agreed that they shouldn't be forced to provide that kidney even if the child dies because that would be an extraordinary level of care. Well, this is what we'd be saying about abortion.

[00:19:47]Like for instance, the abortion pill just simply cuts off the supply of progesterone from the umbilical cord to the life of the fetus. simply cutting it off from access to the mother's from the mother's bodily resources and which then leads to them starving to death from uh an onset of natural causes very similar to what we'd expect from somebody with a failing kidney if they weren't given a kidney transplant from their parent. So in the same way I don't think that a parent would have a duty and or an obligation to provide a kidney transplant to a child given that their child needs one. Okay. Yeah. I don't think that a victim of rape, okay, would have a duty and or an obligation to provide the uh a fetus growing inside of their uterus access to their bodily resources and doicile inside of the uterus, even if kicking them out of their uterus or cutting off the supply of progesterone through the umbilical cord would inevitably lead to that child starving to death.

[00:20:34]So if my child needed a kidney ch transplant and I was the only one that could give it to them and I is there a difference between me denying them that kidney and saying you know what like I really need my kidneys maybe like I'm sick I need them as well or maybe I just don't want to give them to her because I want my kidneys I don't want to live that life. Is there a difference between me denying her kidney my kidney and um just shooting her and saying you know what actually like I don't want to deal with this like I don't even want to have this moral you know obligation like I just don't want right is do you think there's a difference between directly killing >> I do think that there's a difference between those two things however I don't think that there's a difference between denying a child a kidney okay and denying a fetus access to your bodily resources >> so the way pregnancy works pregnancy is very unique the only way that they can survive pre-birth is in their natural environment.

[00:21:22]>> The only way that this child could survive is if they're given a kidney transplant, >> which is ordinary care.

[00:21:27]>> And you said it was ordinary because it what? It happens a lot.

[00:21:30]>> Ordinary because this is what the womb was built for. The womb was built for nurturing a child. Every child has to enter into the world this way through the womb. They have to be nurtured through the womb.

[00:21:40]This is how And I would say that you would probably even agree that um like if artificial wombs existed that maybe abortion wouldn't even be needed anymore, right? because it would be better to move the child to let's say um an artificial womb or like a womb transplant or something that would be better because I think you would recognize that that is better um than directly killing them that we should do everything we can to sustain life because human life is valuable and that's how we act within the world as well.

[00:22:06]>> Yeah. So, I mean, I think that your argument here about like the ordinary level of care is just really loaded in this lead because I don't think that we're going to dictate what is ordinary or extraordinary care in so far as making a description of what we think the parts of our bodies can be used for, but rather based upon the exhaustive cost in which are onset. Like for instance, if like uh some extraordinary level of care, okay, meaning that you're not using a part of your body quote unquote for what it was built for onset like no cost whatsoever to the person who is providing it. And we could argue that the benefit of providing that extraordinary level of care was immense.

[00:22:39]Then I think for instance that they would have like some duty and or obligation to provide that care. Like for instance, I could give you an example of this. Like you're a parent, you have a child and your child uh falls from their crib onto the ground. Now, if you just leave that child on the ground for the next 24 hours, then they're going to die because, you know, a flood's coming. But the flood will only like you know reach up like a you know like a foot off the floorboard, right?

[00:23:05]And in accordance with your definition of ordinary versus extraordinary care, you would be providing extraordinary care to that child by picking them up off of the floor and putting them back into the crib because your hands were not built for the sole purpose of picking children up off the ground.

[00:23:19]However, would we argue in the circumstance that they would have an obligation to pick the child up off of the ground and put in the crib? Yes.

[00:23:25]Even though they're providing an extraordinary level of care in accordance with your definition. Why?

[00:23:30]Because we don't really care about what things are built for or how things could be used. We care about the exhaustive costs that would be incurred if we use it in that way. So once we highlight that point, it becomes very clear why victims of rape should be able to access abortion because the exhaustive cost of carrying that pregnancy to term is too significantly high uh and would override any quote unquote parental obligation that you think would exist. And you've actually already acknowledged this yourself because earlier you said, "Yeah, I do think that if my child required a kidney transplant and I'm the only match, I legally shouldn't be bound to give them my kidney." And then you went on to say that like a pregnancy is actually more of an exhaustive cost than the sustenance and providance of a kidney.

[00:24:09]>> I agree, but I'm not operating under some sort of harm principle of weighing and measuring harms, which it sounds like you are. You're saying that the harm from pregnancy outweighs um the harm of killing a newborn human or an unborn human being. So, um, you're going to have a hard time, I think, proving the harm principle in general because you're going to have to give me the measurement of when is the harm too much. But just to kind of dive into that hypothetical of your the flood, number one, providing ordinary care for my daughter is keeping her alive when she's before she's a certain age. So, yeah, if there's a flood coming, I think ordinary care would be to like get her I would say shelter is like ordinary care, safety. So, that would just fall under that. Also, hands are absolutely built for picking things up. Yes. Go ahead.

[00:24:49]>> Okay. So the first thing you said there is that ordinary care to a child would be to keep them alive. So therefore providing a kidney to a child that will die if you don't give them a kidney would be ordinary care. So you think that the state should be able to force into providing a kidney to a child?

[00:25:01]>> No. Because keeping them alive is it my child or is it wait no no my child or a child?

[00:25:06]>> Your child.

[00:25:08]>> My child I would say again this is going to come back to indirectly killing versus directly killing. Like if I have taken on the burden of parenthood and said that I'm going to keep them alive by ordinary means you're you're obiscating on that because >> but you say keeping them alive is ordinary means >> keeping them alive in the as because keeping them alive means different things at different No keeping them alive at different has different meanings at different phases like when they're 17 versus when they're 17 months those are different like I can keep a 17-year-old let's say alone um at home for a week because he can cook for himself or whatever but a 17-month-old would surely die. So what I mean when I say keeping alive means different things as at different stages.

[00:25:47]>> No, it doesn't mean No, it doesn't mean a different thing to keep them alive.

[00:25:50]What's different is how what you would have to do in order to keep them alive.

[00:25:53]Okay? Because that goal of keeping them alive is not different in the two circumstances. It's what you'd have to do in order to keep them alive. And still yet, you did say right that ordinary care would be keeping them alive. Therefore, ordinary care would be equivalent to whatever you have to do to keep them alive >> by providing them basic necessities.

[00:26:07]Now, Dean, I could actually probably argue that there probably is a good moral argument for saying that I probably should give my daughter my kidney. Um, but but again, yeah, I don't think legally that makes that makes much sense.

[00:26:17]>> Okay. So, then you don't think that parents should moral.

[00:26:20]>> Perfect.

[00:26:20]>> Yeah. Well, this is terrible because now you just conceded that under your own view, you don't think that parents should be legally bound to provide ordinary care to their children because you said once again earlier that keeping a child alive would be ordinary care.

[00:26:32]Therefore, it'd be ordinary care for a parent to provide a kidney to a child.

[00:26:35]ordinary care in the sense of shelter and safety and whatever that means at that age which means different things.

[00:26:42]So giving up a body part that was made.

[00:26:44]>> So not in the sense of always keeping them alive, right?

[00:26:48]>> Um well, we can't do everything, you know, to keep them alive. I mean, I wouldn't be morally like in the wrong if like a tree fell in the house and I couldn't save her. So, you know, like we can't.

[00:26:57]>> So then how do we determine the difference between ordinary and extraordinary care and keeping a child alive?

[00:27:01]>> I it comes back to the basic necessities. like you would agree that I you have if you had a child you would have the legal obligation even if you want just talk about legally to like feed them and clothe them and give them shelter right and so in your flood example like I think that would just fall under shelter or at least neglect like we have laws about neglect you can't neglect a child if floods happen I can't save her in a flood I'm not held morally liable but again like >> and I'm and I'm agreeing with you by the way like I also think that a parent would have an obligation to pick a newborn up off the ground if it were to be the case that like the house is flooding for sure. But all that I'm simply saying is that under your description of ordinary versus extraordinary care, that would be classified as extraordinary care for the reason being that you said the I could I could describe to you why that would be classified as extraordinary care because under your definition of what ordinary care is. You just said that ordinary care is doing uh what your body is designed to do, right? And and I think that you would have a hard time positing what I said.

[00:27:57]>> Okay. So then once again, how do you define ordinary versus actual?

[00:28:00]>> Not what your body is designed to do. I would say that when we are describing extraordinary care, I'm only entering into your example of like stem cells and kidney transplants because I would say that that is extraordinary because they are made for me and to give them up would be you know that's an act of charity that could be seen as morally good but again kitties are made for me.

[00:28:19]Wombs are made to bear children and every child has to enter a womb to enter into the world. That is what I mean by natural law. That is what I mean by ordinary. So when we talk about like what are the uses of hands like that's going to get more complicated because hands can be used for many things that I could say would be ordinary. So picking up my child is certainly ordinary. Um but again like in the eyes of the law I can smack you in the face and that could be you know assault like we the uses of things are going to change.

[00:28:45]>> I have a really good question.

[00:28:46]>> So I can't go ahead.

[00:28:47]>> Yeah. Do you think that a pregnancy for a child would be extraordinary care given that the woman would die from the pregnancy as a result but the child would live? Because earlier you were saying that ordinary versus extra do you think that a pregnancy would be extraordinary care given that if the pregnancy were to go through the woman would die and the child would live because under your view I I one moment let me finish just let me finish talking real quick. I I I I don't I think that you'd have an incredibly difficult time positing that that pregnancy would be extraordinary care because the only relevant difference would be what? A significant level of harm to the woman.

[00:29:18]But earlier you rejected that harm would be would be relevant to determining what extraordinary care even is. So therefore that additional harm onset on to the pregnant woman because they'd [ __ ] die, okay, would not be relevant in determining that that pregnancy would be extraordinary care.

[00:29:31]>> No, no, no. It's still ordinary care.

[00:29:34]But I would say that it speaks to my first premise of that it is generally wrong to kill innocent human beings. So my example for like abortion in cases of life of the mother would be the same as this. If there was a plane flying into a skyscraper and we knew the plane was going to hit the skyscraper no matter what and there's a skyscraper full of people, we could ethically shoot down this plane to prevent the deaths of everyone in that skyscraper because we know that the people in the plane are going to die anyway. So that's the same as my position of life of the mother. So if there's an ectopic pregnancy, let's say, where we know that the fetus is not going to survive and if we let the fetus grow, then the mother's going to die. We are now preventing one life instead of um having two people, one life from dying. Um same flipped. So if we know that the mother is going to die, which again is very very rare and post 24 weeks, post viability, you can just deliver the baby. You do not need an abortion. So you can deliver them alive.

[00:30:31]Um, so it would be the similar kind of moral concept of um one life versus two.

[00:30:37]So if you could prove to me that the the child's going to die in childbirth, then I could probably make an exception. And I stated that.

[00:30:45]>> Yeah. Yeah. Perfect. So it seems like your logic here entails that we can make exceptions to the rule, right? That's what you're arguing because even in the circumstance of a pregnant woman that is going to die, okay, if uh you know they inevitably go through the pregnancy and give birth, still yet you did affirm under your view that that pregnancy would still be an ordinary level of care. And you affirmed under your view that they'd have some parental obligation because of some genetic relationship. But yet you still choose to turn around and special plea and make an exception for this because you think that there are overriding harms that are incurred if it were to be the case that we were to force that woman to maintain pregnancy. And that's and that's what I'd argue exactly for like a victim of rape. Even if I were to accept your argument of saying, "Oh, well, guess what? You know, this parental obligation exists. You know, it's still an ordinary level of care." There seems to be some overriding level of harm, which would be the costs onset via the continuation of the pregnancy amounting to torture or child torture. In the same way that you think, right, like the death of an innocent person, i.e. the pregnant woman, would be an overriding harm that would negate your position. I would say that torture would be an overriding harm and which would negate your position.

[00:31:49]Well, you're using torture as kind of an emotional word, which I don't think you can prove the kind of torture that you're you're speaking about. But I also think that again, you're going to just come back to harm principle where you're going to have to give me like a measure of that is acceptable to then kill people because I can use the same logic to born children. I can say, well, maybe I have really bad postpartum depression and the hearing my daughter cry is like torture to me. That is a real and very real thing that women deal with. I can say that I would be suffering for maybe even a year that I can't stand the way she sounds. Um, but I don't want anyone else taking care of her. Like maybe I have some mental issues. Like why can't like what level of harm are you going to you know cap it at to say that then we can kill innocent human beings? Because my level of harm is very clear a a human life ending that if I can prevent two humans from dying instead of just one just like my plain example into the tower that is a very clear level of harm. I would say that your level of harm is very subjective and and not clear. I have a question. It's like a dangerous road. Okay, I have about five more minutes, Dean, but go ahead.

[00:32:50]>> And by the way, that's fine. You did tell me that earlier that you had to run like 10 minutes ago. Okay, so here's my question. So, if you were the mother of a child and this child somehow got a hold of like two like zygot in [ __ ] petri dishes and you knew that if you didn't literally shoot your child in the head and then your childh your child was going to throw the two zygot in the petri dishes at at the floor then the zygot were going to die, right? Do you think that you'd be justified in saving the two lives over the one? And you would be like morally permiss permissed to like shoot your own child on the head?

[00:33:19]>> Oh, that's that's a hard one. I I I will answer this though. I don't think it speaks to abortion in general because that's not the situation that abortion is in. Like pregnancy is not that.

[00:33:28]Though I will I will answer this. So I would say that no matter what I choose in that situation, it does not um confirm like it doesn't show us that um pre-born humans are not humans. I would say that it's very clear that like I would have an emotional attachment to my born child, my toddler. Um just like the way like like if I said to you, hey, like we have the trolley problem. Let's say we have >> We're not talking about what you would do. We're talking about what you'd be morally permissed to do. And I bet that you accept that emotional connections don't have like normative inferences on what is morally permissed.

[00:34:02]>> I agree. But that's not I don't think that's the point. The problem is that >> No, the point is that's a question I asked you. Do you think that you'd be morally permissed at shooting your child in the head?

[00:34:10]>> Of course not. No, of course not. I would not be morally permissed to do that. Of of course not.

[00:34:14]>> Even though you'd be saving two lives over one.

[00:34:16]>> No, because that's again direct killing.

[00:34:18]It is generally wrong to just like the trolley problem. I don't think I would pull a lever to kill anyone. I would just let nature take its course again.

[00:34:24]>> Wait, so you don't think that mothers who have ectopic pregnancies that have to directly kill the zygote or fetus would be justified in doing so?

[00:34:30]>> I already I already accounted for that because if it's going to kill her and them, then it's but but again that's >> okay. Well, your child that you got to directly kill by shooting them in the head is going to kill both of the two zygot.

[00:34:41]>> Um, again, but that's that's not that's that's her who has less culpability because of her her she's a child. I would say that like if um you >> wait what did the production of the ectopic pregnancy have less culpability because they're a child?

[00:34:55]>> Because children um Yes, but we know for a fact that that child is going to die.

[00:35:00]We know for a fact that that child cannot is never going to survive.

[00:35:03]>> Okay. Well, then let's just use another example of a viable pregnancy that's still threatening the life of the mother.

[00:35:08]>> I've already said an exception. I would grant that, >> right? But the reason why you make an exception there is because like somebody else would die. Okay. Well, so would that would also be the case with like the like the little like the four-year-old running around with the two zygot in their hands that they're about to throw at the floor. And then you said, well, the reason why you want to be morally permissive like shooting your own child before they kill the zygot is because that child wouldn't be culpable for killing the zygot because they're under the age of like accountability. They're a kid. Okay.

[00:35:29]Well, so would the the production of the viable pregnancy in uterero >> like right but I would say like I have an obligation to get her and try to stop her from doing that but I don't think that I have an obligation to shoot her just like >> no one said obligation you said permissible >> permissible right okay yes it's not permissible much like if she had like let's say I had like lung issues and she had co or something I wouldn't be obligated to like kill her just because I think like her getting her me sick would like get like would hurt me like to the point where I could die Like I don't think that that is justified. No.

[00:36:01]>> Okay. Well, then perfect. Honestly, I think that this disputes your own view and this uh means that even from your own perspective, you agree with me in saying that the life of a fetus is just intrinsically significantly less valuable than the life of somebody like you or I because you actually just gave a perfect analogy, right? Like you know because you have a crystal ball that your child is going to get COVID and then you know because you have a crystal ball that they're then going to give CO to you then you're going to die as a result. What are the relevant differences between that and a woman with a viable pregnancy knowing that pregnancy is going to kill her as a result? In one scenario, we say for the pregnant woman, sure, clearly she'd be able to access abortion, but in the other scenario for the mom with a crystal ball knowing that their child's going to get co, give it to them, then they're going to die. Okay. Well, no, we would clearly say it's would still yet wrong for you to kill your child. So, there seems to be a difference here. And I think the only difference that could possibly exist would be the value that we find to be true in the life of a fetus and the value that we find to be true in the life of a newborn.

[00:36:50]I would say that in the sense of um and I did say that with with life of the mother for abortion we are required to give proportionate medical care. So if that fetus is past 20 weeks or whatever the point of viability is now I think it's like 20 weeks we are obligated to try to keep that fetus alive. I would say that abortion should not be the um first step and if let's say we knew the pregnancy was threatening the mother I would say that you have an obligation to birth live that child and try to save them. Now if it's before the 20we mark the only reason I would say that abortion is permissible is because we do not have the medical care proportionate to sustain the life before 20 weeks and if we did we would be morally obligated to try. So like in an e ectopic pregnancy if the um if the technology arose that said that we could take them out from the fallopian tube and and grow them somewhere else. Yes, we would be obligated to do that. But we do not have the technology. So it's like the plane in the tower example. We we should try to prevent two deaths over one. But ultimately, we are always morally obligated to preserve life.

[00:37:47]>> I could respond to that. I did just look at the clock. You said you had have to go 5 minutes from >> I do have to go cuz I I will just keep going, but I will hop on another time.

[00:37:54]I'm not running. I'm I would be happy to continue this another time.

[00:37:57]>> Yeah, I I agree that you're not running because you told me this before you even accepted my invitation to come up like hours ago.

[00:38:03]>> All right. And thank you so much for having me.

[00:38:04]>> Yeah, you should come back sometime because I'd love to finish that argument.

[00:38:07]>> Yep. Would love to. All right. Have a good one, guys.

[00:38:10]>> As well.