Pro-choice liberal repeatedly stumps pro-lifers in heated debate

Ajouté : 2026-05-27

[00:00:00]We'll see here. Go ahead, Scott. Lay out your argument.

[00:00:02]>> Sure. Okay. So, um I don't think that fetuses have moral worth or should have a moral consideration that uh overtakes the bodily autonomy of a woman until 24 weeks when that fetus develops consciousness and sentience because to me consciousness and sentience is what I perceive to be uh what we as a society value in uh human life.

[00:00:25]>> Okay. So you find um human consciousness and intellect to be gradable. You find it to be there's certain levels that we find to be um you know achievable of life and we find certain values well in certain forms of consciousness to be you know um you know an F or an A on the grade. So if a person say an individual who um is born with hydrophille and they they really don't have these forms of consciousness like Trevor Walrip Trevor Walrip he was born he lived he breathed his heart beat he had brain activity well not not even a brain my bad he didn't have a brain but he had activity in his skull because of the cerebral um spinal fluid would he and a whole bunch of other individuals born with this condition would they be on your on your F scale because they don't have these these forms of consciousness.

[00:01:12]He actually was labeled by um there's there's individuals that um said that well he he is categorized like currently as a non-scentient being and he lived a life >> and he he reacted to stimuli. Do you agree with that?

[00:01:27]>> Uh yeah. So I if if the person does not have consciousness or sentience, which it sounds like this person that you're describing doesn't if they don't have a brain, yeah, I would not give uh that life moral consideration. Um, do you know that Trevor Walchuk would respond to stimuli? So, he responded to sound, he responded to light, he responded to um certain noises um when his parents were in the room, when his family members would leave, then he would respond to that. He would start acting irrational and start moving his body in crazy ways. He didn't like being alone.

[00:01:56]But individuals like you are the reasoning to why he is classified as a non-scentient being.

[00:02:01]>> Well, hold on again because this is a case that you just brought.

[00:02:03]>> I know. I know. But my question is, Trevor Walrip being how he is, being classified as non-scentient in your worldview and your scientific and the science that you go for. Um, does he deserve to be, you know, maybe ripped apart outside of the womb?

[00:02:16]>> Okay, hold on a second. If you're saying if you're telling me that he's reacting to stimuli and all this stuff, obviously he has some part of a brain. So, what you said previously that he has no brain is false.

[00:02:25]>> He doesn't. He He only had um a brain stem and cerebral um >> a brain stem is part of the brain.

[00:02:30]>> But do you know where consciousness is found in the brain?

[00:02:32]It's the cerebral cortex communicating with the phalamus.

[00:02:35]>> So, so if you don't have a phalamus, how how would you have any form of consciousness?

[00:02:39]>> Yeah.

[00:02:41]>> So, so you're saying he had a brain stem, right?

[00:02:44]>> Yes.

[00:02:44]>> Okay. So, a brain stem, do you know what it controls?

[00:02:48]>> It would it would control the cerebral cortex.

[00:02:51]>> No, no, no. Like like the the behaviors that it controls in human beings. The the brain stem controls very like primitive automative responses, right?

[00:02:59]So it can respond to touch like automatically like moving an arm. It's what allows you to breathe automatically. It's what uh it controls a lot of these like primitive like non-concious experiences. So obviously on the outside somebody who comes across this individual might perceive somebody that's moving or somebody that is like moving his facial muscles or somebody that is doing all these stuff. But these would be primitive automatic reflexive actions not not conscious sentient experience. So no, I would not give moral consideration to this uh human life.

[00:03:33]>> So 100%. So then the question would be should Trevor Walrip does Trevor Walrip deserve to be shrugged and unal alived outside of the womb or should he does he have the right to therefore since we would do third trimester abortions which would be tearing apart the fetus limb from limb. Would you agree that a third trimester abortion would be um allowed on Trevor Walsh because he's not a non-scentient um human being?

[00:03:54]>> Uh yeah. Again, if there's no conscious experience there, >> that's outside outside of the womb.

[00:03:58]Outside of the womb.

[00:03:59]>> Yeah. Again, this would be like the equivalent of pulling the plug on somebody who's brain dead, right? Which is what we do in society all the time.

[00:04:05]>> So, in society, why don't we pull these individuals? That's my question. Why don't we pull these individuals apart?

[00:04:09]>> Well, I I feel like because it was up to the parents, right? Like it was the parents decision to keep this person alive and to bring them home and to care for them as if it was a conscious sentient person.

[00:04:17]>> And I don't even know. He just said that he would tear Trevor Walsh apart.

[00:04:20]>> Well, hold on. Are are you just going to like grandstand like morally?

[00:04:26]>> Sure. Are you going to explain why that's an issue?

[00:04:29]>> Well, yeah, 100%. Because I think that um in this like where where we live, I mean morally and um legally, I think individuals are granted the pursuits of life, liberty, and happiness. And before any of those indivi and before any other right and before any other, you know, human rights are constituted and given to us, the first one that's given to us is the the pursuit to life. And for you and other um you know pro-choicers to strip that away from an individual >> that's that's a problem and that's that I find that to be illegal. I find that you're going like beyond certain borders to justify it.

[00:05:02]>> So when you say walk >> okay when you say an individual right because you're saying the pursuit of life would be strict from this individual. How would you define an individual right or or a person? How would you define that? I I will define it as a separate DNA from the mother.

[00:05:19]>> Right.

[00:05:19]>> A separate se a separate being growing a viable fetus growing into a human being.

[00:05:24]>> Okay. And you don't think there are any other elements that make up who a person is. You think it's just DNA?

[00:05:30]>> You think it's just like an individual?

[00:05:32]I mean% that's the basis of what a human being is.

[00:05:36]>> Okay. So a dead person has human DNA, right? Do you think they should also be granted the the three rights that you brought up?

[00:05:42]>> Do they have the ability? Do they have the ability and the capability to um have a viable life and to continue to grow and achieve things?

[00:05:50]>> Well, well, no, but the same thing applies to the case that that you're saying.

[00:05:55]>> Well, yeah. No, the fetus. The fetus.

[00:05:56]>> Well, just to be clear, Scott, in your case of uh already deceased individuals, they even get more respect even after they're unal alive uh than than the un than the fetus in the womb, right?

[00:06:08]because it's actually illegal to even go and like trespass or vandalize somebody's uh cemetery.

[00:06:15]>> Yes. Yes. And there's a reason for that.

[00:06:17]It's because >> get more respect.

[00:06:18]>> Yeah. It's an actual living human being in the womb.

[00:06:21]>> Yeah. Because it was an established individual, right? That person had an identity. That person had experiences and thoughts and feelings and connections to the real world, to the living.

[00:06:29]>> But they're dead now.

[00:06:30]>> Huh?

[00:06:31]>> They're dead now. So why does it matter?

[00:06:32]>> I know >> they're dead now. I know that it's it's just a matter of respect for the people that are still living and connected to that would not be able to go to Trevor Walshuk's grave and um take his body out and you know grieve it that that's not legal. You see, you see how obvious you see how the moral and legal frameworks don't really apply in all realms of society because if Trevor Walrip's body were to be exumed and in your world view, he's a non-scentient being. But if his body were to be exumed by a stranger um world's view, cuz you're saying we're going by our world, but you're going by society's world view of consciousness.

[00:07:05]So if society's worldview, if he were to get ripped out of the grave and sexually assaulted, then that then he would all of a sudden be a conscious being. Do you understand?

[00:07:14]>> What? Dude, first of all, when when did I say that it was okay to sexually assault any of these things? When did I say that?

[00:07:21]>> The point that I'm making is that you said that it's okay to rip Trevor Walsh apart limb from limb outside of the womb. Right.

[00:07:26]>> Uh again, why would you rip it apart if it's outside of the womb?

[00:07:30]>> You >> I feel like that doesn't really make sense to me.

[00:07:32]>> You just conceded. I said because Trevor Walsh had no sentient.

[00:07:34]>> No, I'm I'm fine. I'm f I'm fine with like uh uh like euthanizing an individual or pull pulling the plug on an individual that does not have consciousness. But why are you saying rip apart limb from limb outside of the womb?

[00:07:45]>> By your world view.

[00:07:46]>> No, you're just trying to depict this like gruesome imagery that wouldn't apply at all. Why would you do that to someone outside of the womb?

[00:07:51]>> Just to be clear, Scott, that's exactly how an abortion is performed.

[00:07:55]>> So that's how late term abortions are performed. My my question is why in the world would that apply to somebody outside of the womb?

[00:08:00]>> Because because Trevor Walrip would be at a stage where you can't perform um a first abortion.

[00:08:04]>> Trevor Walrip falls under all the categories that you don't consider an >> I know that. I have no problem with that. So why not get so bothered? Why are you getting so bothered by what happens to fetus to fetuses inside of the womb? Why are you so bothered that this is happening to an individual? This is the problem that we have. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you're what I'm saying is that Trevor Walrip, >> he fits all of the definitions of a non-scentient being. Okay? He does not he's not granted human personhood. Okay?

[00:08:32]In your in your world view. So if you were to do that, okay, if a woman has a fetus inside of her at 24 weeks, um, and it it doesn't have this form of cautions, the shuntines, okay, the brain's not there, does the woman have the right to rip that fetus apart inside of the womb and perform a third trimester abortion?

[00:08:47]>> Yes. Yes. And it would it would be like medically uh advised to do so.

[00:08:54]>> Um, would 100% but it wouldn't always be 100 medically% necessary because the fetus could grow to full term. she could deliver it and she doesn't have to to unal alive it and rip it apart. So that's not always the case. So what I'm saying is Trevor Walrip when it comes to this he he's he's grown. He actually showed signs of responding to stimuli in the womb which is why he was actually be able was able to be birthed. He he was birthed and then he he grew up to about uh 12 years old maybe I think 14. I don't know that that might be too old.

[00:09:22]Maybe 12. And >> he still was not responding to stimul.

[00:09:26]same exact, you know, the reasoning as to why we're allowed to abort the fetus in the mother at, you know, third trimester. So, are we to allowed to rip him apart and not even rip him apart once he's buried? Are we allowed to exume his body and are we allowed to do whatever we want to it? You know, >> you you keep saying that when when have I ever said that we are allowed to do things to bodies that have no moral we're allowed to do we're not allowed to do things to bodies because you said that um we have moral frameworks in society and that person has had a lived experience. that person has had a consciousness. They've lived a life and that's why we can't do that to them.

[00:09:59]Trevor Walter in your world view has not lived a life. He has not had any of that. So, are we allowed to do that to him?

[00:10:05]>> Yeah. So, here's the thing. I'm not talking about uh the the morality of what is happening to that individual because that in that that that life, right? Because that >> I'm talking because now we're talking about the morality of the actions of a conscious being, >> right?

[00:10:20]>> Wait a minute. You just completely Scott. You just totally dodged the hypothetical question.

[00:10:26]>> I didn't dodge. I'm answering it to you.

[00:10:28]>> No, you're not.

[00:10:29]>> Yes, I am. I'm saying >> by your world view, we cannot vandalize or do anything to graves of human beings that have passed because by your statements, they have experienced A, B, C, and D. They have had sentience, whether it was in the past or whatever, right?

[00:10:47]>> Trevor didn't get any of that. So, are we allowed to go and vandalize and do whatever to Trevor's >> gra? I understood that question and that's that's what I'm >> answer yes or no.

[00:10:57]>> Yeah, I I Okay, stop trying to get me to say yes or no. I am answering the question and I'm giving my elaboration as to why.

[00:11:05]It's a yes or no question.

[00:11:06]>> You gave us a yes or no question.

[00:11:08]>> I already said no and I already gave my response as to why because now you are talking about the actions of a conscious sentient human being. Right? Because you're talking about can this conscious being do this to this non-concious being. That's what you're asking me. So now we're talking about the morality of the action, not the moral consideration of uh uh the dead person, right?

[00:11:29]>> Oh, so now we're talking about the morality of the action. The morality of the just brought up to me performing the abortion, >> I would argue is wrong.

[00:11:39]>> Yeah. the act of performing the abortion because if you're going by legality and moral frameworks that we live in currently um medical professionals are actually not allowed to perform unalive care on individuals actually they're they're they perform they they have individuals medical professionals are actually um picked specifically I don't even think medical professionals are allowed to unalive criminals they have certain people do it okay but then we have normal everyday people going inside of clinics tearing people people's children apart or giving them a pill that shrinks their baby down to the size of a raisin and then shoots it out of their vagina at home in the tub or or on the toilet. And this is this is acceptable. This is acceptable in your moral framework. But digging up um basically a tumor in your eyes, digging up a tumor and doing whatever you want to that tumor is is wrong because because the person is doing something wrong, but this person this doctor can do whatever they want.

[00:12:29]>> That's that's >> Yeah. Because because they're totally different things. They're it's a complete false equivalency.

[00:12:34]>> No, they're not.

[00:12:35]>> Okay, let's explain. Elijah, go ahead.

[00:12:37]Explain Scott. Huh?

[00:12:39]>> Explain. How are they different?

[00:12:41]>> Okay, sure. So, again, the whole if we really break it down, you're saying if if we if a woman can take a pill that will discard a clump of cells, why can't I grape a fetus? It's it's a brain dead argument.

[00:12:52]>> That's not what I said.

[00:12:53]>> Yeah, that's that's functionally what you said when your worldview in your worldview, Trevor Wal, what what was Trevor Wal outside of the womb? If he wasn't a person, a living person, a living, what was he?

[00:13:03]>> Well, of course, he was living. Of course, he was alive. He wasn't a conscious or sentient person.

[00:13:07]>> What was he? But what was he?

[00:13:09]>> What do you mean what was he?

[00:13:10]>> What was he, Scott? If he wasn't If he wasn't a person, then what was he?

[00:13:15]Scott, >> a brain dead human. What are you asking me?

[00:13:17]>> Okay, he was a human. So therefore, he's he's granted what? He's granted human rights. Correct me if I'm wrong, Scott.

[00:13:23]>> You are wrong. You are absolutely wrong.

[00:13:25]>> The right to life, liberty, and happiness. Scott, is that in the Constitution? Let me ask you something.

[00:13:29]The pursuit Wait. No. I'm asking you questions, and you keep on asking me questions in reverse. Is the Is the pursuit to life, liberty, and happiness in the Constitution?

[00:13:37]>> Yeah. The question is who gets granted those rights? That's the that's the whole point of what we're discussing.

[00:13:42]>> That is what we're discussing.

[00:13:43]>> Okay. So So let me ask you something.

[00:13:45]When somebody is in a permanent vegetative state and the doctor advises the family that we should pull the plug because that person will not regain consciousness, you think that's some vile, atrocious, inhumane act or do you acknowledge that the individual in that in that body body will never uh reemerge and that's why it's being advised to pull the plug? Do you understand that?

[00:14:06]>> Yes, 100%. But what I'm talking about is we're talking about >> So is that person? Oh, so you agree with that? You agree that we can pull the plug on somebody who's in a vegetative state even though they're a human being that is alive. That's that's [ __ ] vile, bro. What about the constitution?

[00:14:19]What about the pursuit of life and happiness?

[00:14:20]>> You have to let me clarify. You have to let me clarify. Okay. Calm down. Calm down, Scott.

[00:14:25]>> Do Yeah, that's exactly how you just approached me.

[00:14:28]>> No.

[00:14:28]>> And you have to because you actually committed a fallacy in your argument.

[00:14:32]You hear you tried to agree one second with one thing and then you tried to agree another second with one thing.

[00:14:39]>> Okay. How what are you talking about?

[00:14:41]You're the one who just contradicted yourself. You just said all human life, even if it's brain dead, is deserving of uh the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. But actually, if this person is brain dead, we can pull the plug on them. That's what you just said.

[00:14:56]>> Okay. Ask your question again. Go ahead.

[00:14:58]>> What do you mean ask the question again?

[00:14:59]You just answered it. You just completely contradicted yourself. And you know why you contradicted yourself?

[00:15:04]Because your point of view is so counterintuitive to what we know. It's a scientific understanding of what it means to be a person.

[00:15:10]>> You're breathing heavy. You're breathing heavy. I I can't.

[00:15:13]>> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Defer to ad homonym.

[00:15:15]Go ahead.

[00:15:16]>> It's not an ad hom. I just really calm down. Like you're you're getting really like like I can answer.

[00:15:23]>> I want I want to address Scott's question here. Are you speaking in regards to pulling the plug on humans that are here and how we feel about that?

[00:15:33]>> Yeah. So again, because the whole thing is that he was saying that it was it was unfathomably vile of me to remove the right to pursuit uh to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness of an individual that is brain dead. And then I asked him, okay, what about people in permanent vegetative states where the dogs are dead?

[00:15:50]>> Listen, there's there's a difference between unaliving of an individual because of um because of them um being at a certain point of their life where they can no longer sustain their life and sustain, you know, being an individual, you know, having that that lived experience or whatever you want to go by, okay? They cannot sustain their life anymore. So, and and there's a machine used to sustain them. So we therefore are doing something, you know, to help that individual in the circumstance they're living in.

[00:16:18]>> And that wouldn't happen to Trevor.

[00:16:20]>> We're pulling the plug with Trevor Walrip. No, but the instance that I'm asking, >> he can he can take care of himself is what you're saying.

[00:16:26]>> 100%. No, Scott. But what I'm asking you with Trevor Walrip is I don't find it to be morally acceptable to do anything to this individual who has the plug pulled on them. Okay? Because they're in that vegetative state. Even if they're in that vegetative state, I don't think that they're a moral agent and they have and that there's we we can't do anything. Well, there's I mean my bad.

[00:16:45]>> Yeah, but you just said you'd be fine killing them to them.

[00:16:48]>> No, you just said that individual >> I'm talking.

[00:16:52]>> You just said that. Are you back to listen? You need to listen, Scott.

[00:16:56]>> I'm listening.

[00:16:59]>> Okay.

[00:17:01]So when it comes to an individual who is on life support, okay, >> we have to realize that the recognition of biological unalignment is is there.

[00:17:11]When an individual is on life support, we have to recognize that biological life is not even there without that machine, Scott. Okay. But that's not always the case. That's not always the case without the intervention, Scott.

[00:17:24]Okay. With a person, but we're talking about a person, you mentioned a ventilator pulling the plug. pulling the plug is a person who is being held together by a machine, Scott. So, they're already unal alived. We're just helping them with, you know, assistance pumping their their lungs and their heart together. Okay. So, you need to calm down.

[00:17:39]>> Okay. It's it's the recognition of biological unalignment. Okay. Total brain loss and natural unalignment.

[00:17:46]Okay. That's what there is. There's the total brain unalignment and there's natural unalignment. Okay. So, we have to really there's differences, Scott. An individual can be held on life support and that that doesn't mean that they're alive. That means that we are we're keeping them alive.

[00:18:01]>> Okay? There are plenty of people in permanent vegetative states where their bodies can sustain themselves. Their hearts can still beat. Their lungs can still uh breathe, right? They still have those automatic functions. Okay. To kill those people in permanent vegetative states would for example mean to stop feeding them, right? Through their feeding tube or stop providing hydration.

[00:18:21]>> Can they ever stop? Can they ever come back from that um vegetative state they're in once their their heart once their their brain stops working? Is that individual able to come back and be a living human being in your world view that you believe?

[00:18:34]>> No, that's why I'm fine with killing them.

[00:18:36]>> 100%. And that's exactly why I'm okay with it, too.

[00:18:39]>> Yeah, but that applies to Trevor. It's not It's not Can we pause a minute?

[00:18:44]>> Yeah. Can we pause a minute because I have to I have to correct this guys.

[00:18:48]We're not intentionally unal aliveing these people in vegetative states. And I think what it comes down to, Scott, is the intent behind the action. So in an abortion, what is the intent? The intent is to terminate or to end the life that is growing inside of this woman, right?

[00:19:05]The fetus, the intent in pulling the plug in a vegetative uh person is not to kill, right? Because if they decide to bounce back, if their body naturally decides to end, then that is the body taking the natural course to death, right? We're not intentionally taking them out. Intentionally would be giving them poison, you know, shooting them with something, giving them something.

[00:19:26]That's the intentional act behind it.

[00:19:29]And that is what we are arguing, right?

[00:19:31]When we pull vegetative state, we are not intentionally killing a human being.

[00:19:36]>> Okay. Can I address what you just said?

[00:19:38]That is not true. When you when somebody is in a permanent vegetative state and has been for a long time, the doctor goes to the family and says, "Listen, we don't think this person is going to come out of it. Uh, you know, the the person you love is no longer there. Uh, so we think that we should stop feeding them and stop hydrating them and allow them to die."

[00:19:55]>> Yes. But what we are these keeping them on life support, do you understand, is actually going against the nature of whatever their body is choosing to do.

[00:20:05]>> Uhhuh. So what we are actually doing, we're intentionally keeping them alive by doing this.

[00:20:10]>> And what do you think you're doing with somebody like Trevor Noah or whatever his name is?

[00:20:14]>> Scott, one second is acknowledging that that individual has passed away. That's what an like medical professionals are doing. When we do this, you have to realize that when an individual's on a machine, they are being artificially there's artificial animation going on inside of that individual. Okay? So it's not they're not being helped with the body of the mother. Okay? a fetus inside of the womb. Trevor Trevor was being helped with his mother's heartbeat. He was being helped with other things. His brain activity was still going. That's why when he came out of the womb, he was able to He wasn't like an unconscious being that's on life support, Scott.

[00:20:47]Because if you can name me an individual who's in a vegetative state and is able to make noise, able to move their head around, and able to respond to stimuli, then you win the argument, Scott. And if we're pulling plugs on >> I know my name. You don't have to keep saying Scott.

[00:21:00]>> Scott, one second. If we pull the plug on people like that, then then I understand you have an argument. Are we pulling the plug on people who wiggle their head around um make noises and respond to stimuli, Scott?

[00:21:10]>> Yeah. So why is that worth anything?

[00:21:12]>> I have a question. Are we doing that to people?

[00:21:14]>> Because his point is that we're not Scott. We're we're pulling the plug.

[00:21:18]>> Yeah. My point is that it's an irrelevant distinction.

[00:21:20]>> No, it isn't, Scott. Because there's a reason.

[00:21:22]>> Well, explain why then.

[00:21:23]>> There's a reasoning as to why we didn't just unalive Trevor Walter. Correct.

[00:21:26]>> Because his parents didn't want to.

[00:21:28]That's the only reason. So the doctor, this is insane. So Trevor, >> so his parents wanted to onal alive him after he was born. That's okay.

[00:21:37]>> Yes, it is. That person has no uh consciousness or sentience just like the people in the permanent vegetative states. They are completely equivalent.

[00:21:45]Being able to make primitive noises with no experience of making those noises is not indicative of anything. It's irrelevant.

[00:21:54]And I I would also like to know because you guys kept going back to the artificial machine, right? There are plenty of people in permanent vegetative states who are only being kept alive by being fed water and by being hydrated.

[00:22:07]There are plenty of people in permanent vegetative states where that's the case.

[00:22:10]>> No, that's in a coma. Those individuals brains and their hearts and their lungs are still working. So if they're able to eat and drink, they're they're they're not un alive. when the people that we're talking about pulling the plug on these individuals and and a person in cons in a conscious state, I would keep that person alive continuously. I don't find any need to live alive that person or pull the plug. I find that to be um quite evil and sadistic because that person >> How is that evil or sadistic? How how does that possibly qualify? How many people wake up from comas? There there's there's instances of people waking up from comas um 10 years after it um 15 years after it. There's an inst there's instances where people go into it and we think they're going to be asleep for 15 years and they wake up in one month. So for you to say, "Let's pull the plug, Scott. You're evil." I mean, that explains your world view. You just want to go around unaliving anything you can.

[00:22:55]Anything that you see that's moving, well, that's not moving. My bad. If it's not moving and if it appears to be in a vegetative state or if it appears to be, you know, helpless and defensible, you know, unal alive it because that's what your world view is.

[00:23:05]>> That's totally what I want. What I want is for people to make choices to for people to have the ability to make their own choices. That's what I want. So if somebody has written in their will, I don't want to be in a permanent vegetative state.

[00:23:17]>> It's strange. The fetus doesn't have a right to make a choice.

[00:23:19]>> Yeah. Because it's not >> I can Scott. I promise you you would not hold this view if I applied it to other situations which would make you logically inconsistent.

[00:23:28]>> Go ahead. Do it.

[00:23:30]>> Okay. My neighbor has the choice to just grae and chain his kids up to the fence and starve them.

[00:23:35]>> Right. That's his choice.

[00:23:36]>> Yeah. Again, we're talking about causing you to go over there and say anything.

[00:23:40]>> Oh, look. Look, actually stop.

[00:23:41]>> Yeah. They're causing harm.

[00:23:42]>> Once a child once a child is full person once a child is born, it has full legal personhood and rights. Um the intentional unaliving of a child postirth is considered schmurder under the law regardless of the child's cognitive abil ability or sentience. So, you're just agreeing with your own worldview, Scott. This isn't even the world's view. You're going by your own.

[00:24:03]This is weird. You like you like abort fetuses and I don't know sacrifice them.

[00:24:07]Oh man, I got to mute.

[00:24:10]>> Go ahead and >> I'll try in I'll chime in a little bit.

[00:24:14]>> Okay. What were you asking me before he brought up blood sacrifices?

[00:24:20]>> Um Oh, sorry. I thought I was muted.

[00:24:23]>> Um you're saying that people have the right to choose to do whatever they want to do >> if it doesn't cause harm to another individual. Yes.

[00:24:31]So why in the instance of abortion are you arguing it doesn't cause harm to another individual?

[00:24:36]>> Well, this goes back to what we were talking about, right? That a fetus cannot experience harm and there is nothing being harmed there when you remove those cells, right? It can can it experience pain? No. Can it experience feelings? No. Can it experience thoughts? No. Does it have personhood that is being taken from it? No. It doesn't have any of the qualifiers for experiencing harm. There is no harm being committed. So it's not comparable to committing harm to a live thinking and feeling human being.

[00:25:04]>> So as long as the people outside the wombs don't feel anything, >> that's okay.

[00:25:09]>> Again, we're talking about consciousness and sentience, right? So feeling >> let's say, right, if I have an 11year-old and he's sleeping, he technically won't feel me. Take him out, >> right? He'll be gone before he even wakes up and realizes that I took him out. So that's okay. Sorry. I I >> He's sleeping. He's not fully conscious.

[00:25:27]No, and and and a child that's on the spectrum that is very um low functioning autistic, so their cognitive ability is actually lesser than >> Okay, let me >> and and sometimes don't even feel pain.

[00:25:37]Go ahead, Scott.

[00:25:38]>> Okay, so the problem is that you took one component of what I just qualified as harm and then made an argument for that. You said feeling, but I gave multiple qualifiers. Do you remember what they were?

[00:25:48]>> But but so I'm not going to sit here and argue every single one of them. Yeah, but I should only your argument should be solid enough that I should be able to just argue one.

[00:25:57]>> And if your argument is solid, that's all it should take, right? Like I don't need to have a bunch of qualifi Scott. I as a proifer, I don't need to have a ton a roster of qualifiers as to what determines my value.

[00:26:11]>> Understand that you have a very simplistic worldview devoid of knowledge.

[00:26:17]>> Because because guess what? That's what it is. value in human life. It's just that it's very simple. You don't have to complicate complex. Do you know do you know the last time we complicated this?

[00:26:27]It did not end up well. His name was Schmidler. He was trying to dictate what qualified as a human >> and and what didn't. Right?

[00:26:35]>> Okay.

[00:26:35]>> It doesn't have to be this this like puzzle.

[00:26:40]>> It's very simple.

[00:26:43]>> We are human. We are alive. We deserve the right to life.

[00:26:46]>> Okay. You are going on this whole spiel while avoiding what I said about harm because once again, yes you are. Because I said that to experience harm, right?

[00:26:54]There are multiple factors of harm, right? There is there is pain. Would you agree that pain causes harm?

[00:26:59]Experiencing pain. We can go through these one at a time. Okay. Yes. So pain is a qualifier. How about emotional pain, right? Feeling sad, feeling angry, feeling depressed, feeling hurt, feeling all of these things. Would you qualify that as harm?

[00:27:13]>> Yes. Yes.

[00:27:14]>> How about having your personhood and your identity taken from you? Would you qualify that as harm?

[00:27:20]>> Yes.

[00:27:20]>> Okay. How about having your thoughts taken from you? Would you qualify that as harm? Not being able to think anymore or not being able to experience the world. Okay.

[00:27:28]>> Also having back to your example where you said, "Can I kill an 11year-old in his sleep?"

[00:27:35]>> Would you would all of those qualifiers of harm not be applicable in that case?

[00:27:41]>> Yes, they would.

[00:27:42]>> Exactly. So, it is not acceptable to kill an 11-year-old while asleep. So, it was a false equivalency and a bad example. That was my whole point.

[00:27:50]>> Wait a minute. You're saying that in his sleep, he can feel his this pain.

[00:27:56]>> Again, you're just picking one of the qualifiers of harm, >> right? No, I'm I'm going to go down I'm going to go down the list that you just did. In his sleep, he can feel this pain.

[00:28:04]>> Uh, if it's instant, no, he wouldn't feel pain.

[00:28:07]>> Okay. In his sleep, he can feel his personhood being taken.

[00:28:11]>> Hold up. I never said he had to feel his personhood being taken from him. It just had to be taken from him.

[00:28:16]>> Right. Okay. Do you think an 11 or 10 year old, however old a 5-year-old, a 5-year-old would care that their personhood was >> Yes, of course. That is a person.

[00:28:26]>> That is a person that that their personhood is being taken from them.

[00:28:29]Yes.

[00:28:29]>> I'm not not I'm not arguing whether they're a person or not. Does this 5-year-old care that their that their personhood was taken from them?

[00:28:36]>> Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. You don't think that you don't think that 5-year-olds are scared of death? It's intuitive. It's it's it's there from birth.

[00:28:43]>> Yeah. But in their in their sleep, Scott, >> can they will they care that their personhood was taken from them?

[00:28:50]>> It doesn't matter if it's in their sleep. That their personhood is still taken from them.

[00:28:54]>> It doesn't matter because this this is our whole point, right? It doesn't matter, Scott. That's the point. It doesn't matter that a fetus is not conscious to the level that you want it to be conscious to for us to value it and grant it. Right? So, it doesn't matter that this 5-year-old is sleeping.

[00:29:10]It's the fact that I'm taking their life. It doesn't matter that they recognize that their personhood is being taken, that their feelings are being hurt, that they will never experience life the way you and I can, that they that they didn't feel pain or felt it to a little bit or not because it was a sin. None of that matters, Scott. That's my whole point.

[00:29:28]>> It does. The problem is that you're confusing a whole lot of things. If you take somebody's personhood, even if they're not aware of their personhood being taken from them, it has still been taken. For a fetus, there is no personhood in question. That is not an established individual that has never had experiences or thoughts or feelings.

[00:29:46]There's no personhood.

[00:29:46]>> So, so now we have to ask what is personhood?

[00:29:49]>> Yeah. So, personhood is the uh like amalgamation of somebody's experiences and thoughts and feelings and identity in society.

[00:29:58]>> So, this fetus has none of that. That's your argument.

[00:30:01]>> This the fetus before 24 weeks has none of that. Literally, not one. So when a woman goes in for an ultrasound, if they don't have any type of identity or not, like what you just said, they don't have any they're essentially nothing.

[00:30:13]>> Mhm. Yeah. Right.

[00:30:15]>> Nothing can't become something. Scott, I don't know like what world you live in something. No, Scott. Scott. Exactly.

[00:30:23]Scott, you are making this more complicated than it needs to be. We know this fetus is something. We know this fetus is an individual. And we know that this fetus created by two human beings is a human life.

[00:30:35]>> Yes. I never said otherwise. Of course.

[00:30:38]>> Have personhood to the extent that you and I do, right? We probably have jobs.

[00:30:42]We probably have a family. We probably drive around. We probably go shopping.

[00:30:44]No. A fetus doesn't experience personhood to that extent, I would agree with you and concede to that point. But a fetus to say that a fetus is nothing and that it it really doesn't have personhood. I do not agree with that.

[00:30:57]>> How does it have personhood?

[00:30:59]>> I just told you. You did not tell me something. At the very least, this this fetus is something. Whether it's a clump of cells, whatever you want to identify it as, it is something. Of course, it's something right there. And the fact that it is human >> right there, it's it's it's a human something. Right.

[00:31:15]>> Right. It's a human life.

[00:31:16]>> It's in a different developmental stage than you and I are, but it is something.

[00:31:20]>> It is a human life. I never said otherwise. It is absolutely >> It has the potential of let to grow and let it has. Okay. So this 5-year-old that I'm killing in the sleep that I'm on aliveing in in her sleep, she has potential for future, right? But you just told me that's not okay to take her. Even if it's instant, she won't feel the pain or he whatever. They won't feel the pain. But you had a problem with that because it took away ABC and D. It's the same thing for the fetus.

[00:31:49]>> But it's not Okay, hold on. I want to go through all of these things individually, okay? Because again, you're confusing a lot of things. I'm not saying that it's bad to kill a 5-year-old because uh um of future potential of what it will grow into. I'm saying it's bad because you are actively taking away those elements of who it is.

[00:32:08]You are taking away its personhood. A fetus does not have personhood. And we can go through the different elements of personhood for a fetus if you want, but you're always going to revert back to its future potential, saying it will have personhood in the future.

[00:32:21]>> I didn't I had nothing to do with the future, Scott. All I said you gave one example that makes them a person and and what you qualify as personhood. You said that it has to be being. It has to be a being. It has to be existing. And I told you a fetus has that. It qualifies as that. And then I said, "What is a fetus?

[00:32:42]Essentially nothing." And you said, "Yes, Scott, that doesn't make any sense. What are we aborting? What is this whole convers No, Scott. What is this conversation about? If a fetus is nothing, what are we aborting? You're arguing against you're you're arguing nothing obviously.

[00:32:57]>> No, no, no. Scott, I have a question. I have a I have a question because the person who obviously hit you somewhere, okay, Trevor Walter, is somebody allowed to go to Trevor Walsh's grave, um, exume his body and cuz he's a tumor in your in your So, we're going back this route of raping.

[00:33:10]>> He's not a person. He's not a human.

[00:33:12]Yes, I'm going by this because I've I've been researching your person hood view and like one second. So an individual if an individual um if like Trevor Walrip if somebody goes up to Trevor Walrip and they they you know do something to him he's he's considered a tumor in your worldview Scott he's like an ectopic pregnancy he's non-scentient he's just this reactive blob that's in our our earth is he >> yeah is is somebody allowed to pick him up and do grotesque things to his body >> no again because you're talking about the actions of the conscious being doing those things >> so so a conscious being why come there are no laws against conscious beings doing whatever we damn well please with you know organisms we find like like a liver are are we allowed to eat human liver if we decide we want to >> cannibalism is illegal >> no no but there's certain there's certain let me let me search that there's certain states that you are constitute if you want to eat your placenta you're allowed to eat your placenta correct me >> placenta is a unique uh aspect yeah you know >> correct me for okay so so that's allowed so Trevor Walrip um he's he's a he's not a human can somebody exume his body and eat him that's the question.

[00:34:18]>> Can somebody exume? I mean, do I think people should be allowed to eat corpses?

[00:34:22]>> No. Trevor Walrip. Trevor Walrip. Not corpses. Trevor Walrip. Does somebody have the right to exume his body and eat him?

[00:34:29]>> Uh, yeah. I don't think that's a good thing for society. No. I I don't think we should be allowed to do that.

[00:34:35]>> Why? Why? Why do you find that not to be acceptable?

[00:34:36]>> Because I I don't think that's uh the type of behavior that we should be promoting in in uh adult conscious human beings or in our society. I think that can lead I think that can lead to harm in a lot of ways.

[00:34:46]>> Wordship's not human. He's not human.

[00:34:48]>> He is human. I never said he wasn't human.

[00:34:50]>> He's not a person. He's not human. He is human. Okay. Let me ask you this. Do you see how normalizing cannibalism society could be?

[00:34:57]>> He is. Isn't if he's not a person, why are you calling him he?

[00:35:00]>> Because it's a human male.

[00:35:04]>> A human male is a heale.

[00:35:06]>> 100%. Okay. So why?

[00:35:08]>> Okay. So let me ask you it's an it actually. It's an it. You're giving a lot of personhood. Okay. A lot of person.

[00:35:13]>> That's not what that means. Again, so let me ask you. Do you think that normalizing cannibalism would be a good thing for society or do you think it could lead to harm?

[00:35:21]>> Well, I don't think that it's cannibalism. I don't think he's a person.

[00:35:24]>> I again, dude, I've I've said a million times it's a human being. How many times have I said that?

[00:35:30]>> But why are we How many times have I said that?

[00:35:32]>> Why are you granting personhood?

[00:35:33]>> Okay. Can you answer the question instead of dodging?

[00:35:35]>> If he was nothing, okay, if he was nothing, okay, we would just be allowed to do whatever we wanted to do.

[00:35:40]>> No. Can you answer the question please?

[00:35:42]>> I said do you think that normalizing cannibalism in society could possibly lead to harm? Can you imagine ways in which uh normalizing can uhism would lead to harm?

[00:35:54]>> I can say so but I think that's when it comes to your argument is unfound.

[00:35:58]>> That's when it comes to people. That's when it comes to people. When when you're talking about interpersonal cannibalism 100% that can become a problem when it's acceptable for individuals to go around um eating whatever they find buried in the ground.

[00:36:09]I don't find that to be wrong. I find that to be um something that's normal.

[00:36:12]Hunters can do that. People who live in the wilderness can do that. So, if you're going around just um finding food, scavenging, nothing's wrong with that. If it's not even a human, what's wrong with going up and finding um a pile of meat in the woods and deciding you're hungry, you want to eat it?

[00:36:26]>> Yeah. The problem again is that normalizing cannibalism, right? Eating your own species, your fellow man, can lead to harm, right? That can have psychological effects on individuals.

[00:36:36]And as a society there is absolutely no reason that we should normalize or legalize.

[00:36:40]>> Yeah. Know it's the this is this is the point of the argument that I was getting to. You are telling me that this this your other man okay man your other your other human if you're granting it some sort of moral consideration if you're saying that it's a horrible thing to pump into society. What? Why? If somebody's going to eat Trevor Walrip, what is it going to push society to do?

[00:36:59]Okay. If somebody eats Trevor Walrip, what is that going to put into society's head? the the danger that you're saying that people can go out and do what >> I'm saying that could promote uh cannibalistic behavior obviously society because normalize certain behavior in society.

[00:37:14]>> Yeah. When you normalize a person eating another person in the grave, no matter what sort of cognitive ability they had while they were alive, >> um it still puts out a moral framework that people are eating people. And what you're trying to do is say that that person is not a person and you're trying to dance around it. right here. This person has some form of personhood because you're acknowledging that for a human to eat another human in our moral society that would create some sort of stir in our society. Okay. Why?

[00:37:40]>> Yeah. Because then it could be applied to conscious and sentient human beings.

[00:37:44]That's that's why it's harmful.

[00:37:45]>> I didn't hear you.

[00:37:46]>> I said because if you promote that kind of behavior, then it could be applied to conscious and sentient human beings.

[00:37:52]That's why it's harmful.

[00:37:56]>> Scott.

[00:37:57]>> Yes. That's my name. Yes.

[00:37:59]>> I don't know where to go with you anymore. Like everything.

[00:38:02]>> Yeah, I know you don't. Okay, so now it's my turn. Let me ask you some questions. I'm going to ask you uh what is it that you value in human life?

[00:38:10]>> 100% the DNA.

[00:38:12]>> DNA is what you value in human life.

[00:38:14]>> The the DNA and the the the right Oh, the ability to um let me see. I'm trying to find the word. Holy [ __ ] I can't. Um the What am I thinking?

[00:38:28]Wow. I just have a I have a brain fog.

[00:38:30]Give me a second.

[00:38:35]Holy [ __ ] I'm looking for a specific word in my brain and I can't find it. The Give me one second. I need to search this word because my argument won't stand without the word.

[00:38:56]Um, here come here come. Wait, here for change. Are you uh pro-life, pro-choice?

[00:39:01]>> I'm pro-life. I was just going to ask Scott about the uh personhood.

[00:39:06]>> Go ahead.

[00:39:08]>> Um, Scott, if you don't >> if you don't mind me, if you don't mind me asking you, Scott, >> um, who exactly decides when a person becomes a person?

[00:39:22]Is it based on arbitrary criteria like location inside or outside the womb or does it depend on developmental milestones? If we define personhood as having unique human DNA, heartbeat or the ability to feel pain, then doesn't a fetus qualify as a person at some stage of development?

[00:39:43]>> Okay. So, I qualify personhood once there is a person within the husk of me to experience things. So that means that I I consider it a person once it's capable of conscious and sentient experience. Not a heartbeat and not nerve signals, conscious and sentient experience, >> which which is around 24 in the womb.

[00:40:02]>> Yeah. Well, Scott, there's no scientific or biological consensus that that confirms what you're saying. Um, and definitely no absolute proof about exact moment sentience or consciousness begins.

[00:40:15]>> Okay. There's no agreed upon definition of sentience that all scientists share, let alone measurable starting point.

[00:40:22]>> I can I can send you many studies if you want. There is a scientific consensus that consciousness stems at the earliest point around 24 weeks in fetuses.

[00:40:31]>> That's a presumption. That's a presumption. Well, it's based on evidence.

[00:40:36]>> Scott, just let me finish. That is a presumption. It's not a fact or proof when it exactly starts.

[00:40:43]>> It is based on evidence, right?

[00:40:45]Everything that we that we do in science is based on evidence% and and um the big bang is based on evidence and it's not proven it's a theory. So um evolution is based on evidence and that's a theory as well.

[00:40:56]>> Yeah, I understand. Do you know what a theory is?

[00:40:57]>> It's just there's overwhelming evidence to support that theory. So Scott, you have >> Okay. I'd like to ask you, do you know the difference between the colloquial definition of a theory and the scientific definition of a theory?

[00:41:07]Because it seems like you're using them interchangeably.

[00:41:09]>> Well, I I may not know the A scientific theory means it's the scientific consensus. Yeah. Yeah. Well, Scott, regarding the scientific theory, why is it then that neuroscientists, psychologists, philosophers, developmental developmental biologists all disagree with the same uh reasoning.

[00:41:30]None of them can agree what consciousness is or when it starts.

[00:41:34]>> I don't think that's true. I don't know where you're reading. That's not true.

[00:41:37]That's a fact. No, it's a fact. Neur neuroscientists they use the definition of ability to feel sensations.

[00:41:46]>> Psychologist is awareness of internal states. Philosophers are what it is like to feel. Development biologists are neural responsiveness. That's what they say is consciousness. So not none even the science field agree when it what it actually is and where where it comes from and when it starts. There is no there is no consensus in science when it starts or stops or begins.

[00:42:14]>> Okay.

[00:42:14]>> And also Scott right here um a scientific theory is not considered absolute true proof um but rather the best most reliable explanation for natural phenomenon based on evidence supported by existent data.

[00:42:27]>> Exactly. So, so do you understand that how dismissing something as just a theory is really >> theory is one second Scott like what's the talking calm down a scientific theory is not consider considered absolute true proof there you go that's that's what you need to hear you're hearing >> what you need to hear is everything else right that you just read >> do you understand how silly it would be to say uh I don't believe this despite all of the evidence and data accumulated pointing towards this being the truth so if you expect me to believe in the big bang Then if you expect me to believe nothing. Oh, everything came from nothing. Black. Okay. If I have a black Sharpie and I scribble on a piece of paper and a whole bunch of rain rainbow >> I feel like I'm hearing a 10-year-old tell me what they think the big bang theory.

[00:43:09]>> A whole bunch of rainbow polka dots appear. Good riddance.

[00:43:11]>> Wow. That's really genius analysis of what the big rainbow. That's a simple breakdown of, you know, the big bang and how the universes collided with each other and created what we have currently. I mean, >> yeah. Again, that's what that's what all the evidence points towards, right? All astronomical data, all astron I'm not going to start arguing the big bang theory, but that's what all the data >> you could never prove it, Scott. You could never prove >> obviously you just have scientific you just have evidence and data that points towards something being the truth.

[00:43:39]>> You can't prove consciousness.

[00:43:41]>> So you don't use evidence or data to live your life in any capacity.

[00:43:44]>> Well, yeah, you do. 100% you do. But when I think when it comes to when it comes to the human brain inside of uterero, I think um taking you know pseudocience that we just recently started You don't know what to science >> 60 years because it's new science in the past 60 years. We It's new. So I I believe it's science that we started in the past 60 to 80 years. So the fact that it's this new and you're trying to jump to it as you know concrete evidence onto why human life is deserve to be out alive.

[00:44:15]>> Well, I really hope I really hope that >> it's not really concrete.

[00:44:19]>> Okay. I really hope that you're not going to hospitals and receiving medical treatment, right?

[00:44:24]science in the past 80 years.

[00:44:25]>> I'm not going to philosophy school. I'm sorry. Um but one second me and and here me and and here we are able to recognize that this field of science is not at its peak for us to justify unalignment of humans in utero based off of consciousness alone. Okay, and bodily autonomy. We know that which is why we value life and we argue for life because we know that life can't prove and can't argue for itself that's inside of the womb. It can't say wait we haven't done any science yet. We haven't done anything to figure out if we can you know save the the the fetus outside of uterero in a little petri dish so the woman doesn't have to spit out of her vagina the most sadistic way. But Scott here Scott waves his hand in the air and says I'll be a feminist because I want cooch cuz I don't get any. And I'll wave my hand and say and say let her let her kill her baby. Buttercup.

[00:45:16]Are you done with your [ __ ] Scott?

[00:45:18]I'm done. I'm done. I'm not really done with this nonsensical because you're trying to tell us that consciousness is an actual proven theory. It's not proven.

[00:45:26]>> Oh my god. You are you you were just so scientifically illiterate. It's really cringe.

[00:45:32]>> So if you mind you, Scott, mind you, Scott, you really couldn't even have a conversation with what's his name earlier.

[00:45:37]>> So if you asked to have a conversation with me, so yeah, let's not talk about >> I never asked to talk to you, dude. You came up wrong.

[00:45:45]>> Scott, listen. You say it's not a person. Then what is it?

[00:45:50]>> It's a human.

[00:45:52]>> Is it a potential person? No, wait till I finish. Scott, is it a potential person?

[00:45:56]>> Yes.

[00:45:57]>> If we're going to argue that personhood begins at birth, then why don't we say that a newborn isn't a person until it can feed itself, speak, or walk? It's the potential for life enough to consider someone a person even if they're not fully developed.

[00:46:13]>> So again, my thing was not about development. My thing was that once they are starting to have experiences or thoughts or feelings, then they are worthy of moral consideration. And I would grant that I would grant that before birth.

[00:46:27]>> Yeah. But consciousness is a slowly developing procedure. It's not a switch.

[00:46:34]It's not a switch. Yes.

[00:46:35]>> It's not a switch to turn off and on and then you're conscious in one minute and then you're not. It's a it's a slowly developing procedure.

[00:46:44]>> Yes, you are correct. And the earliest points that we do at what point do you pull the plug when it's a gradual process? What point of consciousness do you pull the how much consciousness do you need? So uh I place stake on the very earliest point at which even very rudimentary forms of consciousness are possible which is 24 weeks. In all reality it's probably later than that. 24 weeks is just the earliest point at which the phalamo cortical connections have been shown to provide even the slightest possibility of consciousness. That's why I say 24 weeks even though it's probably >> why does consciousness matter?

[00:47:26]>> Okay. So now that's a whole separate conversation. So okay so to me everything that uh gives an individual worth stems from consciousness and I can list the qualities. So uh the ability to think the ability to feel uh the ability to perceive yourself and to have awareness of yourself and to perceive your environment and those around you all of the aspects of human life that we value. Even if people like Elijah claim uh you know that that's not what they value it is what we value.

[00:47:54]>> Uh yeah >> let me jump in there Scott. So if it's not a person, why does the fetus have legal inheritance rights?

[00:48:05]>> Uh because if I don't value if I don't value if if it's personhood that I value the fetus >> let's let let's let here for change and Scott talk. Okay.

[00:48:15]>> Yeah. I want to work in, but I just want if like if we don't value um like if if if we value personhood, then why come we are advocating for beings that in your worldview don't have personhood? Like it makes no sense.

[00:48:30]>> Cuz you're cuz you're very confused.

[00:48:32]Because you're all very confused.

[00:48:34]>> Well, well, Scott, the the fetus does have certain legal rights.

[00:48:38]>> Yeah. So, to me, legal rights are different than >> you know what the legal rights are.

[00:48:41]>> Yeah. Again, you said uh that fetuses have inheritance laws. Is that what you just said?

[00:48:45]>> They have inheritance rights and they have protection from harm as if if a pregnant woman was injured or assaulted that if there's harm came to that fetus.

[00:48:58]>> Yes.

[00:48:58]>> Um that person would be prosecuted for say for example a double murder.

[00:49:04]>> Yes. And that stems from the mother, right? That stems from the mother's wishes to have a child, right? So it's it's more about harming the mother than it is about harming the female.

[00:49:13]>> How do you know that? That's what your take is because >> Yes, that's what my take is.

[00:49:17]>> The mom may not decided to was going to have an AB or not by that time, but he would still get prosecuted.

[00:49:25]>> Yes. Yes. Yeah. That's I mean that's just a legal standard. That's how they've decided to prosecute people that that steal a fetus from a mother that wishes to have a child.

[00:49:35]You see, um, in many legal systems, Scott, a fetus is considered to have certain inheritance rights even though it is not yet born.

[00:49:44]>> Sure. I mean, I don't think that legality is a >> born person legal inheritance rights.

[00:49:51]>> Yeah. Again, I don't think that legality is a standard for morality. A bunch of different countries have different legal standards. It all depends on where you are. And >> well well our morality is we shouldn't be analying human beings.

[00:50:05]>> Yeah I I understand that's your morality. I understand that you think that value stems from the biological life itself even if there is no person within the husk of that biological life to experience anything in any capacity.

[00:50:20]>> It's valued at conception.

[00:50:22]>> Sorry.

[00:50:23]>> It's valued as far as I'm concerned at conception. It's a human being at that point.

[00:50:29]>> Yeah. No, I understand that you that you think that. Uh and again, so what I would ask you is what is it that you value there? Is it the future potential of becoming a person that you value?

[00:50:40]>> Surely it's not the actual clump of cells there. It's what it represents and what it will become in the future that you value.

[00:50:47]>> Yeah. Well, I do I do value it in the sense of uh what does value mean?

[00:50:53]>> It means it's something of worth, >> right? But you only grant it worth because of what it will become in the future, right? Not what it actually is.

[00:51:01]>> No, I grant it for who it is. Pyishi.

[00:51:06]>> Well, hold on. If it never developed into what it turns in the future, you wouldn't grant it any moral consideration, right? If it was just in a petri dish and I told you it will never grow beyond what it currently is right now, you wouldn't place any value in that, would you?

[00:51:20]>> A value all human life, >> right? But okay, that seems like a dodge. It seemed like an answer.

[00:51:25]>> That's That's not an answer. I'm asking you what would there be to value there if it was like in a petri dish. It's microscopic cells that you can't even see with the naked eye. And I'm telling you this will never develop into another human being. It's just there in this petri dish. Are you really going to pretend that there's that that there has the same moral consideration or moral worth as a conscious human being?

[00:51:46]>> Well, value refers to the worth or importance we place on something. In ethical terms, value refers to what is seen as morally good or worthy of respect. It's not just about material worth, >> but about the intrinsic importance of a thing or being.

[00:52:06]>> Yes.

[00:52:08]>> Right.

[00:52:10]>> Yeah.

[00:52:11]>> Well, yeah, I I understand that, but I feel like that didn't answer my question. I feel like you just gave me definitions.

[00:52:15]>> What about cellular competency? I have a question. Since we don't lack any consciousness, how come our cells know from the moment of basically conception, we continue there's like a gradual continuous process of our cells um forming the connective tissues um in our bodies, the the nerves in our in our in our you know skin, the muscle tissue slowly forming the brain and the the skull around it to protect it and the nervous system connecting those. If there's no consciousness in that human being from the moment of conception, if there's no form of innate um you know cons like consciousness in those cells, then why are we just allowed to then then why >> like then how is >> it's just intrinsic biological >> mechanisms.

[00:53:03]It's I don't understand what you're saying. It's just intrinsic biological mechanisms >> mechanisms.

[00:53:09]Well, no 100% but I'm saying that would have to show a certain that would have to show a certain uh level of intellect or consciousness at all within that being. Well, yeah, 100%. I would have to say that um any living organism that is able to do that is showing a certain sign.

[00:53:24]>> That is such nonsense. Viruses aren't even classified as alive. They travel into bodies. They infil they like strategically infiltrate cells and they spread and reproduce. Are you going to say that viruses are intelligent?

[00:53:36]>> But do they develop a conscious? I'm telling you, do they develop a consciousness?

[00:53:39]>> Okay, so now you're changing your argument. You're moving the gold.

[00:53:43]my argument >> because before you were saying that just the fact that they were able to do that means that it's from the point it's from the point of con the point that I'm making is I said yeah I find that to be extraordinary in any other being but the point that I'm making towards human beings is the fact that from the moment of conception we are our selves all all of our selves are intricately working together to develop this main key distinctive um you know attribute from any other you know organism or species living on this planet which is our consciousness. Okay, that is very um it's it's innate to us. So if our cells are continuously working together and at a certain stage we start to see a head form and a brain form. These are signs that the the consciousness in those cells >> are that's what me and here are trying to say. We don't know anything about consciousness. How do we know that the human species our consciousness isn't forming from the moment of conception in those cells?

[00:54:35]>> So you're saying you're you're making you're arguing from ignorance, right?

[00:54:39]Because you don't know the science.

[00:54:40]That's what it is. You're saying, "How do we know?" Well, go read about it and then you'll know. There are scientific studies. This is >> Well, I've read about it. I've read about it. And what when I read about it, it says the the theory is it starts at 24 weeks when these certain connections start to form.

[00:54:54]>> And what did you tell me that you just read me the definition of a theory? A theory is when you collect all of the evidence, right? And the evidence and the data points toward scientific data.

[00:55:04]Cellular competency is scientific data.

[00:55:06]It's about how our cells um >> but that's I don't even understand where you're going with the cellular competency. How is that relevant to anything in any capacity? Yes, cells have intrinsic biological mechanisms.

[00:55:18]All life on Earth does. Okay. Yeah, it's pretty crazy that that that cells can turn into a palm tree. How is that relevant to anything?

[00:55:28]>> Because I'm I'm making I'm making key distinctions. Okay. if if consciousness is not relevant at around 12 weeks.

[00:55:35]Okay. Um I'm comparing it to a newborn who doesn't have certain forms of consciousness until about 18 months when they're able to recognize um outside or or like themselves in a mirror. When you look in a mirror around 18 months is when a child is able to recognize themselves and they're looking at themselves. So I'm comparing to that newborn stage where they're not really at that level of consciousness. I believe the cells and we see that in science that's proven you know uh empirical data if you want to go there Scott about about your evidence we can we can say that so what I'm saying is before that 24-we marker there are there are signs that the cells are moving in a certain state they're moving in a certain manner that um are forming different connections in human beings that are not formed in any other animal um certain connective tissues in our brains are formed um that aren't formed in gorillas um certain structures if our brains are formed that aren't formed in you know primal species like apes. So my my claim is we have developed and we have grown as a species in a different way than anyone else to develop this cognitive awareness even at the point of conception. Okay? Because at the point of conception if we're able to point the strategic way to form consciousness and to form the developmental paths and connective tissues to sustain a consciousness there has to be some form of innate you know intelligence in those cells. And that's where I'm going to leave it cuz no other species are doing that. No other, you know, um, you know, what is it? No other is the word I'm looking organism on this planet is doing it at at the rate that we're doing it.

[00:57:06]So I leave it at that. There's a certain form of intelligence consciousness building within us.

[00:57:10]>> Okay. So the intelligence is not derived from the individual cells themselves.

[00:57:14]The individual cells are not intelligent. Cells are not intelligent.

[00:57:18]They they they are like little biological machines, right? They they they get fed information, right, through like RNA and DNA, and they basically do as they're told. It's just machinery.

[00:57:30]It's just biological machinery. That that that's all it is. And we're not the only animals on Earth that have uh uh you know, some forms of consciousness. I it's different ranges, of course, but you know, uh octopuses and sephopods are are intelligent. Dogs are intelligent.

[00:57:46]And obviously, there were other animals in the past that had comparable levels of intelligence to us. Neanderthalss were very intelligent animals, right?

[00:57:54]Homohabilis were very intelligent animals. Like I I And again, I don't really understand the point that you're making. Like, yeah, it's pretty incredible that all these cells are working together to to create life. Yeah, life is pretty amazing. I I I love biology. I love evolution. I think it's fascinating. But that's not an argument for moral worth.

[00:58:17]>> Yeah. Well, Scott, I would say that uh my belief is that human life has intrinsic value from conception onward.

[00:58:24]The value is not based on developmental stage or circumstances, but because the being is human. The principle is foundational to my argument and it applies to all stages whether it's a zygote, fetus, or newborn.

[00:58:41]>> Uh-huh. But that seems more symbolic to me than anything, right? Because you're you're not telling me what >> it's primaascia. It's primma fascia is what it is by nature.

[00:58:52]>> I understand. But you're not telling me of any human is valued.

[00:58:56]>> Okay, I understand that. But you're not telling me of any specific attributes that are uh there that should be granted more moral consideration than the bodily autonomy of a woman, of an adult human being, right? A conscious human being with thoughts, feelings. Why should something that cannot experience anything that has no personhood be uh placed above you know the the the bodily autonomy of a conscious living uh breathing human being >> right well then I would say to you that um do you have to be feel pain or conscious to be harmed >> uh so I I don't know if you were here for it I gave my definition farm earlier I said there are multiple aspects of harm right to me you either have to there you either have to feel pain right pain causes harm >> there's no >> well hold No, no, that's one aspect.

[00:59:40]>> No, no, you don't need to feel pain to be harmed.

[00:59:43]>> I know that. I know that. Get through it real quick.

[00:59:46]>> I'm I'm elaborating.

[00:59:49]>> So, so pain is one aspect of harm. You could have emotional damage, right?

[00:59:54]Emotional pain. If somebody makes you sad, angry, whatever, we could classify that as harm. If somebody steals like your personhood from you, right? Like taking your life while you're asleep.

[01:00:04]Your personhood was taken from you. your ability to have experiences was taken from you. That is also harm.

[01:00:10]>> Wait, then presumably you would say the fetus was harmed then.

[01:00:13]>> No, because there's no personhood there being taken. I don't want nobody.

[01:00:18]>> Just wait. So just to be clear, >> be very clear. This is the corner I got you in last time, Scott. But we're going to let DAP go ahead and corner you again. Go ahead.

[01:00:25]>> Oh my god.

[01:00:26]>> Wait, but you just said taking away the ability to personate. So like, let's just give a case where um you know, we have some does not have the ability. So, >> I don't know why this guy's interrupting me.

[01:00:37]>> Cuz you already you already uh uh uh misrepresented my point.

[01:00:41]>> Wait, which point did I misrepresent?

[01:00:42]>> Because you're making a false equivalency. A fetus does not have I never said that a fetus has the ability to experience. So, by definition, you cannot take its ability to experience.

[01:00:50]It does not have that ability.

[01:00:52]>> You're confused.

[01:00:54]>> I'm not confused. So, >> all I was saying is that well, one of the things that you said is it's going to be harmful if it's the case that um you take away these future experiences from this entity, right?

[01:01:04]>> When when did I say future? I said ability to have experiences.

[01:01:07]>> Okay. The ability Yeah. So, presumably you're saying like in the future, right?

[01:01:11]>> Well, it has the it's a personhood, right? You're taking its personhood from it and it you're taking its ability to have experiences, right? If you kill it, well, it is it has the physical structures and it has the >> Okay. Yeah. So you would agree that the future is relevant in that sense then?

[01:01:27]>> No. Oh my god.

[01:01:28]>> Well, wait. No. So then I mean if if that's not harmful in your review, then presumably there's nothing wrong with analying coma patients.

[01:01:36]>> Yeah. Again, that's not true. I mean, it depends. We pull the plug on coma patients all the time. It depends.

[01:01:40]>> We could Yeah, I didn't say that. We didn't, but we could just stipulate that it's the case that this coma patient is not experiencing.

[01:01:45]>> Yeah. Again, it depends. Just because somebody isn't awake doesn't mean that there aren't >> Okay. I just said it stipulated. Are you listening? I just said it's stipulated in this case.

[01:01:55]>> Yeah, we can just conceive of a case where it's stipulated that this entity is not, you know, experiencing anything.

[01:02:00]You don't take, you know, in a counterfactual sense, you don't think it's harmful. But I mean, that just seems absurd in this case.

[01:02:07]>> The being no longer has a capacity for consciousness or something.