Speakers debate fetal personhood and bodily autonomy, then test their logic against a hypothetical about a pregnant woman using meth. Speaker F notes how each side's arguments get turned against them, exposing the contradictions in their positions.
He had his own logic used against him. Check this out.
Believe that the moment after the child is outside of the birth canal, that they are now endowed with human rights.
Yes. Interesting.
However, when they are inside of the mother, literally anything you do to them is acceptable because they're inside of the mother.
Oh no, I don't think anything is acceptable, but I think the mother should still have the choice, ultimate authority over what happens to her body.
But there's a child inside her body. Hold on, hold on, hold on. What about meth?
Like, should she be allowed to do meth?
Yeah.
Good question. Good question.
I think if someone is doing meth while they're pregnant, that it is completely acceptable for something like— I don't know what the name of the services in the United States.
Child services. I guess the CPS would be—
Oh, it's her body, though.
You've used my logic against me.
Yeah, it's her body.
She wants to do meth. What's the big deal?
The big deal is that she's intentionally trying to kill a child.
Did you hear that? Does it make any sense to you? Subscribe and share this blessing with a friend.
