Life, Equality, and Choice: The Abortion Debate | Ann Furedi & Dr. Calum Miller
Get ready for a riveting episode of Unbelievable? part of our ongoing series Rights of Life and Death. Today in The Abortion Debate: Life, Equality, and Choice, we're diving headfirst into the contentious and thought-provoking topic of abortion. What does it mean to say that life begins? What would it take for the fetus or the child to have a right to life, and for this to outweigh the mother’s right to choice? How do we determine moral value? It's a debate that strikes at the very core of life, equality, and personal choice. Brace yourselves as we navigate the delicate balance between the rights of the child and the rights of the mother.
Joining us on this electrifying debate led by moderator Roger Bolton are two extraordinary guests. First, we have Ann Furedi, a leading global pro-choice advocate for almost 40 years, who worked for 17 years as CEO of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. She has written extensively on the ethics of abortion and was awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Social Sciences by the University of Kent. Her groundbreaking book, 'The Moral Case for Abortion: A Defense of Reproductive Choice,' lays out the moral arguments empowering women to make decisions about their pregnancies.
But that's not all. Presenting the Christian worldview and opposing abortion on demand is Dr. Calum Miller, an NHS doctor and an unwavering pro-life advocate. With a medical degree from the prestigious University of Oxford and a deep understanding of philosophy and biblical studies, Dr. Miller brings a unique insight into the intricacies of abortion policy in practice. He's here to challenge our assumptions and shed light on the moral value of the unborn.
In this high-voltage discussion, we'll explore the burning questions that lie at the heart of the abortion debate. When does life truly begin? Is there ever a justifiable reason to take another life? How do we assign moral value to the unborn? And are there conditions that would tip the scales in favour of granting the fetus a right to life that supersedes a mother's right to choice?
Hold on tight as we unpack the very definitions of 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' and their profound implications for the beginning of life, human equality, and personal autonomy. We won't shy away from the tough questions, including the role of women's choice and the intersection of abortion with women's equality. And for those wondering if men should have a voice in this conversation, we'll address that too.
Prepare for an exhilarating, thought-provoking, and mind-expanding discussion. Tune in to this week's episode of Unbelievable as we embark on a quest to unravel the intricate threads of the abortion debate. Don't miss out on this explosive episode.
As always we want to hear what you think, perhaps you have a story or a testimony to share? Do get in touch with us via our social channels or email us unbelievable@premier.org.uk
And if you want to get access to bonus content and get early bird access to online events sign up for our newsletter: account.premierunbelievable.c...
Ann Furedi's book is The Moral Case for Abortion: A Defence of Reproductive Choice www.amazon.co.uk/Moral-Case-A...
Calum Miller an ethicist, philosopher and doctor has created a website calumsblog.com/ offering a weath of information on all the questions [calumsblog.com/abortion-qa/] and topics surrounding the sanctity of life. All his papers are here calumsblog.com/academic-papers/
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/267142101
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• For live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...
This moderator interferes a lot more than Justin. He seemed to interrupt Ann a lot, unfortunately, instead of letting her express her points fully. Overall a good discussion - Ann and Calum would make a great podcast conversation with just the two of them, especially because they are friends who respect each other.
To clarify, his interference made it two conversations in parallel - each participant alternately conversing with him, rather than a fluid conversation with each other.
I agree totally with those opinions.
You should have Lila Rose on the show. I appreciate her approach to the conversation.
Or Seth Gruber- A Voice For The Unborn
Is Justin Brierley no longer hosting the sessions? I miss his restrained ‘neutrality’. This moderator interrupts so frequently that the session is more like his own Q&A rather than a dialogue between the two invited guests.
Absolutely right. I found his constant interruptions very irritating. He did at times raise pertinent points, but Justin Brierley's restrained neutrality, as you put it, was by far the most effective approach overall.
The whole point of getting experts is having them interact, rather than the moderator interacting with them individually. I really dislike this set-up. You might as well do back to back shows with one guest and then the other.
This set up was absolutely abhorrent and should not be practiced in the future. I completely agree
Listened to this on a podcast. Had to see who the gentleman interrupting the guests was. Unbelievable is great because Justin would just steers the conversation between the guests rather than interrogating them. This, this chap shouldn’t host.
I really appreciate Dr. Miller’s approach. More and more I hear Christians relying less on the Biblical/spiritual argument against abortion and focusing on when life begins and the value our society places on life: specifically innocent life. That’s something I have always strived to do when it comes to abortion and it’s good to hear. I also appreciate how this entire discussion was respectful of both sides.
There's an argument to be had whether something without sentience can be called "innocent" in the first place, let alone the womans rights in the matter
I came to the same reasoning about abortion from a human rights perspective, not through religion.
@@sysprogmanadhoc2785 So should you be in a coma from which you will recover in four months in perfect health do you have no human right to life? Can you be killed at someones convenience? And how do you know the baby is not sentient? Is it because feminists say this is so ?
@@sysprogmanadhoc2785 The concept of human rights is flawed. The child has rights just as the woman does. The reality is that the woman has a duty toward the child she has conceived, just as the father has a duty toward the mother & child.
@@martinploughboy988 No, it doesn't
I enjoyed this, but l felt the critique of the pro-abortion position could have been stronger. The host probed about Furedi's support for abortion one day before the due date, but she wasn't asked about killing babies after they are born. Is she opposed to that? If so, on what grounds and why doesn't that also lead her to oppose abortion? Also, she wasn't really challenged on using language that smuggled in rhetoric, for example, that a women denied abortion is "forced to have a baby" (hmm, is the ban on infanticide also a form of forced parenthood??) or, referring to that the act of killing an unborn baby as "ending a pregnancy".
I disagree in many ways. The moderator was harder on Furedi than on Miller. The human organism in the womb is not a baby! There are no babies in the womb. Furthermore, the human organism in the womb does not become a human person before it acquires the capacity for consciousness, so before then it has no rights. The couple can do whatever they wish with it.
Another XY chromosome heard from. Move along.
Interesting question. We can easily say that when it comes to abortion, the mother has the higher moral status and should be given preferance. Yet, everyone realizes when a firefighter has to choose one to save from a burning vehicle, that choice is innate. I think it is so innate that we know without stating it which one the fire fighter would choose.
A woman is not a Burning building. You're metaphor is morally retarded. Pull your head out. "You" (the deferred fire fighter here) don't have to save anyone. You don't have a say, and you dont get to choose her future creation over her present self.. The woman (you're referring to as a building) owns herself and her life can not be discarded because she has the biological ability to create baby humans in 9 months from now... "Anti abortion" is an insect mindset.. get out of people's bodies. A human woman's ability to created living vessels , does not give other members of our species the right to own and control her and that ability.. she chooses when she started and stops at all times. Every single second that creation stays attached and for as long as she wants there after people are trying to play ant and bee by controlling the creators.. but this here species are mammals. Recognize
An eye for an eye.
She thinks that the mother should have more dominant rights ? She has had 20 years give or take to live, she is taking away from her own child the right to even be born. She speaks about the unborn in an abstract, it is her own flesh and blood, her baby. Does she think talking really slow makes her more intelligent ?
1:09:22
Sad that humans, who would not want to step over an ant, are debating this! 😢
Ants dont cause the pregnant woman extreme pain as the unborn does.
@@swansandducks1996 Then she shouldn't have had sex.
Why do you think that is sad?
@@martinploughboy988 it's none of your business. You aren't an ant.. you aren't tasked with controlling and protecting the queen ants that produce baby ants for your species. You are a mammal. Mammals breed in pairs of 2. So unless you're the father, why are you taking part in trying to dictate what women do, that you aren't paired with ? If a man chooses to give his 3 day old sperm to a woman married or not, and she chooses to not grow it , or tried then changed her mind and expells it from her body,, then that's his choice just like it's hers. And if he does it again and she expels it again. It's still the choices they each have over their own creations and roles.. she does not own and control him or his sperm production and he does not own her or her fertized egg production. Neither ability gives anyone the right to control the other at any time.
@@RockLight-vz5wg So why should I not stand up for the weak, for those who have no voice?
It is interesting that the podcast starts with Ruth Jackson speaking of getting Christians thinking, of rights of the unborn & women, when does life begin. Nothing about what God says in His word, the discussion s all about what we think.
God does not exist, and this has been proven. God doesn't have a word.
@@whittfamily1 God is an asshole and a megalomaniac. Aeons of absolute power have clearly corrupted him. And I certainly agree with you that he doesn't have a "word".
Abortion IS a Right! A woman's Right to Vote - To Choose - To Decide ! WithOUT fascist interference!
Its More than that. The word "decide" isn't very clear.. "own" or "control" is more fitting.. like a whole number/word. We aren't insects we're mammals. A human woman's ability to create new humans, don't not give other humans an excuse or right to control her or her power to create. The process isn't instant. It takes 9 months. we're talking about hypothetical future baby humans a year from now, that individual human females have the biological ability to create.. they aren't real nor are they even yours.. so again, we are mammals, not insects. We breed in pairs and by design. Males choose to give sperm (and stay around) and woman choose to accept it or not (or stop growing it or finish it) I'm trying to convey more perspective here
It is extraordinarily CLEAR to the woman who wants an abortion!!! You --!! LEARN!!@@RockLight-vz5wg
It is always wrong to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being. Babies in the womb are innocent human beings, and they deserve the right to life.
You aren't an insect. You don't get to dictate or care for queens and their birthing roles. You are a mammal and we breed in pairs. Each with our own abilities to own and care for. Ourselves... the man chooses to give his sperm to the woman , married or not, and if she chooses to expell it from her body , it's her choice. There are no exemptions or excuses to posses and control one another. Both man and woman has that choice.
Pregnancy is not a disease, abortion is not healthcare, unborn babies are not tumours.
The prolife argument is based on the dishonest conferring of identicality to a pre-born fetus and a post-birth baby
@Excuse me but how sad for a human made in the image of God to say something so vile about another human made in the image of God!
Abortion is frequently healthcare in the case of ectopic pregnancies and the like.
@@finchsparrowbird replied, "Abortion is frequently healthcare in the case of ectopic pregnancies and the like." A salpingectomy is not an abortion, because the embryo has usually died from being implanted in the fallopian tube, and the intention is to save the Mother's life, not intentionally kill the human embryo which will not survive anyway. This is called the principle of double effect, the unintended effect is the embryo/ Foetus will not survive, the intended effect is to save the Mother's life. Those are not abortions because the Mother's life is always paramount. It is better to save one life than lose two.
@@hwd7171 but where the embryo has not yet died? You see, as you define it you draw the line at saving the mother's life, as well. But public official discourse is very often not so "generous". Look at Ohio Bill HB182 for a *starting* example. In some jurisdictions, expressly or indirectly, D&C's and D&Es for miscarriages and uterine infections are being lumped-in with 'normal' terminations and all being classed as abortions as well. I don't agree, and the law is an ass. This doesn't even scratch the surface of the medical needs of rape victims, etc.
The concept of abortion is detrimental to the understanding of the sanctity of life as a basis for a commandment. I'm a Christian who believes that placing selfish desire above a natural action is abhorrent. It is selfish to assume rights when clearly we have none outside of nature's law which govern and place restrictions on our lives. I can agree with contraception as prevention to pregnancy but abortion is ethically and morally evil and symbolises self worship and is idolatry. Emotionally much damage can be done to someone who accepts abortion as a career move. We are not equal and that is why we need ethics. A child has no concept of responsibility, adults can but refuse to accept a code of conduct and now we they worship themselves not God or nature we have lost compassion to self aggrandisement and the debate about moral efficacy of abortion is profound and viscous. It is murder through the back door to deprive life and breaks our obligation to humility and empathy to sacrifice and commitment to provide life and adhere to support the concept.
See, here's the deal. The whole (spoken out loud) argument of the "pro-life" movement is talking about two very different things and calling them by the same name. You then claim that your use of the same word makes the two things the same. It's a linguistic argument made by and illiterates. The true motivation, of course, is kept more quiet but it leaks out often enough. It's a generalized hostility to women and girls.
"We are not equal and that is why we need ethics." I could start to parse that sentence clause by clause tonight and I'd still be at it several days later. The comment makes no sense whatsoever. What is the commenter actually trying to say? Is the commenter an American citizen? Is the commenter aware of reasons WHY we Americans have a Constitution? Does the commenter live in Romania or some other human rights hellhole? I could go on and on, but you get the point. The comment is, in essence, meaningless. At least in the United States, under current Constitutional Law.
The more we understand the earlier we see humanity. At some point you should humble yourself and admit that the things we do not know. One would think the wise thing to do is to take a position of caution toward the being in question. You don't though, you choose you focus on another characteristic that we have noticed, consciousness. I see it as the height of hubris to think we have figured out consciousness or whether it even matters if we could. Do you remember wondering whether born infants could feel pain? Doctors in the 1980's remember wondering 🤔 but cutting anyway till they realized maybe just maybe they were wrong and maybe babies can feel pain. Oops. Anyway you tell me you know what consciousness is and how it truly can be known, detected, understood.
"I would say no because an unborn child is not entitled to human rights" according to one listener. Why have you decided that the unborn child is not entitled to human rights? On what basis? Not human? Is it not too "convenient" to decide "a priori" that a certain class of humans does not really qualify as human? The same reasoning was used to justify slavery, the Holocaust and many other atrocities
Yes! Thank you, Roger. 🙏🏼
I have been thinking for decades that future generations will view abortions as more reprehensible than slavery is viewed today. Two more recent events that I also think will one day be viewed as horrendous is the transitioning of children and the human rights abuses in my country over covid/vaxes.
Complete bollocks Military muscle, ethnicity and religion/ culture were used to justify slavery and the holocaust. The reasons to justify abortion are - on the balance, the rights of the woman supersede the sum of all opposing rights
You are making a category error. You have confused a human organism with a human person, and they just aren't the same thing. A zygote is not a human person. An embryo is not a human person. Even the early fetus is not a human person.
@@whittfamily1- personhood is something we grow into in and out of the womb - where would imply “personhood” begins? If it is upon exiting the womb - why? If not, do young children who don’t have self awareness yet also lack personhood? Can we then end their lives? At what age does this metaphysical reality begin?
"Philosophically, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. As Stephen Schwarz points out using the acronym SLED, differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant in the way that abortion advocates need them to be: Size: Yes, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value. Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four-year-old girls are less developed than fourteen-year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Remember, six-week-old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s disease. Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable. Degree of dependency: If viability makes us valuable human beings, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable, and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life. In short, pro-life advocates contend that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature." -- Scott Klusendorf The Case For Life pg 29.
@Excuse me but to your reply, "Excuse me but "What does equal mean to Mr. Klusendorf?" How about you define your terms and give a case as to why the unborn do not have equal rights under the Constitution? Can you explain how pregnancy tissue differs to neonate tissue?
@Excuse me but replied to my question, How about you define your terms and give a case as to why the unborn do not have equal rights under the Constitution? " By consensus based on harm reduction." By whose consensus? What do you mean by harm reduction? How does 'pregnancy tissue' differ to neonate tissue? Do you support the abortion of neonate tissue?
@Excuse me but By equal Mr Klusendorf argues that human beings have intrinsic value because of the kind of substance that we are, genetically we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens. That's where our egalitarian equality lies, as human beings all part of the same human family. As such we are created free and equal and have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
@Excuse me but , have you considered? Abortion also deprives the unborn human being/person Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Notice our Forefathers wrote “created,” not “born.” In addition, the 14th Amendment states, “...nor shall any state deprive a person of life, liberty or property, without due process of the law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Based on these two statements, it is hard to see how ending an unborn human’s life can be considered “constitutional.”
Calum is a gem.
No. he is a piece of coal.
Freedom from government intervention does not mean that the government should be willing to look the other way while one human being slaughters another. In fact, a basic tenet of conservatism is that if there is only one reason for government to exist, it is to protect the lives of those being governed.
"Those being governed" does not cover embryos.
@@campfireaddict6417 it doesn't cover illegal immigrants either, so can we slaughter them?
@@campfireaddict6417 Really? Then what is the point of legalising abortion? 😂 The entire point of abortion rights or lack thereof rests on the notion that foetuses are being affected by policy and law.
@@MeghanBrowning-cy3tm What about people of another color, did we buy & control them? What about illegal home entry with intent to harm? Can we kill them legally? What about criminals, can we keep them behind bars in isolation for the rest of their lives? When you speak of "one human being slaughtering another one", you're leaving out wars, terrorism, and shooters but I suspect you have an agenda.
@@theconductor9356 Does it matter to the embryo/fetus?
It is immoral to end an.innocent life. The termination of a viable pregnancy for any reason other than life of the mother is immoral. There may be a question of ethics: rape or incest being an ethically sound argument. Convenience and finances are not good ethical arguments, even though one may sympathize with an individual's situation. Adults should use appropriate birth control when choosing whether to engage in sexual intercourse. That is the appropriate point of decision; not after the fact when one is considering to selfishly end an innocent life.
"It's not innocent, it's a parasite!!!"
An early fetus has the innocence of a rock. The prolife argument is nothing but an appeal-to-emotion fallacy Moreover, only the extremely ignorant don't know that around 25% of abortions are for "non-convenience" reasons
Well said I agree entirely. When a couple consent to sex they also consent to the possibility of a child, even if contraception riduces that possibility.
When a couple consent o sex, if the woman is prochoice she consents to the possibility of an abortion
@@sysprogmanadhoc2785 yeah, shows that free sex is for moral degenerates
Calum is exceptionally qualified to speak on this. He's written some good philosophical papers. Excellent.
He is a fascist...
It’s not personal, private,or individual when we all have to pay for it. So….GFY!
Yeah. Bringing in more babies into poor families...the taxpayer has to foot the bill for all the additional social care until the baby is adult. I'm defo not interested in paying more taxes
@@sysprogmanadhoc2785 we should drop napalm on the global south, too. Imagine how much we'd save without needing to pay foreign aid!
Grace and Peace to You. May I Contact You via Email or Facebook to Discuss this Further?
@@sysprogmanadhoc2785 So you object to paying taxes to fund the killing of babies?
@@sysprogmanadhoc2785 You're assuming the family rely on the state.
This is the year 2023 (sorry for the captain obvious weakness I have) and everyone is relatively knowledgeable of the biological sciences or at least can find the truth online. So my question is this: why are we debating whether abortion is an acceptable human behavior? No one actually believes that. And why is a truth known to the entire medical community treated as if it doesn't exist - that the unborn is so completely and entirely different than either the mother or father to the extent that neither blood cells nor any other living cells can transfer from the mother to child nor visa-versa. If tissue or cells were to mix, it would trigger an allergic, rejection response, because of the difference in genetic makeup. This is the very wondrous placental barrier that keeps the pregnant mother separate from the baby. This is a physiological phenomenon that every woman develops to prevent abortion, to protect the life of the baby.
So, what I try so ineptly to say is, the debate should be : why do some "say" that abortion is acceptable. That is the only question left if you really think about it.
Miscarriages don't protect the life of the unborn.
With love I ask you to review the definition of autonomous, and then also to understand that a developing baby is genetically and individually 100% distinct from you. Maybe you could ask a doctor other than myself.
Wouldn't the value of one's child be higher than the value of the parent? As someone who has given birth to two children I can't for one moment fathom why the mother's life would matter more than that of the baby.
@@Excusemebut123aside from rape, when is NOT your choice to make?
So you cant fathom, ok. That doesnt mean others are as limited in their capabilities to fathom.
I don't think the value of the child's life is higher than that of the mother. I think both are exactly equally valuable and entitled to benefit from all the rights that are extended to human beings including the right to not be killed.
If the mother dies who's going to raise the child? A lot of men but they believe that thing at the hospital. And I only say it that way because there are far more single mothers and single fathers...... And as long as the mother survived she can always try to have another child. If the mother dies in childbirth that child is not guaranteed to get another mother.
@@AdelTheForsaken so what is your point? Is it better do die rather than to be an orphan? If so, then it would be morally benevolent to kill off all orphans. It would be a mercy, since death is preferable to motherless life. I do not think you want to go that way
The argument for a right to abortion with no upper temporal limit is a facile one at best. Find a woman a day or a month away from her due date where the pregnancy is a normal one who suddenly decides to have an abortion. And, find a OB/GYN willing to perform it. This is not a red herring, it’s a red whale of a fiction. Late term complications to a pregnancy do happen, but that is a completely different scenario. The moderator surely knows the difference, I would assume, so why not just state it?
They like to make women & doctors out to be monsters with a lust for killing babies which is such a load of rubbish.
How ignorant to think people didn’t comprehend fertilization until a couple thousand years ago. Don’t you think the first dozens of generations would have figured out how babies are made?
Did the "first dozen generations" figure out the importance of hand-washing? Did the "first dozen generations" figure out the relationship of eating poisonous food (berries, rot) and dying? Did the "first dozen generations" figure out germs? Drinking from rivers/streams/ponds/lakes and getting deathly sick? These primitive people were much too busy figuring out how to survive daily. It was thousands of years before fire was even figured out, or horses could be used for transportation, or what herbs to use to poison their spears, and this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Why did you even bother to invite a pro-choice representative to take part? It was a token gesture at best. The infrequently offered invitation to speak was often interrupted by the moderator with his agenda in hand.
I don't really agree that the moderator was biased towards the pro-life guest. However his constant interruptions really undermined the effectiveness of the exchange.
I love this host! I hope he stays. God bless you all ❤🙏😃
This was a fascinating discussion, but all three persons had various mistaken views and I will discuss some of them. Feredi is wrong that pregnant women should have no restrictions on their liberty to choose abortion or retention of their ZEF (zygote-embryo-fetus). Yes, they have rights, but these rights must be balanced with the rights of a fetal person in some cases and the rights to the father in other cases. The Bible says little or nothing about abortion as it is practiced in modern times. The Bible should not be used as a reference for moral decisions on this topic. The term “unborn child” is inaccurate, unscientific, misleading, and propagandistic. It should not be used in a serious discussion of abortion. Use terms like: zygote, embryo, fetus, fetal person, etc. BTW, a baby is a fetus which has already been born. The term “child” has several meanings and lends itself readily to equivocation; no need to use it either. Even if Miller is correct that the same word is used in the Bible to refer to a fetus and to an infant, we should not accept this prejudicial classification in a modern secular discussion of abortion. We must decide under what conditions a ZEF may be aborted, morally and legally. The relevant question is not “When does life begin?” Rather it is “When does the fetus become a person to whom rights should be assigned?” Of course an individual living human organism begins at conception, but it is not a person. In the early stages it is PROPERTY which belongs equally to the woman and man who produced it! Isn’t this obvious? Even if through science and technology there is invented a way to sustain the ZEF from conception to full lung functioning, the mother and father should still have the right to destroy it up to the point it becomes a person. Before then, it is their property! The moderator interrupted Furedi too often. He should let her finish her thoughts. Miller is just wrong that the ZEF has or should be accorded rights before it becomes a person. The parents have the right to destroy it before then because it is their property. They have property rights! It is like owning a pet dog, except that the living property happens to be human. Contra Miller, we aren’t equal as human organisms. We are equal only as human persons. The early ZEF is not a person! In almost all cases of abortion the mother isn’t wanting an abortion to protect her life. She has other reasons. Contra Miller, the ZEF (prior to becoming a person) and the mother are NOT “fundamentally equal.” No way! Miller claims that the fetus can probably feel pain around 10 weeks from conception, but his opinion is in the minority. Most relevant experts think that it is around 24 weeks post conception. But even if Miller is correct, then why does he use conception for the start of personhood rather than the capacity to feel pain? Viability has nothing to do with personhood in the moral or scientific sense. I believe Miller is mistaken in his conclusion that for women who have unwanted pregnancies those who get abortions have worse mental health outcomes than women who don’t. I would ask him to produce the relevant data. The moderator says “we aren’t having enough children being born,” and he is absolutely wrong about this. The world is suffering from overpopulation. Couples should be having no more than one child so that we can get the population down to about half of what it is currently. Furedi says she would like to take abortion out of the criminal law, and she is just wrong about that. The rights of all involved persons - the mother, the father, the fetal person, and the medical personnel - must all be protected by the state. The moderator seems to think that an abortion by definition entails the killing of the fetus, and he is just wrong. An abortion is a premature removal of the ZEF, and this removal may or may not result in death of the ZEF, depending on the couples’s intentions, the age and physical status of the ZEF, and the intentions and skills of the doctors. Furedi sets up a straw man when she says politicians should stay out of a family’s decision about a specific abortion. Politicians don’t do that anyway. They make the laws regarding abortion and should make them on the basis of input from relevant experts, but they should not themselves participate in the abortion decisions of a specific couple. Miller’s whole position is based on the assumption that the human organism from conception is a human person and should be accorded full human rights, including a right to life. His assumption is irrational and wrong! The ZEF does not become a human person until it acquires the capacity for consciousness at approximately 24 weeks post conception. Furedi and Miller are both at the opposite extremes on the abortion issue and they are both wrong. Miller says “it will be hard to find a middle ground” and he is wrong about that also. The rational position, called the “pro-person” position, is the middle ground. Miller’s principle of equality does not apply to the ZEF before it becomes a person. Before then, the ZEF is the property of the couple and they can do whatever they want with it. For illegal abortions Miller recommends that the doctor who performed the abortion be punished in some way, but he isn’t specific about the penalty, and he thinks the woman should be totally forgiven even though she is the person who requested, demanded, or solicited the abortion. For most crimes the mastermind or commander in a conspiracy is the one usually given the harshest sentence. Why would Miller deviate from this traditional moral and legal precedent? The standard penalty for an illegal abortion for all participating parties should be one year and one day incarceration. Unfortunately, Furedi believes pregnant women are infallible in their abortion decisions and should not be held accountable for moral or legal errors, according to the majority of a community.
One year and one day incarceration? Where did that come from?
@@laurameszaros9547 A judge and I, two experts, rationally decided that this would be the best penalty for any illegal abortion for any adult participant in it. The penalty is given for a felony, considered to be a serious crime relative to a misdemeanor. If you disagree with our proposal, tell us why and also present and defend your alternative.
@@whittfamily1 A year and a day seems quite arbitrary. I agree there should be penalties for flouting abortion law. IMO they should depend on circumstances. The woman who was sentenced, a few days ago, to 28 months for aborting her 32 week old foetus despite there being no good medical reason for doing so, should have got 8 years and been required to serve 4. Someone in direr straits would deserve far less. Case by case basis. I actually agree with many of the points you have made. Certainly both Furedi and Miller are extremists, each in respect of their position. I would myself like to see abortion limits being significantly restricted, whilst not wanting to see abortion outlawed entirely.
@@laurameszaros9547 LM: A year and a day seems quite arbitrary. GW: It may seem that way to you, but there are good reasons for it. First, it is the lowest felony. Secondly, penalties for killing a nascent human organism should never be as great as for killing an adult human. Thirdly, I’d bet if you took a scientific survey of a random sample of 25K Americans and that a “year and a day” was one of the alternatives, I suspect that it would get the most endorsement. What do you suggest as a penalty? LM: I agree there should be penalties for flouting abortion law. GW: Yes, for violating abortion law. LM: IMO they should depend on circumstances. GW: Yes, I agree, but that should be true for all violations of the law. I believe that there should be a standard sentence length for all crimes requiring incarceration and then the judge should have the authority to raise or lower the sentence length by 10%, depending on aggravating or mitigating circumstances. And so, if the standard penalty is 366 days incarceration for an illegal abortion, the judge should have the authority to raise it or lower it by 37 days. I think that is the most rational approach. LM: The woman who was sentenced, a few days ago, to 28 months for aborting her 32 week old foetus despite there being no good medical reason for doing so, should have got 8 years and been required to serve 4. GW: I disagree. That is excessive. She should have gotten 365 plus 37 days which equals 402 days incarceration. Also, a 32 week old fetus is likely to survive after abortion. LM: Someone in direr straits would deserve far less. Case by case basis. GW: Yes, circumstance should matter, but not too much. We ought not give judges too much power. LM: I actually agree with many of the points you have made. GW: That’s great! LM: Certainly both Furedi and Miller are extremists, each in respect of their position. GW: Yes, I think they are. LM: I would myself like to see abortion limits being significantly restricted, whilst not wanting to see abortion outlawed entirely. GW: After the fetus becomes a person at 24 weeks, then an abortion should be allowed only if any of give good reasons are present; otherwise it should be disallowed. GW: Before the fetus becomes a person, I would like to see the male partner have more power in the decision making process with respect to abortion. What do you think about that?
@@whittfamily1 When I hear "a year and a day" cited, I think first of all about the length of time it takes to train a witch, following which she is eligible to enter a traditional coven. Seriously though. I'm a Brit, not an American. I know the majority of mainstream opinion regarding sentience hovers between 24 and 28 weeks, but Miller was right in saying that there are experts who disagree. I have seen actual footage of an abortion being carried out at 15 weeks, and was as horrified by it as I have always been when watching footage in slaughterhouses. Even if the foetus suffers no pain or distress, still a visceral reaction. The British woman recently sentenced to 28 months jail for aborting her 32 week foetus had lied about the length of her pregnancy in order to obtain medication over the internet, totally inappropriate for a termination beyond the first few weeks. As you say, a foetus is entirely viable at that age, and to my mind was much closer to being an act of murder than it was to an abortion. If you follow her case on UK social media you will see that there has been virtually no sympathy whatever for her motivations, and the majority of the comments that I have read concerning her were clamouring for a much heavier sentence than the one which the judge dispensed. I would like to see abortion limits brought down to something resembling the average within European countries, i.e. around 12 weeks, with certain later exceptions allowed in truly exceptional circumstances. Our current 24 weeks is nothing short of barbarism. In principle it would be good if the male partner had more power in the decision making process, as you advocate. In practice I am not so sure. If he disagrees with the woman, to the extent that he wants the baby and she does not, I would want to be assured that he would be prepared to take full responsibility for every aspect of parenting before allowing him equal access to the decision. My hunch is that most men in this situation would probably not want to give up their jobs and financial status to care for a baby, whatever they might claim at the outset.
Please choose to adoption of your baby. That child is a future taxpayer. Retiring is not always easy. Social security is barely enough to live on; even with Medicare help. Rising rents, cost of food and energy. I worked almost 50 years. Paid my taxes and retired. All my neighbors are elderly too. SOMEDAY, you will have to retire too. 😮
You're definitely not a smart guy. Did you know that women are capable of having an abortion and then having a baby in the future when they feel more ready?
The number of annual miscarriages just in the U.S. alone is approximately 1 million, and 23 million worldwide. Given the numbers, the idea that God cares about the "right to life" of the unborn is utterly absurd and fanciful.
Grace and Peace to You. May I Contact You via Email or Facebook to Discuss this Further?
@@lark8356 Could you please tell me what you specifically want to talk about?
@@onionbelly_ Sure. I'd like to discuss whether Jesus is pro life.
@@lark8356 Cool, as long as the discussion is related to my original comment, I'm more than happy to discuss this with you. I'll send you an email now.
@@onionbelly_ Great. I just responded to your email.
So what you are asking is what it would take for your claim that a potential human being's life is more important than a human being's life. Well, you might want to ask your god since it has no problem ripping open wombs, committing genocide, etc. Why did it decide that those potential humans, and actual humans had less right to life than others?
Well, is it not actually YOUR position that ANY unborn child does not have any rights to live? Or are you a prolifer?
When was it said that the physical life of the baby is worth more than the physical life of the mother? Are you saying that one persons job prospects, sex life, or convenience justifies killing another human? Or have I misunderstood?
@@grannyannie2948 I"m sorry but I have no idea what you are asking. I am pointing out that the bible god has no problem in killing children, ripping open pregnant wombs, etc.
@@DartNoobo sorry, I don't understand what you are saying.
@@velkyn1 are you prochoice?
The bible has been and always will be cherry picked to suit the emotional needs and intellectual bent of the believing reader .
Grace and Peace to You. May I Contact You via Email or Facebook to Discuss this Further?
@@lark8356 I prefer to discuss here.
@@Suzume-Shimmer I understand. Thank you for your response.
@@lark8356 Do you find that untrue?
@@campfireaddict6417 I'd be happy to discuss on another platform.
She loses right away because her "morality" has no basis. She must borrow it from Christianity, whch is anti abortion. She can argue on other merits, but morality is not one of them.
It’s a woman’s 👩🏻 choice whether her child 👶 should live or die! 🤫
Some choices are wrong, like killing unborn innocent human beings, no one should have the choice to do that. You even concede that the unborn are children, do you support infanticide as well? What is the cut off age?
Oh please, what a tired old line. Nobody has the 'choice' to murder an unborn human beings
Yeah, screw the father. He has no rights.
@@manlikeJoe1010 who said anything about born or unborn? Just a child
@@DartNoobo The original comment is clearly in the context of the unborn with reference to the video topic
Consent to sex is indeed not consent to pregnancy - because pregnancy is not a consentable action. And if consent to pregnancy cannot be given, then it cannot be revoked or withdrawn via an abortion, and justification for abortion must come from a different argument than right to refuse or revoking consent to pregnancy.
@Excuse me but Why are you assuming the unborn are a part of a woman's body?
@Excuse me but ,you are simply wrong when you write, "...A fertilized egg and embryonic tissue are like a template for a baby but it will not grow unless the mother provides the materials from her own body...." The only material the mother's body provides is the nourishment the embryo needs to sustain his/ herself whilst directing his/her own maturation in the embryonic sac. A fertilised egg is called a blastocyst/ Zygote which is the first stage of Human gestation. When the Oocyte and sperm unite they combine to form the blastocyst, there is no longer any egg or sperm, that just shows your ignorance on embryology. The "embryonic tissue" is a whole living and individual Human Being. You didnt come from embryonic tissue you once were embryonic tissue at that stage of gestation. Look up The Endowment for Human Development for more information.
@@hwd7171 Well said. In no other circumstance would convenience be accepted as defence for murder.
All liars and frauds!