From what I've heard in your past videos, you've stated that you're pro-life. When do you believe life begins? Conception? Heartbeat? Pain? Myself being pro-life​, it'd be interesting to know what you think.

@AthurM Well, I mean, it's called "pro-life" so life at conception is seems implied :p

But I think your stance is a common one, especially among leftists. You seem to consider it's value to you or society, instead of considering it's rights. A certain level of morality is required here. From a certain perspective any killing isn't wrong. But pro-lifers generally value human life itself, not what that life has done. Women and black were once not valued as people, but people (ironic how leftst are the ones not valuing people lol)

But imagine if after aborting millions of babies you ralize their lives did matter. Imagine the tragedy. :(

Life begins at conception, that's a scientific fact, but I think the bigger debate to have is "When does personhood begin?" Sure, a fetus from its conception has distinct DNA from its mother, but most pro-choice people aren't concerned with that since it isn't conscious. However, as someone who's pro-life, I'd say that since there's no single point where we can determine where consciousness officially begins (some might even argue that newborns aren't fully conscious), we should err on the side of caution and protection for our most vulnerable stages as humans.


@RoamingMillennial I like your cautious approach, but honestly, "personhood" sounds like a made up concept. Why wouldn't it begin at conception anyway? And dosen't human life itself have value?

@RoamingMillennial That’s what I’ve come to understand: that not only does life begin at conception, but to make any attempt to define life and consciousness otherwise would be a slippery slope altogether.

@Armadillo yeah, im just starting to think about this, and the first angle that came to me was value, but that's only one factor.

like roaming says, consciousness or personhood (i think they use that term in philosophy and law, right?) isn't measureable at one specific point. so erring on the side of caution does seem wise.

is this something that a government should be deciding? i guess since it's their job to protect people and property... they need a working definition of a person... and law evolves along with it's society. what becomes a problem, especially in religious countries, is when supernatural ideas creep into law. it must make it difficult to define a person when powerful guys with dogcollars are talking about souls and life after death and whatnot. if they did that with a house or a piece of land imagine how difficult property law would be. :)