Oh good lord, not this language manipulation again… Human is a word that doesn't mean that much, human being denotes a person, as in an individual who has a basic brain capacity that allows it the basic thinking, feeling, percieving and reacting to input etc etc…"But how about people with disorders who can't feel pain, are they less human?!" No, don't be daft, it's a disorder, it's not supposed to be that way, but it is, it's a broken bit that can be remedied (or not in some cases, regrettably), but that doesn't make them less human.

    A fetus within elective abortion limits (in the vast majority of countries) cannot think, feel, do anything thaT a later fetus/born human can, thus there's no moral dilemma of terminating the pregnancy, thus killing the fetus, other than what you personally invest emotionally. How you feel is entirely your business, and you're entitled to your feelings, all fine and dandy. But you can't force it onto others.

    And no. You don't automatically get to be considered a person. Development matters. Brain development specifically, and that's mostly what the bill of human rights (in this relation) is based on. A fetus without a brain is not a person.

    So kindly can it with these manipulative speciesist and emotionally blackmailing speeches.

    In Islam, the "pro-life versus pro-choice" issues didn't exist because there's a clear definition of when a foetus became a human, which is on the 120th day. In secular society, the problem is, the "pro-life" argument assumes that a foetus is a human-being since it was an embryo, this is an over-simplification and it conflicted a lot with with people's choice and freedom (and it conflicted with science too). I hope science find a "line" that define when a human isn't an embryo, so that people stop using these pro-life's irrational generalisation & emotion to push lawmaker & government to create a law that punish people .

    oh man at 46 min she mentions what is hard… I really wish she mentioned adoption, although hard, still one of the options.

    this is a brilliant and very moving talk about being human in all areas of life – thank you for posting

    but clearly cannot have civil discourse talking about why women arent represented in tech… quite tje opposite for such a tolerant culture. Shame bell @ Google. 😝🔔🕭🔔

    Philosophy not based upon Science is NOT philosophy. PHILOS+SOPH[IA] = Love of Knowledge. Knowledge is simply the end game of Science. Science is preformed not only through biological, & physical, & chemical, researches, but also through mathematical, logical, & imangenational, researches. Those researches illuminate through the Art of the models, imagical & physical, that come from them, the Nature of Existence & the Reality it produces, & it is that Nature which Science, including philosophy, has as its one subject.

    Consciousness is the one proper determination of personhood. Consciousness is logically best calculated as a basic, elementary, aspect of Existence, present thus in all things that are abstracts of Existence with lives & paths to make in the Reality Existence generates. That is the scientific approach to understanding personhood, & it should be extended not only to humans at all stages of life, but also to all things, flora, fauna, mineral, chemical, atom, physical, imageny, etc.
    Now, the abortion debate is riddled with fallacy & overly limited ideology. Abortion is immoral, it is the killing of a person, AND it is immoral to force a person [be it a woman, an hermaphrodite, a man] to act as a life-support unit for another person against that first person's will. The sole moral solution to this paradox is to pour our joint resources into the development of an artificial womb, which will allow the protection of the child from death & the liberation from a terrible torture the person who is carrying the child. That is what we all should be striving for. Both sides must lay down their arms & raise up their minds & resources to such wholly accurate solutions to this grave issue. Then we can at last move on in a completely satisfactory way.

    I've got to admit she gives some pretty convincing arguments. For the most part I'd say I'm pro life, however i can see some circumstances where abortion could be incredibly useful. For instance if a child gets raped and becomes pregnant. The child has a higher risk of death, so abortion might be a good option. Especially since the fetus can not feel pain under 20 weeks of conception because the nerves system has not fully developed. Yet the pregnant child can feel excruciating pain. So while it is unlikely that i would have an abortion, I think it should be legal.

    Abortion will eventually be abolished. And it will not be because of political rhetoric but more so, medical advancement .

    As non surgical guaranteed contraception develops; along with advance knowledge of the fetus which was once inconceivable. Plus technological advancements more profound than the ultrasound which allow parents to interact and dare I say, play games with the fetus at earlier stages become increasingly possible; abortion will be abolished.

    And I can see those people looking back at our age with disgust, much like how we look back at earlier civilization which left deformed, disabled or unwanted female newborns in the cold to die

    "I find advocates of abortion distressingly unwilling to address the question of when human life/personhood begins and when they do, their answers are not difficult to refute. It wasn’t until years later that I figured out it was largely irresponsible sexual behavior that was making abortion more and more a “necessity” rather than confusion about when human life begins. (Thus my interest in contraception.)"

    "The root principle of birth-control is unsound. It is a glorification of the means and a contempt of the end; it says that the pleasure which is a means to the procreation of children is good, but the children themselves are no good. In other words, to be logical, the philosophy of birth-control would commit us to a world in which trees were always blooming but never giving fruit, a world full of sign-posts that were leading nowhere. In this cosmos every tree would be a barren fig-tree and for that reason would have upon it the curse of God." –Archbishop Fulton Sheen

    This dumb bitch won't answer what the penalty for an abortion should be. Typical cowardly "pro-rape" tactics. Fuck these people.

    I had really bad cancer last year and am still struggling but an 18-year old girl in Hospice with Huntington's Disease I know has joy and enthusiasm for life that made me never feel despair for myself. So you're 100% right I am living proof.

    Thank you Miss Gray for this beautiful perspective on LIFE..)))))))).All Life Is Precious (((((((( Believe me youll regret what youve done

    Excellent. And as a fellow Catholic I appreciate the fact that she didn't even need to insert a religious argument. This is simply an issue of basic human right to life for the most vulnerable members of humanity. Anyone, Faith or no Faith can comprehend this.

    Technically when a male ejaculates the sperm are already life and technically you kill millions of sperm when only one should be able to make it. So is the life the human or the life of the sperm? Why are you putting humans higher than other organisms. Cause humans are not any higher. Ego.

    Our quesrions to Ms Gray would be1. Do you believe in organ donation? If so, how do you justify killing a person, we say killing because, if you believe all humans are in fact alive, regardless of age or current abilities or cognition, then do you think keeping someone on life supoort soley to harvest organs for another, is in fact 'killing' them? If not, why? 2. If you believe a womens womb is life supoort for an embryo and fetus and without it, via abortion, the embryo or fetus would die, and you believe this be ending a person's life, do you then think a life supoort machine providing life to persons connected, if removed, either by virtue of organ donation or by family or person own request is also murder or suicide, respectively? If not, why?
    3.Recently my daughters high school class watched this video and was then assigned questions to answer. My daughter, an articulate, intelligent, sefless, caring young women, took offense to your using people with disabilities to further your personal agenda. People with disabilities don't exists to empower you, Ms. Gray, or to inspire you or to make people without disabilities feel better about themselves or grateful they don't have a disability. It's offensive you would make a generalized statement that most people, if asked if they became disabled would they want to live(that way) and most would say no. Although your attempt at encompassing literally all people, from survivors of the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, people with disabilities, young teens, rape survivors and even your last photo of what appears to be an older women who regrets having had an abortion, to Captain Sully, in your quest to prove your position, was quite imoressive, it seems you have spoken for just about everyone except those who don't regret it, except those who want the choice and except those who didn't fit your position, other then your own attempt at counter arguments So our next question is, why? And do you think A dialogue that is one sided is a conversation? If so, how?
    5. Your analogies of a mom and baby on sinking car and fetus in one hand and baby in the other and you can only save one is flawed. You say we save the weaker, the less able, instinctively so baby was save before mom on the sinking car. But the fetus and baby analogy doesn't work. The baby in your hand is alive, breathing, thinking, cognitively aware and can survive without mom if she were to die, whereas the fetus is already dead if it's in your hand . How do you justify asking a person to choose between a baby and a ferus. Our last question is, Have you asked any willingly pregnant moms if they HAD to choose between saving their own life & by extension, their unborn fetus or embryo or saving the life a their child in their arms, at home or away at college, which would they choose? Or a woman whose already a mom to other kids if they had to choose between saving their own life or their fetus/embryos life, which would they choose?
    As a mom to three I can easily say I'd save the lives of my children before my own and Id save my life before a fetus or embryo so I can be here for my children who are already here. I can try to have another but my kids only have me. That's me. I don't speak for all mom's or all women and would never insinuate that I do or that my opinion is the only right opinion and I would never use other people's suffering or abilities to further or attempt to prove my opinion. That's what an opinion is. Your lecture was based almost entirely on the backs other peopleside experience, experienceso you your self obviously have no experience with. How do you preach and make money off of other people's stories and think that's ok?

    She talks about personhood (good) but then decides that an embryo qualifies as a member of the "human family" and therefore deserves human rights based on semantics and her interpretation of the meaning of "human family" in the "universal declaration of human rights" which states that all members of the human family have inalienable human rights including the right to life.  Very convenient to make the decision that "human family" = homo sapiens (even before birth), or that to be a "person" requires only having the potential to be conscious, rational and self-aware, rather than actually being those things.  Her arguments are all very convenient, but all self-referential.  When you take out that one semantic trick, the rest of her arguments fall away.  Instead we are left with the only real debate being at what point does personhood, or humanity, actually begin.  She says that the only logical place is at conception.  It may be the most convenient place, but no, it is by no means the only logical place.

    She also projects her own interpretation on other people's actions.  For example, she says that decision to save a baby from drowning before the mother is prioritizing the weak over the strong.  That interpretation is ridiculous. The decision is prioritizing the probability of saving two lives over saving just one (duh!). Likewise, when those oxygen masks drop down in an airplane, you put your own mask on before putting it on your child.  Is that prioritizing the strong over the weak?  No, it is again prioritizing saving two lives over just one.

    She's good at what she does, and she can wind you around, but in the end does not make a convincing argument.

    Mary Lou

    The problem with what she said is that she never actually addressed the dependency argument and instead talked about inherent parental responsibility (which doesn’t exist)

    So… lemmie get this straight. At 13:00 she mentions that the embryo is growing, and thus living… i see it that the mother's body is putting it together. If we remove the mother from the equation, is it still growing? If i put together legos in my free time is my creation living? It was created from a human, and it is growing… does that make it living? No!

    17:07 so… what you're saying is that when the sperm merges with the egg, that is the moment life starts. That is like saying that by rolling a bowling ball i got a strike. Basically, my point is that, rather than saying that if i do this then this is the outcome, how about saying "this is a neccicary step for the wanted outcome"

    I love this! Her approach is so civil, so calm. Even if you disagree, you’ve got to appreciate that she’s starting discussion without starting conflict.

    If civil society prioritizes the weak as Gray argues, then our society should do all it can to help children and not separate them from their parents at the border, it should make sure we have enough money to provide housing for homeless elderly, it should provide enough money to provide universal health care for all.

    We enter the human vessel at first breath or latter. God is concerned with souls development. Adults and children should not be imprisoned for being involved with abortion. A co-worker one morning said to me. I was shown you in a past life in a dream last night. You were a military officer. You were wearing this blue hat and it was you. I told him yes that the blue hat was part of my military uniform. What I did not say was my name at that time period. I was married in my uniform. I died in a battle and I know exactly where that occurred. In 1987 I had experiences that taught me many things. An out of body experience. Experience with the light and sound of God. I met a woman. I was shown her past. As a girl, she lived in a house with her grandparents out upon a dirt road. They loved her very much. I was shown that later her husband, a young blonde haired man and young blonde haired niece died in a car accident due to his drinking alcohol. Two coffins were buried upon a grassy hill. One large coffin and one small coffin. She agreed that that which I was shown was indeed true. I told her about her husband standing behind her while she is seated at the dinner table. Do you ever feel him there? Her reply was " yes ". I went further back into her past lives and was shown one of her as a nun. An embodiment for minutes, hours or years be that male or female does not guarantee escape from revolving in and out of the physical embodiments. " Soul " is that which we are. We do not have a soul as we are " soul ". After having the out of body experience I wanted to know of people who knew about this. I was told by a man at a Metaphysical bookstore that Eckankar knows about being out of the body. I traveled to an Eckankar center and borrowed some books. I found that Eckankar taught about the experiences I was having. Past lives, the light and the sound of God and more was in the teachings. ECKANKAR—The Path of Spiritual Freedom.

    Suffering isn't the only amoral infliction to place onto living beings. If you were to kill a human being in their sleep, in a way that was completely painless and that caused them no suffering, is that acceptable? Just because the human didn't suffer, it would be fine to kill them? I would argue that it is STILL wrong to kill someone, even if they can't feel it and even if they won't suffer. I think we all have to admit that things can be amoral for a variety of reasons. I think one of the MAJOR reasons it is considered amoral to kill innocent humans is partly because we know we are taking away their future. Killing a tree is not the same as killing a fetus. A tree will NEVER become a thinking, conscious being. A fetus, however, is actively developing more and more complex levels of consciousness. Their future is fully a head of them. This is also one of the reasons why it is considered especially heinous to harm or kill children. This is why it's especially tragic when a child dies as opposed to a 95 year old person in their sleep. One human has already lived their entire life, the other human had their life stolen from them. So, I would argue that once a unique human life begins (at fertilization) there is a VERY good reason why that organism would have moral value within our society. If you believe ALL human beings regardless of their age, stage in development, size, location, and capabilities are of value, then abortion is amoral and wrong. Just because a human being is less developed, doesn't mean it is less human or less worthy of life. With the logic of "certain levels of neurological capability means the entity is 'human enough'", infants would be "less human" than 3 year old toddlers, and 3 year old toddlers would be "less human" than teenagers, and the list goes on and on. It is nonsensical. We recognize that ALL of these humans are valuable, they are just at different stages of their life and have different capabilities respective to their stage in life.

    As a deeply pro-life guy myself (and not just pro-birth at that), I have a couple of legitimate questions: How should we date people's ages? When I was three months along inside my mother, was I three months old, or was I negative six months old? And depending on how that question is answered, why don't we give citizenship to children based on the country they were conceived in instead of the country they were born in?

    She is incredibly articulate and although she is religious, she does not use religion to argue, which is particularly effective. Excellent.

    It's so wonderful; to see such wonderful throng of conscientious Americans; marching for the rights of the unborn.

    In EVERY OTHER march; people are marching for themselves; in one way or another.

    For THEIR rights.

    Not to minimize, the need; for civil rights; for those who are walking the Earth.

    But let's not forget: that the unborn cannot march; for themselves. So GOD BLESS each and every person who took time, to travel to Washington D.C. to stand up; literally, for those who cannot yet stand up for themselves.

    To declare; "I exist!"

    And I have RIGHTS!

    Remember, that the US Supreme Court, in Roe Vs. Wade was a decision of FIVE human beings.

    You only need five people. To make a majority decision on the Court. And those five people. Misguided as they were, are not responsible, in a way; for the deaths of over 40 MILLION American children.

    Imagine the Viet Nam Memorial, which encourages us to remember; through the immortalization of names, the some 55,000 dead servicemen that gave their lives in the fight for the freedom of the South Vietnamese.

    I've been there; it's a wall about half the length of a football field, and about 7 feet high.

    If a wall, on the same proportions, was built for the victims of legalized abortion, it would stretch from the lawn outside the Washington Monument in D.C. to the city of Baltimore; and nearly back again.

    THAT is how many children have been pillaged. Have been plundered. Have had their little arms, and little legs; RIPPED off with sharp forceps, designed to grab, and bite and pull.

    Imagine, sticking a pair of sharp tongs into a woman. Into the very depths of a woman, and reaching in the dark for something to grab hold of.

    Aided by ultrasound, and modern imaging these forceps are guided to little hands, and feet, and limbs of the most helpless members of our society.

    And members of our society they are. For as Dr. Seuss said, "A person's a person no matter how small."

    And these little human beings have LIFE. Have feelings. Have a soul.

    And their little limbs are moving, in a fluid, a solution of nutrient rich amniotic fluid designed to PROTECT them from bumps and bruises in case their mother abruptly bumps into something, belly-first.

    These little people whom God designed to be protected, are then RIPPED APART.

    The forceps grab one of their limbs. And with a sharp TUG; rips it off. And as the baby cries out in horror and pain and shock inside it's mother's womb; the place that should be the safest place on Earth, no one hears their cry except God. And his angels.

    And then as their dismembered arm; or leg, is placed on a cold metallic tray along side the table where this horrific operation is conducted; to the horror of God himself, that instrument of pain, and death is placed BACK INTO his mother and his OTHER LEG IS GRABBED, and pulled wholly or in part from it's socket. Tearing flesh, and bleeding blood into the otherwise pure, and life-giving fluid surrounding him.

    His other leg is placed on the metal tray, and back into the woman who should for all sake of reason and rightness be PROTECTING him; is forced the sharp set of tongs. The teeth of them grabbing his arm. And ripping it off. It is placed on the tray.

    Then the horror continues.

    As his other arm. Is ripped off.

    Finally as all of his limbs are dismembered from his body, his little skull is crushed.

    Pieces of him are pulled off at random. Anything the abortionist can get hold of.

    This is a crime against life of the highest degree.

    A crime against God.

    A crime against humanity!

    And as the pieces of his skull are taken out one at a time, and his brains and bodily fluid sucked from his mother's womb with a vacuum nozzle, finally she is scraped clean.

    With a rough, large spoon.

    To ensure that not one trace of him is left inside her.

    Because she has so much malice and hatred for him that she hired an assassin to kill him before he could even take his first step.

    Before he could cry in the air, before he could laugh, or sing, or dance, or leap for joy; everything that made him a person was destroyed.

    Now is this always only a mother who wants her child dead? No.

    Sometimes a mother takes her young daughter who is with child to this doctor and demands that he perform this atrocity upon her.

    And upon her son.

    Sometimes a husband demands that a wife kill her son otherwise he will leave her.

    Sometimes it is a boyfriend.

    Or in this sad, sick age we live in, even a homosexual lover who finds that her female partner is with child.

    And demands that if the woman wants to continue in this sinful relationship that she must be FREE FROM MEN. And must destroy this life within her.

    Which was created by her reaching back towards the normal side of human relationships.

    For only a MAN and a WOMAN TOGETHER can make a child.

    No two women can accomplish the task. Nor can any two men without a woman have a child.

    For God created woman so "man would not be alone."

    "It is not good for him to be alone" said the Lord.

    And so He created a partner for Adam.

    And he did it by taking some of Adam's own flesh. An intimate part of him. His rib.

    For what is closer to your heart than your rib.

    And so a woman should hold a place CLOSE to a man's heart.

    And too many husbands and boyfriends are UNWILLING TO BE fathers!

    Too many women are unwilling to be mothers! And yet in their sin they are creating children and then tossing them aside!

    Asunder! They are killing the very thing they have, with God; CREATED.

    This cries out to heaven for vengeance. For justice.

    And of course; for prayer. For only through prayer and fasting are some things accomplished.

    Remember when the Disciples asked the Lord, "Why are our prayers not being answered?"

    And it was because they were PRAYING but not FASTING!

    They were not offering a SACRIFICE in the form of hunger to the Lord that He might then REWARD them for their hunger, for their empty bellies with a great grace of ANSWERING THEIR PRAYER!

    And how many women, now have empty bellies. But not because of hunger and fasting and sacrifice but because of the sin of infanticide.

    The sin of murder.

    The great sin of killing; your own child.

    These women need stronger men in their lives. And good men.

    This is not a problem of women but of society.

    Our society is wholly and completely sick if it thinks that what I have described is okay. That it is agreeable. That it is justified. That it is moral. That it is right.

    And their little limbs are moving, in a fluid, a solution of nutrient rich amniotic fluid designed to PROTECT them from bumps and bruises in case their mother abruptly bumps into something, belly-first.

    Except the UNBORN person.

    And nowadays people don't even describe a child en utero as anything but human!

    They admit it! They admit that this is a human life; and they kill it anyway!

    This is an atrocity! And such an unspeakable horror that I hesitate to even write it; but someone must.

    Someone must finally stand up and say THIS IS THE END! This is enough. This will no longer be.

    For people say I am pro-choice. But what they mean is, "I am pro death."

    For choices have objects. You would not sit down at a restaurant and have a waiter or waitress come up to you and say, "Have you chosen? What would you like?" Only to reply; "I choose."

    "Choose….. …..what?" They would say. "I choose…" You would emptily reply.

    Choose what?

    Choose death. You would say.

    For that is what abortion is.

    The textbook definition of murder relates to premeditation. To end human life deliberately. Through premeditation.

    What happens in an abortion? One premeditates, or one's family, spouse, mother, boyfriend, or someone premeditates on killing your child.

    And then they go through the motions, the actions, the decisions, the choices… of making an appointment. Of driving there in a car.

    Of getting out of the car.

    Of walking across the parking lot; perhaps past prayerful men and women holding signs that say things; like; "ADOPTION: THE LOVING OPTION."

    One then chooses to open the door. To announce one's name. To sit and pretend to read a magazine while the shock and horror begins to set in.

    That it will soon be too late.

    That you have paid, in advance; and that your $400 or $500 or $700 has been spent with ONE end in mind.

    The death of your flesh and blood.

    And then; your name is called.

    Do you stand up?

    Do you?

    I humbly suggest that you stand up BEFORE THAT.

    That you stand up with me. That you stand up with the faithful and conscientious members of this great Nation that say this is the end.

    That there must not be one more child killed in this manner.

    That life is sacred because it comes from God.

    And that God weeps when those steps are taken to the back room, where the sharp scissors and forceps and metal trays await the limbs and body of your baby.

    ~Luke Aaron Venters~

    From his desk, Jan 21, 2019

    Polson, MT

    #whywemarch #uniquefromdayone


    #marchforlife2019 #marchforlife #abortion #prolife


    I've been on the fence recently coming from being pro-choice and this talk really got me to pretty much commit to pro-life. so many great counterarguments and examples that pretty much prove every part of the pro-choice argument wrong, and done in a kind and knowledgeable way.

    This talk is full of false equivalency and logical fallacies. It’s based of unrealistic self sacrifice, just a brainwashing hypothesis like mandatory military or mandatory organ donor.

    If we found it on MARS would it be considered LIFE?

    Shesh…this is so simple! Talk about bias. I can't believe this is seriously a debate. Like, how is it possible that people get upset about animal cruelty and they they aren't even moved when babies are killed? How is it possible that they don't NATURALLY want to fight for and protect their own offspring? Yet these people don't WANT "fetus's" to be humans because they want to justify killing it because it makes their lives difficult. Well….plan your parenthood before you get naked and frisky! People just want to do what they want and not reap what they sow. They're selfish. You play with fire without preparing and you're going to get burned. And that doesn't mean you get to kill a baby, It just means you need to respect the power of creation you've been given. Man up and do what you have to..and if you don't want more kids DON'T DO IT AGAIN. This crap is so simple a child who wasn't murdered in the womb could understand it. The womb…the very place a baby should feel safe…secure….a "safe space" you could call it. And yet we RIP THEM OUT, break their necks, and suck their brains out. So damn sad. I admit it…I am Christian and I do believe in God and this is heinous. I pray for the murdered babies and that God will forgive us for what we've done. I know there are biblical verses about this…about how God hates the shedding of innocent blood…and Jesus said "beware, all who would hurt these little ones..for it would be better if they had a millstone wrapped around their neck and thrown into the depths of the sea." How can you believe in God and accept this practice?

    Future generations will look back upon our age as barbaric as the time of slavery. If you want to support women, maybe support helping them to carry and find adoption and having laws to keep them on their career tracks.

    The legislation takes away dialogue. It puts doctors at conflict with the law and compels them to participate or even promote a stance that might conflict with their ethics.



    I really like the way you get to people. You do it in such a way that they look at the big picture before they make an irrational decision from which they cannot come back from. Thank you

    How the hell has Google not censored this?????????? Amazing.

    Edit: Nevermind. I noticed it was a couple years ago when they were still pretending not to silence the voices of people they disagree with

    It's simple as this. Sex leads to kids. Fact. If you're not ready for kids… YOU'RE NOT READY FOR SEX!!!!!!! Pro-life unless proven rape. (I know rape is sensitive as hell as to speaking up, but if people became responsible for their actions, then it might be easier for people to speak up. I'm pro man up or don't nut up like a douchebag who lets their hormones dictate who they are). If someone is 'hot', chances are that it's 99% looks. Chances are, you're sharing them with 5 other people in that week. I love how some people are just too stupid to look past this 'hotness" to realize any of this. Society and it's f'd up advertisements 'sex sells'. Just wish people thought for themselves instead of what society deems people should follow. MEDIA RELIGION. PROLIFE

    I agree with the moral argument, but the government's role is NOT to dictate morality. Abortion rates go up in pro-life countries, and they become unsafe for the woman. The same is true for drugs. The same is true for anything that has a demand and isn't properly regulated. I'm vegan. I personally think ALL pro-life people who are NOT vegan who blatantly and unapologetically hypocritical. That said, I will NEVER advocate for meat and dairy production to be full blown illegal. If you want to talk about removing subsidies and increasing child tax credits, paid leave, etc. I am 100% with you. If you want to talk to making it outright illegal, I'm out! I refuse to stand by a position that in order to enforce, would require jail time for women and doctors. Fuck out of here with that.

    Why don't you go back before furtilization. It's still alive. The egg is still alive and the sperm is still alive. Should I say the three hundred million sperm are alive but only one makes it to it's destination. Sad isn't it? Shame about the rest, they all wind up dead.

    Amazing how talking about abortion can become your ricebowl. Talk and talk and talk…money comes in by yapping.

    The idea of consciousness being the determining factor of whether or not one is alive and human is ridiculous. Is a two year old conscious of gravity when it goes to the edge of a cliff? Is it aware of the consequences if it slips and falls off that cliff? No, but an adult would know. Therefore consciousness is something obtained over time with experiences and maturity, and hardly a determining factor for what constitutes a human life.

    1 If a fertilized egg has the same right to life as a developed human, anyone knowingly stopping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus is forcibly taken to prison for homicide. Do we want to live in that society?

    2 If we argue the only difference between a fertilized egg and a developed human is time, do we overlook that time can change what something is? Doesn’t medicine offer a woman the choice to grow the fertilized egg or not? Should the state force her to grow the egg in her body?

    3 Is it “civil” to accuse someone of selfishness and forcibly imprison them for stopping a fertilized egg from attaching, in the name of resolving “controversy”?

    4 Is the speaker, or any reader vegetarian? If not, can we say slaughtering a cow is less selfish than stopping a fertilized human egg?

    5 Is abortion an intrinsically ambiguous moral and legal question? Could recognizing the ambiguity and respecting viewpoints foster civil conversation?

    6 To what degree is the speaker employing Socratic method from first principles, or rationalizing a tribal view, as someone raised Catholic by active pro-life volunteers? To what extent do we all rationalize a tribal view?

    This is awesome. Thanks, Google, for hosting this quality speaker and making it available for us to watch.

    This is the first time I hear Ms Grey talk. I am an avid Pro-Lifer, but I recognise that the debate is very adversarial and sometimes does more harm than good. I am completely confounded by Ms Grey's approach. Even though she has a firm grasp of the logic and the science behind the issue of abortion, she is not "in your face" or condescending. Moreover, her compassion and love are so obvious that there were even a couple of instances that brought me to tears. She is a great model for those who wish to engage the present pro-abortion culture. As for me, I am taking note

    If you havent already watched: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIRcw45n9RU

    Check him out, I dont care your thoughs but do it and get back to me after.

    Womens rights, childrens rights, noone ever talks about mens rights, but hey I am not here to cause controversy.

    Best Pro life speech ever…waoow! Thank you Stephanie for your inspiring talk!
    I am prolife but I have learnt more about life beyond antiabortion…very deep perspective!

    As someone who is the result of a horrific rape, I'm thankful my birth-mom chose life. I'm also thankful Google has given Stephanie Gray the platform to very clearly and capably share the pro-life position. 

    When we think in terms of what abortion actually is, it is ultimately a human rights violation to take any human life, born or unborn. 

    I'm married, with 2 adult sons, two daughters-in-law, one grand child (so far), and a multitude of family and friends. If I had not been born, my sons would not exist and my husband would be married to someone else. We can't be a society that values some lives more than others… under any circumstances. 

    Thank you Stephanie Gray for your hard work in presenting a very clear, concise, and articulate pro-life talk.

    By the way…I met my birth-mom and we became very close. During one of our conversations, she said, she could have never considered an abortion because it would be punishing me for what the rapist had done and it wouldn't have erased the pain of the rape at all. It would have only served to heap the guilt and shame of having an abortion on top of the brutality of the rape.

    There is, in any practical sense, no space for civility between anti-abortion and pro-choice.. removing or inhibiting the access to safe clinical abortion services is tantamount to prohibiting a woman’s right to choice… her “civility” is, at best, disingenuous.

    It is after all a personal choice base on each circumstances, I lived in poor countries full of gangs that were initiated when they were children, the mother of those kids were pro life and that is why they were born,but they, as moms got nothing to offered but a miserable, violent future. If we can not ensure a decent life for our kids then out of love it's best to let go, our society as a whole will benefit, and the kids already here will have a better future. My respect to both sides, we all trying to do what we personally think is best.

    Conscious means aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake. Is it really the case that a fetus is not awake, responding to their environment etc. or is that just what we think?

    the sad thing is – this one hour drivel of some clueless emotional female has added absolutely nothing to the serious pro-life vs pro-choice debate.. she is just hammering her point 'fetus is human being', without any sign of logic or rational thinking. waste of time. in some way she wriggled her way into Google to add herself some credibility.. pathetic.. she never explains that abortion-stage fetus is 1/2 inch +/- in size and during the procedure the doctor or nurse performing abortion in many cases can not even see it because it's passed with other pregnancy tissues and blood.

    I am pro-life, but best way to reduce abortions is not by pontificating nonsense that she does, but education and help for (mostly) teenagers/yonge people to avoid unwanted and unplanned pregnancies.

    I feel terrible because a long time ago a friend lied to me. She had me drive her to the doctor. Later I found out it was an abortion clinic. The year was 1997 or so. If I knew what the clinic was. I wouldn’t have. I think that’s what happened. Please forgive me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *