Joe Schmid on Abortion

Agnostic philosopher, Joe Schmid of the Majesty of Reason YouTube channel giving his thoughts on abortion.

Related Articles:

#prolife #antiabortion #abortion #theprolifecase #socofilms #thecaseforlife #speakerscorner #prolifegeneration #prolifegen #abolishabortion #abortiondebate #abortionban #abortionrights #humanrights #unbornlivesmatter

* For accurate, high-definition and documented pictures and videos of aborted humans, go to Center for Bio-ethical Reform's (CBR) website at:

Note: If you comment below the video, keep your comments respectful. I have nothing against people who have questions or bring arguments to the table but people who engage in childish rants will be blocked.

[IWasOnceAFetus]

Other helpful resources in description. Feel free to check those out as well.

[asiaaviator]

The ever-eminent philosopher Dr. Seuss said, "A person's a person no matter how small!"

[No_BS_policy]

1:36 that pun was fvckin hilarious Joe🤣

[woodsonchem]

The prudential argument seems to be, "If you are not 100% certain your action will cause no harm you should not take the action." How could anyone drive a car on prudential reasons? This feels like an argument from a hypothetical world where perfect knowledge is attainable (even if we don't currently have it) and all decisions can be delayed until we attain it.

[GodisgudAQW]

At the end, Schmid appeals to the principle that "You can't deprive non-persons of goods." Let's call this the "Deprivation Requires Personhood" (DRP) principle.

I don't think DRP undermines Marquis's argument. Marquis argues that depriving an *individual* of a future like ours (FLO) is wrong, and that abortion deprives individuals of FLO. Regardless of whether the fetus is a person, everyone agrees a fetus is an *individual*.

Schmid said he does not want to conclude that failing to have intercourse is harming a non-person of the goods of existence. We can resist this conclusion by appealing to a different principle. Instead of relying on DRP, we can rely on DRI: "Deprivation Requires an Individual." When you fail to have intercourse, there is no already-existing individual that you are harming. This is unlike abortion, which actively and intentionally deprives an already-existing individual of FLO.

Anyone who agrees with DRI also agrees with DRP, because DRI is a more general version of DRP: it applies not only to persons, but individuals in general. You can't expect to be successful in your objections if you are appealing to principles we already agree with. That's why Schmid's DRP does not affect Marquis's argument in the slightest.

Philosophers also tried to object to Marquis by saying his view entailed that condoms are immoral, but this is not true. Prior to fertilization, there is no individual, and hence there is no deprivation (by DRI). I think Marquis's argument is still the strongest in the literature.

[gabriellevitale]

I had an elective abortion and I’m confident it was the right thing to do. I’d be homeless if I couldn’t work and pay rent.

If you don’t like abortion the only morale thing to do to curb it is to support women financially and end discrimination in the workplace.

Forcing women to give birth when they aren’t FINANCIALLY, mentally, and physically ready to is just forcing women into poverty and ending any chance they have at a meaningful life.

[truerealrationalist]

P1) Human beings have rights.
P2) Among the rights that human beings have is the right to bodilu autonomy.
P3) Consent from the subject in question is necessary prior to direct interaction with another human being to avoid a violation of bodily autonomy.
P3) The rights of any one human being extend only so far as to not infringe upon the rights of any other human being.
P4) A human being _is a human being, _ regardless of natal status.
C) Unborn human beings have a right to bodily autonomy.
P5) Unborn human beings are unable to grant consent.
C2) Methods of abortion that, by their very nature, _require_ direct manipulation of the body of the unborn, violate a human being's right to bodily autonomy.

Notice that this argument does not require the invocation of any higher power; it simply applies the same argument used by those who are Pro-Choice. If one wants to terminate a pregnancy and can do so _without violating the _*_equally_*_ valid rights of the unborn, _ I have no objection. _Neither_ party's rights are sacrosanct.

[asiaaviator]

I know what Yogi BEAR would say about your Bear vs Buddy story and the decision to shoot or not to shoot? He'd say, "When ya get to a fork in the road, take it!"

[louiselwood]

the difference between the consumption of alcohol and not engaging in intercourse with respect to infringing upon a person is one is an action and another is the absence of action;one is not necessarily morally obligated to help others.

[jimbojackson]

He takes a bit long with his version of the Prudential argument. Plus it's muddied by other things like the danger bears present (though, perhaps this is good, since it might analogize a pro-choicer's perception of the dangers pregnancy has). I prefer something concise like, "How confident should you be that there are no people in the building, before you demolish it?"

[Hogstrictors]

I think it's admirable is that you wear a pro-choice hat sometimes when you speak but knowing from the beginning of the video that you lean toward pro-life Id like to ask you a question and hear your honest answer. When you made the channel name "I was once a fetus", were you trying to take advantage and play on the emotions of most humans?

[dnescodino]

It surprises me how these arguments seem to ignore the mother's role in it. Ultimately, that fetus is a part of her, it's not growing in a vacuum

[BertRussell]

The bear-hunting analogy is a bit ridiculous. There's little downside to refraining from shooting at an unknown in the bushes, while the upside to refraining is potentially huge. The assumption is that you will remain vigilant and are ready to shoot anything dangerous that might appear out of the bushes. (And if you're not prepared for that event, then you have no business hunting bears!) On the other hand, there's plenty of downside to forcing a woman to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy, such as the burden it will place on her body and her life, as well as on the life of her unwanted child. Of course, whether those considerations are compelling enough to counterbalance the consideration that a fetus _might_ be a person is another question. But it is worth noting that the former considerations are real and tangible, while the latter is merely theoretical.

[moderncaleb]

Philosophers Jeff McMahan, Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and others, all outspoken defenders of abortion also believe infanticide is morally permissible (euthanasia). This is problematic for most people.

[davec-]

Then an argument by analogy would be

If no right to decide whom is allowed to sustain its existence via a particular woman’s body, it follows the state could force a person to allow any of their children to sustain their lives

Kid gets in an accident at 14 years old, mom has to give up a kidney

Kid drinks too much at 17, dad gives up part of his liver

If a fetus is a person, what’s the logical bar that stops my hypotheticals?

[asiaaviator]

@Joe, since you said "I'm just scratching the surface" is this why you were perhaps sending us a subconscious signal of that fact by scratching your nose 15 times during your 9:22 video? 🙂

[jimbojackson]

Regarding his PC response to the Impairment Argument, he notes that PCs will not initially be convinced bc of the problem of suffering, but you could easily press your point with a simple question: "So, you believe it's worse to hurt someone's future, than to take it away? Doesn't that sound reversed?"
Of course, some might answer "yes." In that case, I might say what PC streamer Destiny said on Ep. 50 of the I'm Doing Great Podcast. He said that those who lose limbs, etc. seem to adjust quite well, given time, to their impairments. After a while, they report similar qualities of life to others. Thus, the problem of suffering is overstated. Yet, the problem of killing someone/a future someone remains.

[Isaac_L..]

I fall right in the middle in this debate and I think its alot less simple than either side often makes it out to be (at least outside acedemic circles). I'm really not convinced that early term fetus' should be granted personhood and whatever rights that come with it, but I'm equally unconvinced that the fetus shouldnt be granted personhood at some point well prior to birth. Politically I lean left here because mothers should obviously (in my eyes) have the option to abort the pregnancy in scenarios where carrying on with the pregnancy puts their own lives at unnecessarily high risk (which isn't often an option under the right's system), but ethically/morally I'm pretty conflicted for situations where the mothers health is not in jeopardy. Ultimately I want to reduce the frequency of unplanned pregnancy via better sex ed/bitth control access so that this is just practically a non issue and we can stop beating eachother up over it.

[humesspoon]

With regard to the last point on deprivation and how if you're not having sex with someone, you're depriving them of their "sex-with-you" future. The issue I think Marquis would convey with this point is that abortion is impositional, whereas electing to not have sex with someone, whilst is depriving them of some type of future, is not impositional. You can still elect in the first place, whereas the fetus cannot. The other issue is that Don Marquis would most likely draw a line in the sand between total deprivation of life and the deprivation of an experience. The latter can still entail other types of experiences, the other, in the case of the fetus, cannot.

[jimbojackson]

8:20 He says there's nothing wrong with depriving a person who might exist in the future. I'm not sure how this squares with how we look at environmentalism. The main reason we don't chop down every tree on the planet is bc we care about people who don't even exist yet. I thought of that argument recently.
But if that's the case, does that mean, as some like Joe imply, that we are depriving conceptual persons of a FLO by not biologically conceiving/creating them? I feel like we can get around that by noting that you don't have a right to be bio-conceived/created. I'm not sure. What do you think???
There must be SOME way around it. How else could we hold both beliefs simultaneously?