Responding to the Strongest Case for Abortion

In the most recent episode of the Matt Fradd Show, we spent some time going over the best arguments given in support of the Pro-Choice position. "The Violinist Scenario" is once such argument:

Say you wake up in a strange hospital, attached to a stranger. The doctor tells you that he is a world-famous violinist and that you were abducted and stitched to him because you were the only one who was a medically suitable match to save his life.

Do you have the right to pull the plug? How does this scenario relate to the situation of Mother and Pre-Born Child? Stephanie and I discuss.

[pintswithaquinas]

🔴If you like this video, please consider subscribing and then hitting 🔔so Youtube will be FORCED to let you know when we put out a new video. 😉

[Jose-upwg]

I really like how humble she is and that she admits she’s been stumped before. A lot of people don’t do that, and it makes her a lot friendlier than the typical activist.

[stephencurran]

I absolutely love the concept of “steelmanning”. Taking your opponents strongest argument, worded as well as possible and responding to that. I’ve always thought straw manning was such a weak and pathetic debating technique.

[izabeera]

It’s a difficult subject. However I can’t begin to imagine how traumatic carrying the child of rape would be. I don’t think I’d be able to and I don’t think women in general should be forced to do so.

[Turn]

I've never heard my thoughts formulated to an argument so well before. Thank you Stephanie and Matt

[TheArtyMaverick]

The problem I have with this argument is the fact that in terms of law a woman can consent to sex without consenting to getting pregnant, an example of reproductive coercion is birth control sabotage, for example poking holes in condoms, this is still classed as sexual assault, so in the laws eyes you can consent to sex without consenting to pregnancy

[johnbarnhill]

I disagree with much of the arguments in this video, but as someone on the left it is extremely refreshing to see those i disagree with lay out their arguments in a way that actually makes sense and isn’t completely psychotic. It allows an actual discussion, instead of two groups of people screaming at each other.

[ForgeofSouls]

always interesting to hear actual points of argument rather then overly emotional people scream at one another. Some more than others.

[papillonvu]

I’d never heard that uterus argument before. But it is truly eye-opening.
Not just in the context of the debate on abortion, but in the context of life and the “preordained” role of a woman.

[ruecumbers]

Watching this made me realize I'd never actually heard an arguement about abortion before now that really went past 'my body my choice' or 'you're killing babies.' There's so much negatively charged energy around this whole thing from either side that it totally drowned out any actual conversation for me. I've always been pretty ambivalent about the topic and at the moment I still am, but this gave me a lot to think about.

[Bmmrl]

I saw her at SEEK 2019! Went from ProChoice to Pro Life after her talk. She answered all the questions I had.

[sordidknifeparty]

And as for men paying child support, you nailed it dead on the head. Women should have a right to their body to choose whether or not they continue to carry a baby, and men should 100-percent have the right to opt out of fatherhood. Having a child together should be a contractual issue, not the sole decision of a single party

[schnitzel]

When she talked about the argument that the uterus was made for another purpose and how the Holy Spirit spoke to her I started tearing down!!

As a soon to be mother, I see no other greater honor to carry A LIFE inside of me. It’s just an overwhelming feeling and I wish every woman would feel that . Praise Jesus!!

[jamesgarrett]

Wouldn’t her argument sort of fall apart when we consider that the uterus is not the only organ keeping the baby alive? Pregnancy doesn’t just utilize the uterus; it’s a phenomenon which affects the entirety of a woman’s body. Does that mean that the baby has a right to all of your organs, so long as it has a right to one of them?

[LucasRodrigues-lsre]

In regards to the altered violinist argument, it’s also important to remark that NOT donating a kidney or any organ its passive (and almost no passiveness is illegal), while aborting is active. It’s actively pursuing to end a life, instead of not doing enough to save a life. There’s a very clear and very big difference.

[laurenj]

She’s the most articulate and patient pro-lifer I’ve ever seen

[dudeman]

This woman has been given an unusually gifted and intelligent mind. I love when God’s servants use their gifts for their God-given intended purposes. God bless her ministry.

[maddymckinney]

At around the 20 minute mark she says when deciding to save your child’s life by donating your kidney you have to factor in how it might harm your health or jeopardize your ability to care for your family. How is this different than when a pregnant woman’s health or ability to care for her family is in danger from pregnancy? Honestly interested in how that could be discussed. Even if my life were at risk equally in both situations, I would struggle far more to end the life of a child who may be experiencing pain and fear than the life of a fetus that cannot feel or comprehend the experience as a fully developed child could.

Really I don’t think this analogy holds up because every pregnancy is unique and complex. Generalizations made by either side will never be as valuable as careful consideration by medical professionals on a case by case basis.

[gabrielmorales]

Stephanie Gray is one of the smartest and best pro-lifers out there. She is awesome. Thanks for having her on the show. You're doing great work sir and helping me out a lot.

[PatCunninghamMusic]

She uses the story of the man and baby in a remote cabin in the woods with all the recourses and facilities to take care of the baby as a way of analogising the idea of a pregnant woman hosting a foetus in the womb to provide its basic needs.

Then she says that pro-choicers will say "Well if you have to help the unrelated baby in the cabin, shouldn't you have to help the violinist too because they're also unrelated"
She then states that it comes down to basic/ordinary needs vs extraordinary needs with the violinist having extraordinary needs.

But how are they comparable when the story about the baby in the cabin was just an analogy in the first place. In the analogy the baby had basic needs (formula, etc) but in reality it would need to be attached to a person just like the violinist....

Someone shed some light on this or tell me if I'm wrong because that point of the debate totally confused me... sorry for the ramblings