Feminist author: 'Abortion is killing… we should defend it'



[Applause] hi my name is Brendon Malone and you're watching live foot media or possibly you're watching this video on my other channel live TV because this is one of those rare occasions when I am uploading a video to both of my channels the reason I'm doing that is because this video today is a response to an interview that was given by a lady named Sophie Lewis she is the author of a new book called full surrogacy now feminism against family we'll talk more about that particular title later on but what I want to focus on is about three minutes or so of the interview which we're going to play in just a second I'm going to sort of we'll work our way through it's just especially just under three minutes we work our way through and I want to respond to some very specific arguments that she makes about abortion the reason I'm uploading this to both channels and I think it's of interest on both channels is because the argument that she is making is radical it is extreme but it's also brutally honest and it is extremely dangerous and frightening what is being proposed here traditionally people who are proponents of abortion have argued for a harm minimization justification now I as a pro-lifer disagree with that position and I think there are good reasons to disagree with that position but I can understand their position people think that arguing in favor of abortion as somehow reducing harm or is somehow a helpful thing to do for women they tend not to even ask the question about whether or not killing is even happening but Sophie Lewis does the exact opposite in this video interview Sophie Lewis just comes out and says pro-choice activist abortion activists need to actually change their strategy they need to admit that abortion is killing and they need to make the argument that that form of killing is actually acceptable now she's right I believe and she's being totally honest but it's astounding that that someone is now proposing this that we're even having this conversation in our culture and I'll talk more at the end of my response to her specific arguments that she tries to make here why I think it's so frightening that someone is even making this argument so boldly in and so publicly now it suggests that things have shifted in our culture in a way that are really they're really not good at all before I get into the response though just let me say that this video is absolutely 100% going to be demonized I know that for certain if you're watching this on my left foot media channel then any time I post a video that even mentions abortion or references abortion that video is automatically demonetised and it always fails on appeal there is nothing I can do it doesn't matter that the discussion I have a civil that that it's charitable that I don't swear that I'm not mean-spirited or awful towards other people it doesn't matter it's irrelevant you talk about that topic on YouTube and you are punished for talking about that topic from a pro-life perspective so I know this video is automatically going to be demonetised if you're watching this on my life TV channel that whole channel was demonetized by YouTube months ago so there's no way that it can even be monetized on there either so what I'd ask is if you appreciate the the content that I'm creating and you think there's something of value here even if you'd might disagree with what I'm what I my stance on on abortion and my pro-life position I would ask that that you might consider actually just leaving a little tip in the jar to make up for the fact that this video that my work today is not actually going to be recognized it's going to be punished by YouTube simply for presenting of you that the powers-that-be happened to find disagreeable there are links in the video description below if you want to you can just leave a 1 offered just that even a couple of bucks on PayPal it all helps or you can become a regular monthly subscriber or subscriber supporter of the channel with patreon or subscribe star there there are links for both of those in the video description below thank you in advance to everyone who makes a contribution it's really really helpful and I appreciate it so with that little public service announcement out of the way let's just jump straight into it Sophie Lewis the author of full surrogacy now feminism against family and let's start and the interview we're it's less than three minutes and she is talking here will we start about the issue of pro-choice activism so abortion activists and she is saying they haven't adopted the right strategy and she's starting to she starts the conversation in the year about where things are at and what she thinks actually needs to happen from here and in this context I think it's actually really important to think about the strategies we use to defend abortion we're not winning we're losing spectacularly when it comes to abortion and in the past the strategies that our side has tended to use have included a kind of seeding of ground to our enemies we tend to say that abortion is indeed very bad but or we say luckily it's not killing luckily it's just a health care right and this is an important argument which in some ways I agree with I agree that abortion is their form of health care now this is an interesting point let me just stop here because this is this is not the main thrust of her argument at all about as abortion health care or not but I just want to respond to this argument that you will hear people making claiming that abortion is health care it's not health care abortion is not health care what does health care health care is when you you bring medical knowledge you know the practice of medicine has brought to the aid of a patient to perhaps he'll and ailments to save a life to bring comfort to give them a sort of a standard of living that might be lacking it's it's about restoration of what is not whole restoration of something that's lacking doing something to try and save a life abortion involves the ending of the life of an unborn human being now whether or not you think that that's an ethically acceptable act or not I think it's it's an extreme stretch to say that that qualifies as health care and the reason why that argument is used is because it's a euphemism instead of having to actually talk about and it's interesting she starts by saying that her side has traditionally accepted that abortion is a bad thing because an actual fact I would argue that a lot of people who argue for abortion don't really accept that position and when they use euphemisms and try and reduce it to being nothing more than health care quite unquote that really is an actual denial of just how serious the ethical issues are involved with abortion it's an attempt to try and it's a verbal engineering it's a euphemism and we use these things to hide the reality of what's really going on you don't see the unborn child you don't see their loss of life you don't talk about the fact that an abortionist actually goes in and deliberately and directly ends the life of a human being because instead you use the euphemism healthcare to describe the practice so that's as said that secondary to what she actually primarily argues but it's just something that I wanted to respond to before we get into the main point so here she starts talking about how she thinks they should actually be defending abortion but um we have very little to lose at the moment when it comes to abortion and I'm interested in winning radically and I wonder if we could think about defending abortion as a right to stop doing gestational work many people actually come to their support for abortion through during gestation many of the most committed supporters of abortion are people who have loving and wanted experiences of pregnancy that have gone on to become parenting relationships what's interesting here is first of all we'll talk more in a minute but you'll notice she's talking about gestation and and gestational relationships again this is euphemism it's classic verbal engineering she talks about gestational work when you watch the rest of the interview it's it's it's quite frightening and fascinating what she's done here because the the book is effectively arguing and trying to impose a maxis communist sort of model and view of the world on to the profound gift of motherhood and parenting and family life and that's why she's talking about gestation work in this idea of resisting work it's very much grounded in the sort of communist utopian idealism and it seems we still haven't learned despite the fact that we decades and decades of injustice and barbarism and and and wholesale large-scale murder as a result of this regime and the doctrines of communism you still have people trying to insist it that we could embrace it and in this case that we should go even further and start imposing this upon the relationship between between parents and their children now what's interesting now is that the specific point she makes here about in her experience there it's people who have been mothers who are some of the strongest advocates for abortion activism and my experience is actually tended to be the other way around yes there are parents I've met who are strong advocates and activists working in this arena but generally certainly in my country here what I've seen is that some of the strongest and most outspoken that the leaders the most strongest outspoken advocates and an activist for abortion are actually woman who have had abortions themselves it's the other way around in my experience and it's interesting I don't know if anyone's done a comprehensive study to discover whether it's the balance swings in one direction or the other but I find it it's something to me that makes sense because if you're someone who's had an abortion and you don't really want to accept that as being an act that has ended the life of your own child then it's quite conceivable that for certain people in certain types of personalities they are going to throw themselves into this form of activism as a way to actually try and give justification for what's happened in their life to try and make sense of it because what's the alternative the alternative is that you would have to accept that yes an abortionist did deliberately in the life of your child and you have lost that child now through that act and and that child will never be returned to you and that you were involved in that process in some way and that would be a truly horrific reality to have to deal with and so for me it kind of makes sense why why and my experience I've seen that the most outspoken and the strongest advocates even if they've had other care subsequently well prior to that point I've actually got abortion in their own backstory or in some cases abortion and the backstory of someone very very close to them and so for me it's interesting she's saying she she thinks it's the other way around in my experience the trend I've seen is that the exact opposite it'll be interesting to know and perhaps have someone do a proper survey to discover just how accurate their does abortion is in my opinion and I recognize how controversial this is a form of killing it is a form of killing that we need to be able to defend that ladies and gentlemen is the money quote which actually caused me to make this video response and posted on both my channels she's just being brutally honest she is admitting something that pro-life is like myself have been saying for many many years abortion is an act of killing it is an act of deliberate killing it involves the killing of an innocent human being and as such for me this is why I'm pro-life that's a vile and and humane thing to do sure you can find plenty of good reasons why you think the ends of e need the life of an innocent human human being might justify the means but I don't think you're right because we can take those same arguments and we can apply them outside a womb as well why wouldn't they be true there if it's okay to do this to an innocent human being inside a womb then tell me why it wouldn't be okay to do that to an innocent human being outside a woman every argument that I am presented by pro-choice is not a single one of them holds any water and I've spent many many many years I've studied bioethics I've read widely I lecture and regularly present on an almost weekly basis on these issues and I have yet to hear an argument from any source that is logically robust enough to convince me that the pro-life position is just delusional and wrong and that the pro-choice position is correct there's just nothing but he or she is honestly admitting what pro-lifers have been saying and have no and for many many years and decades that abortion is killing what's what's astounding is she didn't goes on to say well I think we just need to defend this can we be honest about that and actually defend that form of killing that's an astounding admission it's an astounding response because it speaks to a conscience that has been so seared by and deformed by ideological interference that even when the truth is presented to that conscience it says yeah okay it's killing that's fine we should actually find a way to defend that form of killing we should just keep that form of killing acceptable and normalized and we should defend it a healthy conscience that has been well formed when it is presented by effect like this action involves the killing of an innocent human being the response of a healthy well-formed conscience would be to say oh my gosh and recoil and shock and horror to realize the gravity of this and who want to actually do something even if it's simply to speak out about this issue that's the response of a normal healthy well-formed conscience or even if you're going to speak out to sort of quietly in your interior life to have a sense of shock and a deep sense of growing conviction about what this all means and the horror and the reality of it it is not the response of a normal well-formed conscience to say yeah this is killing we need to find a way to defend it and I want to talk more about why this position is so shocking once once she's finished making all of her arguments I am NOT interested in where a human life starts to exist now this is interesting because this is important because this is actually the most fundamental and important question if if you want to answer that I guess that the blanket question here is abortion morally right as abortion ethically acceptable or is it an evil is that a good or an evil is that right is it wrong is it acceptable is it not ethically acceptable every pregnancy has its own unique issues and complications and and its unique differences and they can some of those things can be quite calm and they can be they can be a myriad of things at play in each different pregnancy but the question of abortion and the ethics of abortion actually boils down to this one simple and important point which is as well what is a fetus and what she's saying here is I'm not interested in that question that's astounding to me because that is the fundamental question because here's the thing if a fetus is nothing more than a blob of tissues or a clump of cells as pro-choice is try and argue and by the way there's not a justification for abortion not only is that flat earth science because if you look at what you were dealing with when you look at unborn human beings and their development in the womb and what's going on when the majority of abortions take place you are not dealing with some random clump of cells a blob of tissue there's the most unscientific way of describing that stage of human development but even if that was a description you wanted to use that doesn't justify abortion I am also a blob of tissue and a clump of cells my wife might say I'm too much of a blob of tissue at the moment I'm not working out enough but the point is I'm just a bigger more developed blob of tissue and tissues and clump of cells I there the point is here that you're not answering the fundamental question when you use that it's try and use that as an argument for abortion what you're actually doing is telling me what I am made up of biologically tissues yeah great I'm made of tissue and cellular material great so is everyone else it doesn't give an ethical justification for abortion you need more information than that but the point is this is the most important question because if as you suggest this is as a pro-choice said that this is nothing more than a you know sort of a non human thing that's growing inside of womb then guess what pro lifers like me quite frankly we're insane we are insane our position is just so stupid and illogical I may as well go and form a an anti epping dictum e-group to oppose and to speak out against the destruction of innocent human appendices how awful and vile that this is being done and our hospitals every day why because that would be as absurd as what being pro-life would be if a fetus is not a human being that question about when life begins is fundamental now on the flip side if the answer to that question is you know when human life B when does human life begin was well it begins sometime around are very close to the point of conception and for certain we know that we're dealing with a human being when it's got a beating heart and all of its major organs a prison and it's got fingers and toes and it's moving and it's self-directed and that's growth which is when the majority of abortions take place then guess what we've got a real big problem on our hands with abortion abortion if the pro-life position is correct and and we're right about when human life begins then abortion is the gravest violation of human rights that we have ever perpetrated against ourselves as a human race purely because of the scale of killing that is involved the number of victims of this act now numbers and the billions nothing else that we've deliberately done human beings have deliberately done to other human beings systematically and not just systematically but we've been shrined now we're calling health care and we carried out and our hospitals and we fund it with taxpayer money this is this is like a a systematized form of human rights violation that is accepted and now is actually also being celebrated by people and you've got people here like that sort of trying to say we should accept that as a form of killing aim we should defend it as such like this is serious so this question really really matters it really is the most important question ironically it is the least explored the least asked question and the whole debate everyone what they do is they go to the extreme fringes and then they try and justify their way back in the fringes is not how you do morality the hard cases make bad law what you do with moral principles as you start with the first principles and then you work your way out to the fringes the hard cases and then you see how the principles might apply in those hard cases but not enough people actually asked that question and so it's fascinating to me to say to see who's saying well I'm just not really interested in that question at all it's the most important question she's not alone in that a lot of people who try and justify a pro-choice position don't want to look honestly at that question I hadn't experienced see some years ago about there's about twelve thirteen years ago and after a public speaking engagement that I was involved in I had an older woman approached me she was pro-choice since she was quite honest about it was very amicable discussion and she said to me look I am pro-choice so I disagree with you on this issue but that point you made at the beginning about how the most important question as waters a fetus as a human being or not she says I think you're right I think that is the most important question and then what that lady said to me next was absolutely fascinating and very very telling she said to me and if I'm honest I don't want to ask myself that question because I think I already know what the answer actually is there is someone admitting that they know what's really going on here they just don't want to look I see the forms of making and unmaking each other as sort of continuous processes now this is interesting because this point here is quite frankly it's a logical it is unscientific and in regards to the discussion that we were having right here about abortion and the ethics of abortion it is basically the best way to describe this would be superstitious sort of gobbledygook psychobabble I don't mean that a nasty way against her it's just it is it's not actually relevant it's not pertinent and it doesn't actually have any bearing it's certainly no scientific bearing on the biological reality on the reasoning that we should should be bringing to the bier or to the front here on this particular issue because the simple fact is that we don't actually make and unmake ourselves in one sense I guess you could say perhaps as a psychological a spiritual level there is a constant renewing of the human person that goes on throughout our life and we can become new people as we mature and we grow and we experience certain things and certain experiences I might have in my life at pivotal moments like say trauma might have a bearing on shaping Who I am that's for sure but that's not really what we're interested here when we talk about this issue we're talking about does a an individual living breathing flesh-and-blood human being their existence their presence in the world cannot be made and then unmade it's not actually May and the way she's talking about it's not constantly made and unmade you either exist as an individual human being or you don't exist and and what's interesting this idea of a person maturing and developing psychologically and spiritually in everything else they actually have to exist in order for that to happen but but your existence as a substance that we call human a human being an individual human being it doesn't made a nun mate so in the example here she's she's directly talking about which is abortion you can't unmake that individual human being and and and bring about an end to that human being and then somehow remake that human being later on you can't do that that's not how it works so this is just it's it's um it's a superstitious sort of weird thing to say that it actually has no bearing we're not actually constantly remaking ourselves at all it's not pertinent to this question here the question is when you look at a fetus and when you look at life in the womb does it exist as a human being is it actually in existence and I guess it related to that what does abortion actually do to it and the reason I'm pro-life is because abortion involves depriving an innocent human being of all of their bodily rights and that's why I think it is so abhorrent and bizarre and illogical to try and argue that abortion is permissible under the concept of bodily rights or bodily autonomy bodily autonomy is important it's so important that you should never deliberately deprive an innocent human being of their bodily autonomy including an innocent human being who is in her womb you are depriving them of all of their bodily choice with an abortion and you cannot justify that depriving of their bodily autonomy in the name of bodily autonomy that makes absolutely no sense and so it really matters though that we get to the heart of this question and that's so she says I don't think it's that important a question you know when does life begin and I think it was sort of constantly remaking and sort of you know and making and remaking sure that we're not we're just not that is not scientifically accurate at all it's not good reasoning when a human being comes into existence sometime around the point of conception what you have is a new substance that we call a human being that is brought into existence it's a point of substantial change before that point you had two different substances the the gamuts the sperm and the egg they are different from the human being that is brought into existence through the process of conception the sperm and the egg have completely different powers and potentials that and and they are usurp these two things come together refuse together and form a brand new substance that we call a human being and that human being has brand-new powers and potentials that either the spoon will do that they just don't possess and then that substance that human being will continue to grow and develop and experience all sorts of wonderful changes and developments and tall the only other point of substantial change that we can point to on that trajectory which is their death and that substance ceases to exist in that substance begins to you know decompose and it's gone the life is over and so this idea of making and remaking and it has no bearing whatsoever on this particular issue here just it's just as it's nonsensical and and the fact that it doesn't have any relation to this particular question around the ethics of abortion and what we're dealing with when we talk about life in the womb the other end of the spectrum is the process of learning how to die well and hold each other and let each other go at the end of our lives as well as at the beginning but looking at the biology of this kind of Hema Coryell pleasant ation helps me think about the violence that innocently a fetus meets out visa vie agitator she's talking about the relationship that you have between a mother and a child during the process of pregnancy there the intimate biological connection between the unborn and and the mother and but then she goes on to make some interesting statements here this is interesting which is using this euphemism and this ideological language of referring to motherhood and and the mother as a gist data to me there's just so cold and and humane the wonderful gift of motherhood has reduced the profoundness of what that represents is reduced to the term the phrase G state or it is like something from a bizarre dystopian science fiction novel and it's being done it's you from to cloak the true reality because this is this is her feminist leanings now really coming out and who Marxist feminist approach to motherhood she has reduced the act of motherhood to being nothing more than work to me that is not only anti human it is just not connected to reality this is ideology where you take an idea and you try and impose it upon reality and you try and make reality fit the idea you don't start with what is real and ask the questions you start with the idea and then try and impose the idea on to what is real and that's what she's doing here and in order to do that you've got to use these sort of euphemisms these euphemisms that cloak the reality of what's going on here and so she talks about this idea of the unborn human being meeting out violence what do you mean meeting out violence the unborn human being is not meeting out anything when you meet out violence then that requires intent on your part you actually make a decision of some kind to actually to to propagate violence to act violently in the world the unborn child is not doing that they have no intent but this is that the way that you have to use euphemism and lies to support the ideology because it's not reality that's not what really is going on so you use lies to try and justify a position and effectively what she's trying to do here is is set up basically like a self-defense argument a type of self-defense argument and form of a book to sort of justify abortion then this form of killing is some form of defense and that violence is is an unacceptable violence for someone who doesn't want to do gestational work so this is interesting so this idea that you are being forced into this situation and it's unacceptable for someone who doesn't want to do gestational work but again as I said that's an absurdity because you engage in the most effective way of making a new dependent and totally vulnerable human being and you make one and then you say well I don't want to I don't want to have any bar of this now surely the problem there is worth your ethics not with the ethics of people who say hold on you've got a new totally vulnerable dependent human being there now this has changed the whole scenario your actions have directly led to this outcome surely we have some allegations to them because we brought them into that situation surely we have an obligation now that they exist to the a–fun de mental right – just to be alive and not to be deliberately harmed by another human being it's so bizarre to me it's it's like someone saying well I didn't really I didn't really want to be employed at the local factory that the people at the factory are forcing me to work there and they they they they make me work 80 hours a day and I and I don't want to work then I never wanted to work there and you say to the person you know your friend is telling you this you say oh that's awful what happened did they did they kidnap you in a van and take you to the factory and force you onto the factory floor and you turn around you said well no no I went along I saw an advert in the paper that they were hiring people so I went along and I applied for the job and then they gave me an interview and I went through the interview process and and I indicated that I was you know quite keen on on the job and and and and everything else associated with and I signed an employment contract but now it's awful they're forcing me into this work thing you know you'd probably said if I were you talking about it that doesn't sound like you are you being forced into something here it sounds like you actively made decisions to actually put yourself in that scenario doesn't that sound a little bit different to what you're trying to suggest that is here and I would argue the same sort of principle as going on here I well I was forced under this situation well when you engage in waters and everyone knows this to be the most effective way of making a brand-new totally dependent and vulnerable human being and you make a brand-new totally dependent and vulnerable human being congratulations the sexual actors worked exactly as it should the primary biological end of the sexual act is what the production from the reproduction of new human beings and just because we happen to have forgotten that fact or clouded that fact with their use of contraception that doesn't change that fact and and the simple fact is that if we engage in that act and and that act is successful then surely we have an obligation to those we can't turn around and say well I'm being forced into this and this is some form of you know violence that's being done against me and even if you felt that way there's still the question of would that then actually also justify a form of violence being done like you say here killing the ultimate violence being done to that person who is growing inside your womb surely that still wouldn't justify it even if you feel you're being forced into that situation surely if that's a human being that we're dealing with fear it's not okay to kill innocent human beings is it if it's not okay to do that outside of a whim why would it be okay to do that inside of one that's the point that needs to be answered here the violence that that just data meets out to essentially go on strike or exit that that workplace is unacceptable violence that I'm prepared to defend under any circumstances no that's where it comes to an end and let me just I want to hone in on two points here first of all she talks about this idea effectively of like the G state again remember she's talking about a mother here and usually a relationship that involves a mother and a father there's a couple involved in this normally but she's talking here about the mother and she's calling her a G stator and she's talking about this idea of going on strike from work but that's not what abortion is like at all that is not a comparable analogy again this is where you take an idea and ideology and you try and impose it upon reality instead of looking at reality first because the reality of pregnancy is that it does not conform to this analogy at all sorry pregnancy and abortion abortion is not like going on strike at all it's completely different abortion is not simply a matter of saying no to something and going out on a strike abortion if you wanted to use the work analogy the workplace analogy would be like this you walk into the boss's office and you kill the boss and then someone says to you why did you do that you say well I didn't want to work and if the boss was dead then I wouldn't have to work anymore because no one would make me work I would be free to do what I want to that's what that would be a more as barbaric as that is that would be a more accurate analogy to actually compare what the act of abortion is because abortion doesn't just simply say I'm going on strike abortion involves an abortionist so it's not just saying no to something abortionist has to go in and deliberately directly proactively target an unborn human being and end their life deliberately kill them like you said it's a form of killing killing is not the same thing as simply refusing to do something killing is now refusing to do something and the way you refuse to do that thing or opt out of it is through the act of killing killing becomes the means that is used to achieve the end of going on strike of not having to work like I said it would be like going into your boss's office and killing the boss and saying well I don't have to work now the boss is dead and that's what's really going on here secondly she talks about this idea that she is willing to defend that in any situation and any under any circumstances again think about the extremity of what that position represents what she is saying there is abortion up to birth on demand for any reason at all that's what it boils down to and and the way she's tried to do this as she's tried to create this effectively or why she hasn't fully fleshed it out she's tried to create a self-defense argument that that you are defending yourself against something that you don't want to do but here's the thing about self-defense for that argument to be valid you actually have to first of all have an unjust aggressor someone who is doing deliberate harm to you so before you can claim while I hit that guy on the head with the shovel because he was doing unjust aggression against me and I had to defend myself you actually have to verify and show that there was unjust aggression you can't just walk down the road hit a guy on the head with a shovel and say when the judge says to you why did you do that well you know because they are an unjust aggressor and you say what do you mean to whether they're doing harm to you were they trying to attack you had they menaced you with a knife what was going on he said no they were just walking past and think they had their back to me but I but I decided that they were an unjust aggressor that would not hold up in a court of law there has to be deliberate intent and there's no deliberate intent on the part of a fetus an unborn human being has no deliberate intent so it cannot be classified as an unjust aggressor and secondly if you're gonna use lethal force and self-defense you actually have to show that that would be you can't just say well if I use lethal force I will get a good outcome that I want and then I'll call that self-defense imagine that you're on some sort of trolley car on a railway system it's just you and another person and it's out of control and it's flying down a hill and it's heading towards a bridge that crosses the ravine but everyone knows that you can only have one person on a trolley car at a time when you cross that bridge because if you have two people the weight is too great and so what happens is that the bridge will collapse and so you freak out you start thinking about your own life and you think I'm gonna die if I don't do something so what you do is you pull out a gun and you shoot the guy who's on the other side of the trolley car and you throw his body out the car and you say it's fine I was acting in self-defense I had to defend myself in order to save myself when we went over that bridge in the ravine that's not self-defense that's the end justifies the means you have used the means of killing another innocent human being in order to get the good outcome of your life being saved that is not self-defense now if that other person though on the trolley gap trolley car decided they were going to kill you and try and throw you overboard so that they pulled out a knife and they started stabbing at you and now we're gonna throw you try and throw your body overboard so they could save themselves and you responded and defended yourself against that you've now got an unjust aggressor and you responded with lethal force because it was the only way to protect yourself then that is a legitimate act of self-defense but that's not what's going on with abortion you don't have an unjust aggressor and despite that fact lethal force is used on their innocent human being so it just doesn't even measure out what's interesting to me about this this argument that she's making and I guess the book that she's released in the way she's gone about things is she talks about this idea of feminism against family and to me that irony I guess here is that she's actually admitting that the reality is that the the sort of third wave feminist model the militant feminism much married adapts is married itself up to Marxist ideology basically promoted a very serious evil and a grave lie that the family is some form of oppression to woman there motherhood as a threat to woman that it is a form of patriarchal violence being done to woman and they're an actual fact abortion as a form of liberation it gives women freedom how many unborn females have been killed in the name of this so-called feminist rhetoric how many unborn lives have been lost by this how many mothers have been lost even in legal front street abortions where females have been killed how many have carrying around now this huge burden of the true reality of the guilt and awfulness of what the abortion experience was they know what it is but it's just suppressed and buried or it's even not may be suppressed and buried and it's doing a lot of psychological harm to those females and they were sold this as empowerment and it's freedom and now they've been left because of course the same feminist movement that claims to be Pro woman and is all about not that famous mood in general but this particular brand of it which claims to be Pro woman and all about female empowerment and emancipation and autonomy and all about you know woman first and it sells females this lie that abortion is the pathway to that and then you have this group of females who have abortions who carry huge grief guilt shame and regret about that and guess what that same strand of feminism does it turns around and it says to those females no post abortion grief is not a real thing it's just made up what you are saying to those women is you're either lying or you're deluded all of a sudden they're no longer pro-woman instead they are now pro protecting abortion that's why their lie is so useful but what's so astounding to me as I said about this video is that here you have a promoter of these ideas who is actively I mean leaving aside all the other stuff about her dehumanizing the human person and the relationship between mother and child and calling it your reducing it to a workers weird work contractual sort of Marxist you know the gist data type stuff they're just weird euphemisms that dehumanize depersonalized and dude I would say are a form of verbal violence against the profound wonder of what motherhood is leaving all that aside here you have someone actively openly honestly admitting abortion as killing and I think we should defend the killing we should say that it okay to do that this is a place that we're now red in our culture and this woman who was getting a lot of attention for this new book she's written mainstream attention for this book this is not just something that has an ability to direct culture and cultural ideas but more importantly it's also a reflection of where our culture is at the fact that these ideas are openly being talked about and even celebrated is a dramatic shift and to me it points to the fact that we are moving backwards at a great rate of knots we have abandoned that shared belief and a transcendent reality in the West which was God the judeo-christian paradigm and what they gave us did you do Christian ethic and now we are devolving back into paganism we have a new form of paganism which talks and sort of superstitious ways it doesn't focus really on human reason and reasoning it's way to these decisions and unlike the old paganism it's not really governed by any objective principles it's all very relativistic but it's also quite willing to accept the practice of ending the life of children an order to try and achieve a better outcome the old paganism you would sacrifice a child on a particular altar because you perhaps wanted a good outcome and your life for the harvest season to come here we have a fourth paganism where children are sacrificed in order to achieve achieve the loup-garou outcome of pleasure of self gratification of of not having to actually make self sacrifice an order you know to to care for another that's truly frightening it is truly frightening that this is where we're going now because by the way the next step the next logical step in this progression is that now that we're at this stage of celebrating and defending this act is to actually say well why stop at birth that's the next stage whether you like it or not and by the way already there are people if assists and they've been arguing this for many years now that infanticide is actually an acceptable practice when that actually starts happening and is normalized and we start celebrating that we really have now reached Pinnacle Peak paganism we are going backwards as a culture and that's what makes this so truly truly as per usual I'd love to hear your thoughts no sir please let me know what you think in the comment section below and if you liked the content I'm creating and you'd like to see more of it then as I said at the beginning please consider financially supporting the channel you can do that through one-off PayPal donations and also there are SUBSCRIBE star and patreon links in the video description below and don't forget to like and share the video if you think there's something worthwhile here and if you're not already please subscribe to the channel thanks for watching see you next time on left foot media or life TV

28 thoughts on “Feminist author: 'Abortion is killing… we should defend it'

  1. The line should be drawn at sentience, and animals should be considered when killing is unnecessary. In fact, to be truly pro-life, would one not need to be vegan?

  2. Communism isn't about resisting work! What is wrong with you, man? I've just donated $5 to you and then I hear you talking this BS?! Communism is about the workers being ensured of being paid properly for the work they do by owning the means of production (rather than being slaves at the mercy of the private business owners who employ them).
    Okay, what you say at 19:00 is worth my donation. Good for you, man. I'm right with you.

  3. It's a little awkward for me because I can agree with some of her views. Yes, abortion is killing and it's truly horrifying that we, as a people, are condoning killing unborn human beings for no fault of their own. On the other hand, please don't kill me for this, I think that the decision to keep the child should be a woman's decision. I'm not saying that her spouse, boyfriend, partner (if she has one) shouldn't have a say in this, obviously the decision of aborting should be something to be talked about extensively and with consideration, but in the end it's the woman who has to carry the baby for 9 months and nurture him/her into being, and it should be her right to say 'no. It happened because I was careless, but I don't want to do this.'

    That said, you also have to take into consideration cases of rape. When a woman has been raped and consequently found herself pregnant, can you, morally, force her to proceed with the pregnancy when it happened because of a horrible crime? The baby is innocent, that is true, but I think the decision to abort in this case is warranted.

    I don't know. Your video helped me to rethink some of my positions, but I'm still on the fence about this.

  4. Was disturbed by Sophie Lewis' brutal honesty. Pro-choice advocates have always framed their arguments as based on bodily autonomy and women's rights. At least Sophie is honest to admit that abortion involves taking alive. While I am pro-life, I would not oppose abortion in certain circumstances like rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger. However, abortion shouldn't be used as a form of population control, eliminating "undesirable" people, and most importantly "correcting" the effects of promiscuity. Abortion should always be a last resort when everything else has been exhausted. Being pro-life, I also support increased maternal support, sex education for young people (provided it doesn't promote promiscuity), contraception, and oppose the death penalty. Being pro-life should also mean support efforts to combat child poverty and any health problems. Thanks Brendan for uploading this video, will share it with my Christian family members and friends.

  5. Have you listened tothe "Value of human life" speech by Marder from the game Titanfall 2?
    I find it interesting that it has so many paralells to the arguments from the pro-abortion movement.

  6. I am willing to bet the same people who are 'pro-choice' wouldn't hesitate to be pro-life when it comes to animals. Or 'life' on other planets. Or insects. Or plants.
    Something is mentally unbalanced when human beings will defend and save every other form of life around them but their own.

  7. Virginia governor has unsuccessfully attempted to pass an infanticide bill. So the next logical step to abortion is here and it will not stop.

  8. As a father, I cannot support murdering an innocent life! Be it biological, or my upbringing, an ancient voice within rises to defend life…I'm sworn to protect, NEVER end a baby's life!

  9. Hello there Mr. Malone, From a pro life advocates point of view, is life the same thing as sentient life? Is being pro life the same thing as being pro sentient life? I don't know. This is an actual question I have. If all life is sacred, sentient or otherwise, wouldn't it be more logical to change how people treat the planet? I ask this because in my mind it seems that humans are shitting on the planet. Arguably a living thing. Before a person delves into whether a mass of cells are living or not, wouldn't it be pertinent to ensure that the existence they are arriving in, is the best one they can receive? Personally, I don't know. That's why I watch your channel, not to have answers fed to me, but to make me think and sometimes arrive to answers myself.Thanks, J. McD.

  10. She has quite bold approach in choice of words, which is refreshing. And you are entitled to your opinion obviously. Your video left me very saddened and anxious though. With articulate and passionate people like yourself and many of the commentators, what genuine chance do women of reproductive age get to withold their right on bodily autonomy and equality regarding sexual freedom? Yes, deciding to abort is an ethically and morally hard call to justify; however, what is the alternative? Society to force women to carry into term and give birth? Vilify those whom are unwilling for any reason – even medical? To me, that is even more problematic, and frankly a horrifying option.

  11. Maybe feminists concerned with the objectification of women should be focusing on people who call mothers “gestators.”

    Probably just my patriarchal privilege talking though.

  12. Great video, thanks. Like all the pro-choice arguments there's a very simple rejoinder. In this case: why do you think the parents of a 1yr/2yr/9yr old can't relinquish their parental 'workload' if doing so would lead to the child's death?

    "Your honour I didn't strap my child in the car seat before the accident as I felt I did not wish to undertake that workload that particular Saturday morning" 🙄

  13. She should be sent to prison if she is well aware that abortion is murder and thinks it should be supported or even defended

  14. Hey, here's the situation in France right now regarding abortion. We have two of them: the therapeutic one, which is basically a form of euthanasia, and is ethically justifiable. And the "voluntary" one, which is (currently) limited at 12 weeks of pregnancy maximum (3 months). This is obviously a compromise, based on the fact that beyond this period, the embryo becomes a fetus, aka a mini human being with all its organs present, and developing, specifically the brain. Btw, fetus have been viable as early as 22 weeks in recent procedures, in case you're pro choice and think 12 weeks is too harsh of a restriction. An embryo isn't a mere pack of cells either, it doesn't 'look' human though, since the genome isn't fully expressed yet. I still think it is questionable and ethically unjustifiable in most cases, but truth is: you cannot realistically determine whether the woman had her pill or condom fail, or if she's just lying to get an abortion, so it's borderline impossible to have choice abortions for women who had their choice rigged by rapists or technical failures and not for women who pretended to have those. On the other hand, it's not humane either to deny their ability to have their consent not taken away, as much as it would be inhumane to authorise abortion on a fetus, rather than an embryo without a functional brain. Still a form of non ethical euthanasia though. But it's genuinely the lesser of three evils.

Leave a Reply

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