YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → This Video Ends the Abortion Debate.

This Video Ends the Abortion Debate. — Transcript

by Jesus and Whatnot · 2,951 words · 422 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Worldwide, there are about 73 million
0:03abortions per year. If you do the math,
0:06that is 200,000 abortions per day,
0:098.3,000
0:11abortions every hour, and roughly 139
0:15abortions every single minute. For
0:19clarification, this is what that sounds
0:21like on a metronome.
0:30Every single click, every beat that you
0:33are hearing right now is the death of an
0:35innocent child. A child living
0:38peacefully in its mother's womb being
0:41killed by a medical professional. Every
0:45single time you hear this click, it is a
0:47child dying in real time.
0:59You see, abortion can very easily be
1:03reduced to a political talking point or
1:05just something that's argued about
1:07online. But at the end of the day, if
1:10Catholics are right about what abortion
1:13really is, then what is going on right
1:15now is the worst atrocity in all of
1:19human history. If you take every war
1:22that has ever been fought by humans in
1:25the entire world throughout all of
1:26history, it will be less than how many
1:30children have died from abortion in the
1:33past 50 years alone. This is a
1:37holocaust. It is happening right now.
1:40And is more important than ever for us
1:43Christians, us Catholics, to be able to
1:46defend our position and explain why what
1:49I just showed you is happening is so
1:52wrong. In this video, I am going to show
1:54you how to prove this definitively. No
1:57matter what hypothetical is thrown at
1:59you, no matter what medical evidence is
2:01thrown at you, you will be able to show
2:04anyone with an open heart and open mind
2:06that abortion is intrinsically evil. The
2:10first thing that we need to do to get
2:12this argument moving is to imagine that
2:14your three-year-old daughter comes up to
2:16you and asks you, "Hey, Dad, am I
2:19allowed to kill this?" Now, your
2:21response would not be immediately yes or
2:24immediately no. Rather, you would say,
2:27"What is this? What is it that you are
2:29wanting to kill?" If it's a spider, yes,
2:32please kill that. If it's the family
2:34dog, let's not kill that. Okay, sweetie.
2:36Let's let's not kill the family dog.
2:39This shows us that the question what is
2:42being killed is going to affect the
2:46moral implications of what is being
2:48done. This is why it's so important to
2:50ask the question what is the fetus in
2:54the womb? Is it a member of the human
2:56species or is it something else
2:58entirely? Well, in the words of Planned
3:01Parenthood, to describe an embryo or
3:03fetus scientifically and factually, one
3:06would need to say that a living embryo
3:08or fetus in uterro is a developing
3:11organism of the species homo sapiens,
3:15which may become a self- sustaining
3:17member of the species if no organic or
3:20environmental incident interrupts its
3:23gestation. This is vindicated very
3:25easily by a basic biological education.
3:29Every single fetus has a unique human
3:31genetic code. It belongs to the human
3:34species and is alive and therefore is a
3:37human being. Species also come from the
3:40same species. For example, a cat will
3:43never produce a non-cat and a dog will
3:46never produce a non-d dog. Likewise, if
3:50an organism's parents are human, then
3:52that organism will also be human. Even
3:55the Miriam Webster dictionary agrees
3:58with this definition. It defines a fetus
4:00as a developing human from usually two
4:04months after conception to birth. This
4:07is why the pro-choice argument of it's
4:10not a human, it's just a fetus, is
4:12ridiculous. It is somewhat analogous to
4:15saying, "Well, it's not a human, it's
4:17just a baby." Or, "Well, it's not a
4:19human, it's just a toddler." The fetus
4:22is a stage of development of the human
4:25species just as baby or toddler is. Now
4:29before we move on with these
4:30definitions, it's important to note that
4:32the word human can be taken as an
4:35adjective or as a noun. For example, it
4:38can be used as an adjective when we say
4:40human hair, human sperm or human skin.
4:44Here the skin or the sperm or the hair
4:48is being described by its belonging to a
4:52human person. However, the word human
4:55can also be used as a noun describing
4:58the thing itself. This baby is a human.
5:02This mother is a human. The noun form of
5:06the word human is what we are concerned
5:08with in this argument. This
5:10clarification is going to help us
5:12understand why we must preserve the life
5:14of a human embryo or a human fetus. But
5:17we don't have to preserve the life of a
5:20human skin cell for example because the
5:22skin cell belongs to the human as an
5:25adjective whereas the human organism is
5:28being described as the human noun. If
5:32you want to show this biologically you
5:34can use the acronym net. If you give
5:37this specific living thing the proper
5:40nutrition, environment and time, will it
5:43become a developed member of its
5:46species? If yes, then it is a living
5:49organism that is the noun human. If not,
5:53then it is not a living organism that is
5:56the noun human. This exact clarification
5:59of net is going to help us understand
6:02why we must preserve the life of the
6:04human embryo or fetus whereas we do not
6:08have to preserve the life of a brain
6:10deadad patient who is on life support.
6:12If the brain deadad patient is given the
6:14proper nutrition, environment and time,
6:17they will still never wake up and be a
6:20fully conscious developed person of the
6:23human species. They are scientifically
6:26brain dead. However, if that same
6:28nutrition, environment, and time is
6:31given to the human embryo, it will
6:34eventually grow up to be a developed
6:37member of the human species. Now that we
6:39have our definitions down, we can get
6:41into the actual argument for why
6:43abortion is so wrong. There are only
6:46four things that can possibly
6:48distinguish an unborn human being, a
6:50fetus, from a born human being. Let's
6:53say a baby that is 6 months old.
6:56Hopefully, the person you're talking to
6:57will agree that killing a six-month-old
7:00baby is never going to be okay. So, now
7:03we just have to show them that the
7:05differences between an unborn human
7:07being and a born human being are never
7:10going to be sufficient to say that we
7:12can take the life of that unborn human
7:15being. The four differences are going to
7:17be represented by the acronym sled.
7:20First size, then level of dependency,
7:24environment, and finally decree of
7:27dependency. Let's go through each of
7:29these differences one by one and ask the
7:31person that we are speaking to if this
7:34difference is enough to kill someone.
7:37The first one, S for size. Is someone
7:41less human or less valuable because of
7:43their size? If so, does this mean that
7:46young children are less human or less
7:49valuable than teenagers or full-g grown
7:51adults? Is someone who is shorter than a
7:54tall person going to be less human or
7:57less valuable? If not, then why should
7:59we consider the small state of the
8:01embryo or fetus any less human or
8:04valuable than a born baby that is just 6
8:07months older? Next, we have the level of
8:10development. And typically people will
8:12not refer to just the body alone but
8:15more specifically the mind. They will
8:18say that the human brain at X stage of
8:21development is not developed enough in
8:23order to constitute that this is a human
8:26or at least a valuable human. But then
8:28we can ask ourselves does this mean that
8:31an autistic person is less valuable than
8:34a non-aututistic person? Does this mean
8:36that anyone with a less developed brain
8:39is going to be less human or less
8:41valuable than people with more developed
8:43brains? If so, this seems very abbleist
8:46and I don't think anyone on the left
8:48side of politics is going to be willing
8:51to admit that development is something
8:54worthy of killing another human being.
8:56If so, ask them, can we kill people with
8:59Down syndrome simply because they are
9:01less developed than we are? The next
9:03difference is going to be environment.
9:06We can ask the person that we are
9:07talking to, is somebody's environment
9:10enough to constitute killing them? If
9:12somebody is located in Africa, do they
9:14become any less human or any less
9:17valuable than somebody who lives in
9:18America? We could say the same thing
9:20about Europe and Asia or somebody who
9:23lives on the moon. Just because somebody
9:25is in a different environment than you
9:28does not mean that you have a right to
9:29take their life. Finally, we have the
9:32difference of dependency. Does
9:34somebody's level of dependence upon
9:36another person make them any less
9:39valuable or any less human? If so, would
9:42this mean that an elderly person who is
9:44dependent upon their children to take
9:46care of them is less human or less
9:49valuable? Of course not. Would we say
9:51that somebody who is completely sick and
9:54reliant upon their spouse to take care
9:56of them any less human than they were
9:58before they got sick? also hopefully
10:01not. Finally, we can take an analogy
10:04that is very very similar to the fetal
10:07development. Imagine a newborn baby that
10:10is completely dependent upon its mother
10:12for its breast milk. Now, could we say
10:15that it's okay to kill that child just
10:17because it is dependent upon the body of
10:20the mother? Of course not. So, why would
10:22it be okay to kill the child just 3 days
10:25before when it was still in the mother's
10:27womb? This completely undercuts all of
10:30the viability arguments that are made by
10:32the pro-choice movement. They will say
10:34that since the unborn child is
10:36completely dependent upon the mother,
10:38it's okay to kill it while it's in its
10:40womb. However, a newborn baby is also
10:43completely dependent on its mother. But
10:45we would never say that it's okay to
10:47kill those children now that they have
10:48been born. Now, in my opinion, the
10:51strongest counterpoint that you will see
10:52from the pro-choice movement is the
10:55sovereign zone argument. They will make
10:57the claim, my body, my choice. And since
11:00the child is located inside of the
11:03mother, we have a right to kill that
11:05child to protect the individual rights
11:08of that mother. They will often give the
11:10famous philosophical argument of the
11:12violinist, which we will get to later in
11:14this video. However, for now, we're
11:16going to focus on a different
11:17hypothetical that will prove our point
11:20very strongly. Imagine that a woman just
11:22gave birth to her child. The child is
11:24about four weeks old and still
11:26completely dependent upon her for breast
11:28milk. Now, this woman is traveling with
11:31her baby and gets locked inside of a
11:33cabin in the woods during a snowstorm.
11:35There is only steak to eat, so only the
11:38mother can eat and only the child can
11:40have any nutrients by the breast milk of
11:43that woman. She can eat the steak, but
11:46the steak is far too tough for the child
11:48to eat. Now, would we say that it's okay
11:51for the woman to stop supplying her
11:54bodily resources to this child so that
11:57it starves to death? Of course not. So,
12:00now take that same logic and apply it to
12:03the fetus that is inside of its mother's
12:05womb. Would we ever say that it's
12:07permissible for that child to be
12:09deprived of the natural resources from
12:12its mother simply because the mother
12:14doesn't want to? If you say yes, then
12:17you must carry that same logic over to
12:19the cabin in the woods scenario. That
12:22same child that is fully dependent upon
12:24the mother for its breast milk should be
12:26allowed to starve to death. And we all
12:29see why that is hugely problematic.
12:31Further, we can easily undercut the
12:33argument of my body my choice by
12:36bringing up theomide. In the midentth
12:39century, there was a drug called
12:40theolyomide that was used to ease
12:42headaches in women during pregnancy.
12:44However, it was later discovered that
12:46taking theolyomide caused the children
12:48of these women to be born without arms
12:50or legs. Theolyomide is now banned
12:53across the United States because taking
12:55the drug did harm to the fetus. Women
12:58obviously do not have complete free
13:00reign over their bodies because if it's
13:03harming another person, then it's
13:05obviously wrong. Now, we can ask
13:07ourselves, what is abortion doing? It is
13:10taking the life of another person and
13:12therefore under the same exact logic, it
13:15is completely wrong to have an abortion.
13:17Now, with that being said, we can
13:19finally move into the famous violinist
13:21argument. It was first given by Judith
13:23Jarvis Johnson in 1917. And if you
13:26haven't heard of it, it goes something
13:28like this. You have been kidnapped by a
13:31bunch of friends of a violinist, the
13:33greatest violinist in the entire world.
13:36that violinist is going to die unless
13:38you are specifically hooked up to that
13:41violinist. While you are asleep, they
13:43take you and hook you up to that
13:45violinist using different parts of
13:47medical equipment. Now, if you unplug
13:50yourself when you wake up, the violinist
13:52will surely die. Do you have a right to
13:56unplug yourself from this violinist or
14:00should you remain plugged in? This is
14:02supposed to be an analogy for how
14:04pregnancy works. The woman sometimes
14:07against her will is impregnated and
14:10hooked up to this child in a sense where
14:13she has to preserve the life of the
14:15child. Should the woman be allowed to
14:17unhook from the child and allow it to
14:20die? Now, at first, this seems like a
14:22very good objection to the argument of
14:24the prolifers. However, there are a few
14:27major mistakes. First of all, being
14:29hooked up to this person is in no way
14:31natural, whereas a fetus in the mother's
14:34womb is completely natural. The fetus
14:37has a natural right to the bodily
14:39resources of the woman, just as it has a
14:41natural right to the breast milk of that
14:44woman. However, unhooking yourself from
14:46a violinist takes away no natural right
14:49from that violinist. You are simply
14:52using your bodily autonomy to leave that
14:55person behind. and they are dying of
14:57their own natural processes. They are
14:59not in their natural environments and
15:02you are not taking away any natural
15:04resources from them. You can further
15:06debunk this argument by asking the
15:08simple question, what if instead of
15:10unplugging myself from the violinist, I
15:13pulled out a pistol and shot the
15:15violinist in the head before I ever
15:17unplugged myself. Would this be
15:19permissible? Almost everybody who hears
15:22that question would say, "No, of course
15:24you can't do that. This shows that there
15:26is a real distinction between actively
15:29killing something and allowing it to
15:31naturally die. The violinist, if you
15:34unplugged yourself, would naturally die,
15:37whereas shooting them in the head, would
15:39be imposing something unnatural on them
15:42in order to kill them. Now, we can apply
15:44that same logic to a fetus in the womb
15:47to show how the violinist argument
15:49doesn't actually line up well with how
15:51fetuses work. The fetus is in its
15:54natural environment. It is supposed to
15:57be there and will continue living in
15:59that natural state. When you get an
16:02abortion, it is something unnatural
16:04being imposed on them that will cause
16:07them to die. You aren't letting the
16:09fetus die because if it's given the
16:11proper nutrition, environment, and time,
16:14it will grow up to be a fully developed
16:17human being. This shows how the fetus is
16:20not really analogous to the violinist.
16:22And we need to keep this in mind when
16:24any of these hypotheticals that are
16:26similar to the violinist are brought up.
16:28This shows us even further why abortion
16:30is still not permissible in cases of
16:33incest or sexual assault. Because even
16:35though that mother didn't consent to
16:37being in that situation, it does not
16:40give her a right to take the life of
16:42another human being, even if she thinks
16:44that there is a greater good that will
16:46be reached because of it. To drive that
16:48point home a little bit more, imagine
16:50that you have an option to save 10
16:53children, but the only way to save those
16:5510 children's life is to shoot another
16:58child directly in the head. We would all
17:01say that this is definitely wrong and it
17:03should never be done. In a similar way,
17:06just because there is going to be
17:08tragedy that follows if we don't get an
17:10abortion, it will never give us the
17:12right to take the life of the child who
17:14is in the womb of the mother. Now that
17:16you have all of this information, it
17:18will make your defense of the pro-life
17:21movement completely indestructible. No
17:23matter what hypothetical is thrown at
17:25you, you will be able to answer rather
17:28confidently, and you will be able to
17:29show everybody that you have encounters
17:31with why abortion truly is evil. Think
17:35of the 139 children that we listen to at
17:38the beginning of this video. Think about
17:40how many have died since this video
17:42started. You need to go out and make a
17:44change. You need to go out and tell
17:47people to stop getting abortions. We
17:49need to go out and vote for the end of
17:51abortion. And we need to put an end to
17:54this evil worldwide. Please pray for the
17:57souls of those who have already been
17:59killed by abortion. Pray for an end to
18:01the practice. Please pray for me. Know
18:03that I am praying for you. And God bless
18:06every single one of

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of This Video Ends the Abortion Debate. by Jesus and Whatnot, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 2,951 words across 422 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.