Audio only:
In this episode Trent rebuts Dean Withers’s arguments for legal abortion.
Persuasive Pro-Life, 2nd Edition: https://shop.catholic.com/persuasive-pro-life-2nd-edition/?srsltid=AfmBOoogy3ZuAxdfaTDYV-aoazuOnUROv77-m6xzVJUhplu6uNRcMzix
To support this channel: https://www.patreon.com/counseloftrent
[NEW] Counsel of Trent merch: https://shop.catholic.com/apologists-alley/trent-horn-resources/
Be sure to keep up with our socials!
https://www.tiktok.com/@counseloftrent
https://www.instagram.com/counseloftrentpodcast
Transcript:
Trent Horn (00:00):
Recently, liberal commenter Dean Withers appeared on Jubilee to face off against 20 MAGA Republicans and one of the prompts he defended was the claim that abortion should be legal. So in today’s episode, we’ll respond to some of Dean’s arguments, but before we do that, if you could take a moment to do two things, I would greatly appreciate it. First, talking about abortion is difficult on YouTube because the algorithm often throttles these episodes and doesn’t recommend them based on their content. So if you could hit the subscribe button and leave a comment, that would help offset that problem. And number two, when we talk about issues like abortion or other controversial issues, many times our episodes are demonetized or not advertiser friendly and so we don’t receive ad revenue and we can’t rely on that to support the show. And we also don’t have sponsorships here at the Council of Trent because I find sponsorships to be really annoying.
(00:49):
And I’d like to keep the channel as sponsor free as long as possible, but in order to do that, we need your help. So please go to trenthornpodcast.com where for as little as $50 a year, you can help keep the channel ad free, you can support us and get access to premium and bonus content. So check that all out at Trenthornpodcast.com. Now let’s take a look at Dean Wither’s arguments for legal abortion.
Dean Withers (01:11):
I have a question for you. Do you believe in equality? Well,
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (01:14):
I mean, I think that’s a very vague question, but generally, of course.
Dean Withers (01:17):
Okay. So if you do, then all humans are equal, correct?
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (01:21):
No, I don’t think that all humans are equal and I don’t think you do either.
Dean Withers (01:23):
Oh, I absolutely think that all humans have a right to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness. Really? It’s part of our Bill of Rights.
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (01:31):
Okay.
Dean Withers (01:32):
And if you actually love our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, then you would believe what I believe.
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (01:38):
Well, I mean, it says people, but small distinction there. I want to ask you a question. Is it murder for a doctor to pull the plug on a branded patient in the hospital?
Trent Horn (01:45):
Withers seems to think that this is the pro – life argument, premise one. It should be illegal to kill innocent human beings. Premise two, abortion kills innocent human beings. Conclusion, therefore, abortion should be illegal. Withers claims premise one is false because we can kill brain dead human beings. And if we can kill brain dead human beings, then maybe we can kill other human beings as well, including unborn human beings. That seems like the most ethical decision to make. So Wither’s position seems to be only persons can’t be directly killed, but not all human beings are persons. That’s why he can say life begins a conception.
Dean Withers (02:22):
When do you think life begins?
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (02:23):
I think that life begins at the moment of conception.
Dean Withers (02:25):
Good. I’m glad you believe that.
Trent Horn (02:27):
But then he can say it is moral to kill unborn human beings because he thinks that they are only biologically alive in the same way a brain dead person is biologically alive and not alive in a personal sense. They have biological life but not biographical life or personhood.
Dean Withers (02:45):
Some people actually write what they want done. They say, “Hey, if I become brain dead, then pull the plug.”
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (02:52):
Yeah. But for instance, if they don’t do that, okay? For instance, I haven’t done that. If when I leave the set today, I get into a nasty car accident, I get T-boned by a drunk driver, I go brain dead. Okay. Would it be murder for my family to tell a doctor at the hospital, “Well, because he’s brain dead, let’s just go ahead and pull the blood.” Would that be murder?
Dean Withers (03:09):
Well, honestly, you’re talking to someone that is very skeptical of doctors, okay? And even they talk about brain dead people that weren’t actually brain dead. True. So that’s why I always leave up to everything to God. So when I die is when I die.
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (03:26):
I want
Dean Withers (03:26):
To clarify that. So I actually don’t want to be killed, but now if you’re on all these machines to keep you alive, if it’s months and months and you’re not getting better, then you’re using machines to keep you alive.
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (03:39):
But they’re still alive and you
Dean Withers (03:40):
Still don’t
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (03:41):
Think it’s murder to kill them. So you actually don’t think that all humans have this intrinsic right to life. And by the way,
Dean Withers (03:47):
That’s – I never said no, you don’t speak for me. Again, I just told you I don’t believe in doctors. So I don’t go to the hospital. I have a very – That’s insane. I have not gone to the hospital in a long time.
Trent Horn (03:58):
There were some good elements mixed into this woman’s response, but as you can see, the flags went up fast when she said that she just doesn’t trust doctors or she doesn’t even go to the hospital, which is a position that’s unlikely to win over pro – choice people. So how should we answer with there’s argument? First, we could sidestep the question of personhood and defend the original argument. It’s always wrong to directly kill innocent human beings, but removing a brain dead person from life support is not the direct killing of an innocent human being because the human being has already died. If being brain dead is the same as being dead, then removing life support from brain dead people is not an instance of killing a human being since you cannot kill what is already dead. A truly and completely brain dead human is only alive in the sense that their bodily tissue is being kept alive by machines.
(04:47):
They are no longer a human organism with an immortal soul. According to the National Catholic Bioethics Center, properly diagnosed, brain death means the complete cessation of all organized neurological activity throughout the entire brain, including the cerebrum, cerebellum, and brainstem. When all brain activity has ceased, the body irrevocably ceases to function as a unified hole. Neurological criteria are combatible with Catholic teaching that a human being is a substantial union of body and soul. When all brain function is completely and irreversibly lost, this may be taken as a reasonable indicator that the immortal, immaterial and rational soul is no longer present. The soul is what composes living creatures and makes them different than dead decomposing tissue that used to be a complete creature or organism. In the case of true total brain death, removing life support only allows the process of decomposition to continue. It does not kill a living human being or a living human organism.
(05:45):
For more on this, See Catholic Philosopher Patrick Lee’s article, Total Brain Death and the Integration of the Body Required of a Human Being linked below. In contrast to the brain dead, every human embryo and human fetus is, like you and me, a living organism on a path of self-directed development that will continue unless that organism meets a fatal end. So while it is justified to allow the brain dead to be dead and decompose, it is not justified to kill unborn children who are very much alive. If they weren’t alive, abortion wouldn’t be necessary. The philosopher, Steven Schwartz says that the brain dead and the unborn are not similar in any morally relevant way because the brain dead are former persons who are no more, whereas the unborn are actual persons who are not yet fully developed. He writes, “We throw out food that has lost its nourishing power, that has it no more.
(06:38):
We do not, however, throw out food that has not yet developed its nourishing power. We wait and give it a chance. This is what we must do with human beings in their embryonic stage. Our lives did not start when our brains began to exist. Our lives as human organisms began when we first possessed organic unity and our individual body parts worked together for the good of the whole, including growing a brain to continue our development and thwart the threat of classic villain actor Dennis Hopper.
“Surrounded” Participant 2 (07:06):
Do not attempt to grow a brain.
Trent Horn (07:08):
The organic unity that makes us human organisms and not mirror human tissue like sperm or egg begins a fertilization because that is when our body parts first begin to work together to kep us alive and to continue our development. When an unborn child becomes so complex that he needs a brain to survive, he will grow one. He can do this because he is not a potential person. He is an actual person with great potential who can continue developing new organs and abilities over time and brain dead people are not persons because they aren’t even human beings. So allowing them to die and continue the natural process of decomposition is not the same as actively killing the unborn who are alive and on a path of self-directed development. Now, withers might try to save his argument by appealing to the case of a permanently unconscious living human being that is not brain dead but only needs a ventilator and a feeding tube to live.
(08:05):
In this case, removing a ventilator may result in the patient dying, but most people would not think such an act is always murder. Catholic bioethicist Father Tad Pahocek agrees that in some cases death can be morally brought about by removing a ventilator. So does this refute the classic pro – life argument? Remember, the argument went like this. Premise one, it should be illegal to kill innocent human beings. Premise two, abortion kills innocent human beings. Therefore, abortion should be illegal. Unlike in the case of the brain dead, a permanently unconscious person is a disabled person, he or she is a human being with a right to life like you or me. So while the word human being is used correctly in the argument in this case, we need to specify the meaning of the word kill. If we mean act or fail to act in a way that allows death to occur, then this would be a legitimate counter example.
(08:54):
So we need to tighten up the argument to something like this. It should be illegal to directly kill innocent human beings. When we do that, we see that not every action that results in a person dying is a form of murder that ought to be illegal. We shouldn’t conflate the right to life with the right to be kept alive by different means of technology. Human beings have a right to not be directly killed, such as the right to not be dismembered, and we have the right to the basic necessities of life like food or shelter. Depriving someone of these things is a way to directly kill him, but we do not always have a right to medical care that could become disproportionate or not justifiable because it imposes a great cost and will produce little to no benefit for the patient. So for example, a family may believe it is too burdensome even financially to keep a permanently unconscious relative alive for decades through the assistance of a ventilator and decide to turn the machine off.
(09:50):
However, if the patient continued to breathe after removing the ventilator, doctors would not be justified in smothering that patient to death. The goal was just to remove the disproportionate medical care, not kill the patient. So removing something like a ventilator for a permanently unconscious person is not murder. It is a decision to no longer intervene and stop a natural dying process. It does not violate the person’s right to life because that right does not include the right to unlimited medical treatments to prevent death. Abortion, on the other hand, starts an unnatural killing process. It does not fail to stop a dying process. It starts an unjust killing process by removing an unborn child from the one place that he can survive on his own. This action violates the child’s right to food and shelter that he has in virtue of his status as a human being.
(10:43):
Withers then engages another woman who incorrectly concedes saying that removing care from a brain dead patient would be murder, so he offers another example.
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (10:51):
So you truly think it’s murder to kill any member of the human species. What about a Zygot?
“Surrounded” Participant 2 (10:55):
That is also murder.
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (10:56):
So if I kill a unicellular organism of murder, do you think that all murderers should go to jail?
“Surrounded” Participant 2 (11:00):
Human Zygotes. It’s about humans.
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (11:02):
So do you think that all murderers should go to jail?
“Surrounded” Participant 2 (11:04):
All murderers should be put into trial and tried.
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (11:07):
But if they’re truly murderers, that’s an uncontestable fact. Then
“Surrounded” Participant 2 (11:10):
Yeah, they should be put to death.
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (11:11):
They should be put to death.
“Surrounded” Participant 2 (11:12):
I do believe in the death penalty.
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (11:13):
Wow.
Trent Horn (11:14):
Dean’s other argument is that if we don’t treat people who directly kill unborn children in the same way we treat those who directly kill born children, then this proves the unborn aren’t persons. First, Dean is shifting the burden of proof here. No abortion takes place when an unborn child is a zygote or a single cell human being. I would ask Dean, how many cells do you need to have in order to be a person? Two, two million, two billion? An adult has about 30 trillion cells in his body and an infant has about one to two trillion. So where do you draw the line? Of course, anywhere Dean draws the line is going to be arbitrary. And if he tries to ground personhood in specific cognitive function, then he’ll have to grant personhood to smart non-human animals and deny it to infants with a mentally handicapped.
(11:57):
Only the pro – life view makes sense of why all born human beings, regardless of their functional abilities, have the same basic rights. Second, at most, all this proves is pro – lifers are inconsistent, not that they’re wrong. It could also be the case, however, that pro – lifers are pragmatically arguing for punishments based on political feasibility. This also overlaps with the point that I made in a previous episode on abortion abolitionism. Pro-lifers can consistently view abortion as homicide without demanding that laws punish women who obtain abortions. And this fits with previous laws to promote human rights, which I noted in that episode on abortion abolitionism when I talked about slave traders who were only fined for slave trading and not punished in the same way people were punished for kidnapping free people and pro – lifers can adopt a similar framework. I agree some pro – lifers are inconsistent when they say there is no circumstance where a woman should ever be held criminally responsible for obtaining an abortion, but if a woman knew what she did was wrong and society had made enough moral progress so that abortion was generally considered as evil as infanticide, then abortion should be treated like infanticide in that society’s laws.
(13:05):
But that’s difficult to do today because there isn’t a common objection to abortion as there is to infanticide. So this affects culpability. When all this is put together, the incremental approach to outlawing abortion does not conflict with the pro – life belief that all human beings, including those in the womb, are persons of the right to life.
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (13:22):
So I want to ask you a question. Do you know who Max Irby is? No.
(13:25):
So Max Erby is a 15, 14-year-old guy and he’s in dire need of a stem cell transplant. And this is a true story. You could look it up. And his stem cell type is so incredibly rare that his father set up a “fundraiser” for a son taking random DNA samples in from people across the globe. So far, they’ve collected 40 million samples and there hasn’t been one match. What this means is that there’s probably only one match alive on the face of planet Earth that could provide stem cells to Max Urby to save his life. So let’s hypothetically assume that you are the one and only match for max Urby stem cell type and the government finds this out. Then the government forces you to provide your stem cells to max Urby without your consent for nine months introducing many physical and mental complications. Do you think that’d be just?
“Surrounded” Participant 2 (14:09):
No.
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (14:09):
No, because they shouldn’t be able to force you to provide your bodily resources to another life, even if not providing your bodily resources would mean that other life dies. That’s my position on victims of… They shouldn’t be forced to provide domicile in their uterus and access to their bodily resources to the fetus even if stopping the sustenance of those bodily resources to the fetus means a fetus dies. No difference than Max Erby.
Trent Horn (14:29):
This argument is different than Dean’s previous argument, which was based on the unborn child not being a person. Instead, this argument could grant that an unborn child is a person with a right to life, but say that he or she does not have a right to use his or her mother’s body for survival. But abortion is not like refusing to donate an organ or stem cells. It’s more like violently retrieving what was already donated. Consider this hypothetical. Imagine you wake up one day and discover that your kidney or your stem cells have been removed from your body and placed into Fred’s body without your consent. Moreover, the only way to get your kidney or stem cells back is through a procedure that will kill Fred. I suspect that many people who would be okay not donating a kidney or stem cells to Fred initially would not be okay killing Fred in order to get those body parts back.
(15:19):
But why? Probably because refusing to donate in the first place only involved refusing to stop a fatal sequence of events that had already started, whatever Fred’s illness was. But taking your organs back starts a new fatal sequence of events. It kills someone instead of letting that person die. And the same is true of aborting unborn children. Choosing to have an abortion is not equivalent to choosing to not do something like organ donation. It is the active killing of a healthy human being who was living in the place that was designed for his existence. That last part is important because Dean attempts to frame abortion as merely withholding lifesaving care from the child.
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (16:01):
I like I’ve said to the last five guests. I mean, we do that to brain good patients all the time.
Dean Withers (16:05):
Okay, so that’s to withhold care from them that sustains their life.That’s different than intentionally going there and killing them.
“Surrounded” Participant 1 (16:12):
Okay. So then you’re on board with the abortion pill, withholding the progesterone supply through the umbilical cord that would sustain the life of the fetus.
Trent Horn (16:17):
While we don’t have a natural right to expensive medical treatments, we do have a natural right to the place where we all lived in our development, our mother’s wombs. My kidneys or my stem cells aren’t for the purpose of sustaining the life of another human being. In donating those things, I am using extraordinary means to save someone else. And so those means are not obligatory. They’re not morally required. But in pregnancy, a mother uses a part of her body that was made to sustain another person. It’s obvious what our kidneys and other organs are for, but what is the uterus for? It’s for keeping a child alive. If a mother’s child is starving, she doesn’t have to cut off her skin and cook it in order to feed it to her child. But if she could breastfeed, then she would have that obligation because breast milk is for her child and the same is true of the uterus.
(17:06):
Saying abortion just removes life support is no more persuasive than a neglectful parent watching this child starve to death in a high chair saying, “Well, I didn’t murder my child. I merely withheld Cheerios from him.” Unlike the ventilator case we discussed earlier, abortion is not about removing life support that has become disproportionate care for the patient. It’s about directly killing the child because one or both parents no longer want the child to exist and no child should be treated that way before or after birth. Thank you guys so much for watching and I’d be happy to sit down with Dean and have a longer conversation with him about this subject. If you’d like to learn more about how to defend the pro – life worldview, pick up a copy of the second edition of my book, Persuasive Pro-Life. Thank you all so much for watching and I hope you have a very blessed day.