Hasan and Destiny debate abortion

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

Continue Dismiss

This argument is cancer - Destiny debates Hasanabi

On May 17, 2019, Destiny and Hasan debated the definition of personhood, morality, and the role of government in legislating abortion. While Hasan agreed with Destiny's policy assessment of abortion, he took issue with Destiny's "arbitrary" assignment of personhood at conception. As a result, the primary contentions of the debate centered around the various philosophical frameworks used to justify Hasan and Destiny's underlying moral positions.

Discussion Highlights

0:00 The video begins with Destiny already speaking with Hasan. Hasan asks for clarity with regards to Destiny's opinion on abortion. Destiny explains it is difficult to define when a human life begins, and argues the most consistent way to do so is at the moment of conception. Destiny further explains that "everything else puts you in weird areas", arguing if one believes a fetus to be a real thing, then abortion is essentially murder. Destiny concludes, stating abortion is a "weird rule" to make for society to function if he himself doesn't wish to be murdered. 1:13 Hasan (mouth full of food), inquires further of Destiny, asking if he believes no legislation should be established "one way or the other" with regards to abortion. Destiny replies, asserting abortion must be legal given how modern society functions. He further describes his uncomfortability with "legislating his morality" to other individuals, and recognizes the general "greyness" of the issue. Destiny goes on to explain that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to provide individuals with access to contraceptives, and sexual education. 2:17 Destiny explains his position in philosophical terms. Destiny describes his metaethical position as , in that he doesn't believe morality exists. Destiny continues, explaining that his normative position is rule-utilitarianism, meaning he wants to make rules in society that will most benefit himself. Destiny elaborates that one of the "rules" he thinks shouldn't be made is that it's okay to kill people without good reason, and if one were to consider a fetus a child, one would have to accept the notion that killing anyone that is very inconvenient to others is justified. Destiny concludes that such a rule would be worrying to himself. 3:21 Hasan asks Destiny if he believes a fetus has personhood. Destiny replies that a fetus has personhood at the moment of conception, more specifically, the time a woman's egg is fertilized, and a unique sequence of DNA is created for an individual. Hasan takes issue with this, and the two discuss for some time. 6:37 Hasan provides his counterargument, stating the physiological damage/emotional harm a person endures through the process of childbirth should justify their ability to perform an abortion. Hasan then asks when the fetus's personhood supersedes the mothers. Destiny reiterates his prior statement, arguing it's very difficult to justify killing an individual due to their inconvenience. 7:42 Hasan asks if there's a distinction between a one-year-old and a one-day old fetus. Destiny argues it would be hard to differentiate the personhood present within the two. The two then debate when the moment of "personhood" occurs in a fetus for some time. 11:14 Destiny discusses how a child borne out of a rape scenario may violate the non-aggression principle, and points to how a pro-choice individual may be pro-abortion in this scenario. Hasan remarks that the non-aggression principle is a "bit of a meme". 13:43 Hasan brings up an argument put forth by other pro-abortion individuals' law wherein an abortion should only be legal if the fetus may inadvertently harm the mother's body. Hasan argues this line is arbitrary, if one were to accept the fact that a fetus is a life. Destiny counters, stating the women is placed in a situation where they have to save one life or the other, and saving the mother's life in this case would be justification enough. 16:31 Destiny reiterates that in his "flawless world" the best way to get rid of abortions would be to provide contraceptives and sexual education, however abortions would still be outlawed, and any unwanted children could be adopted by the state. Hasan takes issue with this framing, arguing Destiny's "flawless world" in inherently flawed, Destiny retorts several social programs and other means of protecting the mother (both physiologically and mentally) would be in place in this hypothetical. 21:08 Destiny asks Hasan when the opportune time to kill somebody(a fetus) is. Hasan first replies he does not ascribe personhood to a fetus, to which Destiny asks "why not?". Hasan begins to list reasons for why a Fetus does not have personhood, beginning with consciousness, and is immediately cut off by Destiny before he can list further attributes. Destiny reiterates this is a complicated debate and it is important to parse through every point in detail, to which Hasan admits he's coming up with arguments for his position on the spot. 22:45 Destiny asks Hasan why consciousness makes one worthy of being considered a person. Hasan responds that consciousness gives an individual moral agency, and because "we assume that we have it". 24:28 Destiny asks Hasan if he believes one year olds have moral agency. Hasan responds that a one year old's potentiality of becoming a moral agent is much higher than a fetus. Destiny questions Hasan's belief that one-year olds can make moral decisions, to which Hasan reiterates he is primarily concerned with "viability outside of the body", and the "natural trajectory of becoming a moral agent". Destiny counters, arguing this same trajectory occurs to a fetus within a mother's body. Hasan retorts, asserting that a one-year-old is not longer tied to a "host". 25:42 Hasan argues a fetus does not have consciousness, and the ability to become a moral agent is something that should be valued. Destiny then offers to remove the moral agent portion of his list, and Hasan argues once more that consciousness is an indication that somebody has the capacity to be a moral agent. Destiny then argues that Hasan does not care about consciousness at all as he's merely using it as a signal for someone to potentially be a moral agent. 26:50 Hasan argues one more that consciousness is only one element of his argument, to which Destiny accuses Hasan of "bouncing" between his elements of personhood whenever he's unable to substantiate a particular one. 28:00 Hasan argues it would be impossible for him to defend every individual aspect of personhood without referring to another element. Destiny decides to provide an analogy of "why cars are cool", and demonstrates his ability to defend each element of why "cars are cool" without referring to a separate element. 29:14 Austin Show joins the call. 30:25 Hasan engages with Destiny's car analogy, argues he likes cars, and being red just may be one of the byproducts of being a car, so all cars have to be red. 32:19 Following further deliberation, and the abandonment of the car analogy, Hasan provides a statement agreeable to Destiny: The capacity to develop moral agency outside of the womb. 33:53 Following Hasan's prior statement, Destiny posits a hypothetical baby that cannot be sustained without medical assistance. 35:07 Destiny asks Hasan to provide the distinction between outside versus inside the womb. 35:22 Hasan yells at chat for claiming Destiny is owning him in this debate. 37:04 Hasan's anger subsides, the conversation continues. 38:19 Destiny gets distracted by Hasan's chat and shouts at them for some time. 38:48 The conversation continues, and Hasan provides his position relating to the potential harm an unwilling "host" may endure. Destiny argues a wanted newborn could cause just as much if not more harm than an unwanted fetus. 41:40 Destiny restates his hypothetical of a 7 month old newborn which requires medical assistance to live, and asks Hasan what should become of the child. 45:06 Hasan requests that Destiny define what personhood is. Destiny explains that he believes a fertilized egg is a person, and describes how his life experiences involving considering the abortion of his own child helped inform his current opinion. Hasan argues that Destiny forgot to consider his pregnant partner's feelings at the time, especially the harm she endured. Destiny accuses Hasan of using an ad-hominem and points to the shakiness of all his aforementioned arguments. 49:49 Following Hasan claiming he was not intending to ad-hom Destiny, Destiny steps out of the call briefly to speak with his chat. 50:44 Destiny returns to the call and continues his debate on personhood with Hasan. 53:27 Destiny steelmans Hasan's argument: A person is some emergent property of several underlying traits, that are worthless on their own. 55:55 Destiny explains why it is difficult to defend the argument that a fetus isn't a person. 58:30 Destiny asserts any argument Hasan can make about a fetus can be said for someone with a debilitating disease or mental illness. 1:00:35 Destiny rehashes why he doesn't do philosophical arguments regarding abortion anymore, and how "aids" these discussions are. Hasan agrees, and the call eventually ends.

Debate

Destiny's position

While Destiny expresses his moral reservations about abortions, and argues that a human's life begins at conception, he maintains that abortion should still be legally permissible given the extenuating circumstances an individual who may desire an abortion could find themselves in.

Destiny's full stance on abortion is the following:

"So my metaethical position is descriptive-egoism, right. So I don't really believe in morality or any of that exists. My Normative position is that I'm a rule-utilitarian, that means that I want to make the rules in society that I think will most benefit me. One of these rules that I think shouldn't be made is that it's okay to kill people without good reason. I don't think it's okay to kill somebody unless you have a really really good reason... and when you do an abortion, you're basically saying it's okay to murder some people because they're very inconvenient to other people. That's a rule, like if you craft that rule, I feel like... at some point in my life I might become vulnerable to crafting that sort of rule, and that would be worrisome to me."

— Destiny outlining his stance on abortion

Hasan and Destiny Debate

Despite initially being amicable to Destiny's reasoning, Hasan took issue with Destiny's description of a "flawless world" wherein abortions would be illegal, unwanted children would be put up for adoption, and contraceptives/sexual education would be the primary ways of preventing pregnancy. Hasan initially based his counter-argument on the personhood of a fetus, however after further questioning on what constitutes "personhood", it is eventually revealed that Hasan is "making up arguments on the spot" and has not spent much time pondering when a Fetus has personhood. Destiny and Hasan spend the remainder of the call ironing out Hasan's defense of his own position, and debating personhood.

A significant portion of the "personhood debate" focused on Hasan's tendency to shift between different traits (consciousness, moral agency, and potential for development) when defining personhood. When pressed on any single trait, Hasan often moved to another aspect, which resulted in Destiny frequently accusing Hasan of being inconsistent and evasive. To address this, Destiny used an analogy comparing the qualities that make cars cool, illustrating that Hasan's argument relied on a collection of traits rather than a coherent definition of each trait individually.

"Because it's not a collection of things that's the problem... Let's say you ask me: Why are cars cool? And I give you three reasons: The color of the car, how fast the car goes, and the type of transmission. Those are the three things that make cars cool. And you were to go Okay, well let's talk about the color. And I go: Okay cool, so the car's color is... blue. So, mine is blue, is that enough to make it a cool car? Then I would say, well no, now a blue car gives it a plus, that's a bonus, but that's not the only reason it's cool, that's just one part of it... But I like the color blue, so that's a positive thing, that means the color is part of my argument. But let's say instead I say: I like the color red because red cars are fast. Well then it sounds like the color isn't important at all, it just sounds like you like fast cars.

— Destiny demonstrating Hasan's argumentative flaw with a car analogy

Despite Hasan's continued disagreement (and confusion) with Destiny's "car analogy", the conversation continued and the two eventually reached an agreeable trait to deliberate on: The capacity to develop moral agency outside of the womb, and the distinction between a baby outside versus inside the womb.

Hasan argued that the separation from the host (the mother) marked a significant difference in the fetus's trajectory toward becoming a moral agent. He also argued that the emotional, physical, and material harm endured by the host during pregnancy further differentiates a newborn from a fetus. On the other hand, Destiny argued that both a fetus and a one-year-old have the same potential for moral agency. Destiny also contended that a wanted newborn could cause as much, if not more, harm than an unwanted fetus. The conversation took an unproductive turn following Destiny's use of a personal anecdote involving his experience choosing not to get an abortion, and Hasan arguing Destiny had not considered his partner's suffering during that experience. Following this exchange, Destiny cut away from the call to discuss his poor experiences the few times he's used personal anecdotes, and how it more often than not results in him being {{ad-hominem-ed. The conversation continues(fruitlessly) for some time, and both Hasan and Destiny eventually agree that the philosophical discussion surrounding abortion is "AIDS."

Debate play by play

21:08 Hasan lists "elements" of personhood, beginning with consciousness. Destiny responds by asking Hasan why consciousness makes one worthy of being considered a person, and asks Hasan if he believes a one-year-old has moral agency. Hasan initially argues that consciousness gives an individual moral agency and therefore personhood, and goes on to expresses his belief that a one-year old's potentiality of becoming a moral is much higher than a fetus. Destiny counters by asserting that the same developmental "trajectory" Hasan attributes to a one-year-old—that of evolving into a moral agent—also applies to a fetus as it grows within the mother's womb. Hasan retorts, asserting that the one-year-old no longer being "tied to a host" is a significant difference, and argues once more for the higher potentiality of becoming a moral agent. Destiny then offers to abandon consciousness from Hasan's list of qualities defining personhood, arguing Hasan does not care about consciousness at all as he's merely using it as a signal for someone's potentiality for becoming a moral agent. Hasan reiterates that consciousness is just one portion of his overall argument for personhood, to which Destiny accuses Hasan of "bouncing" to another element of personhood whenever pressed. Destiny proceeds to accuse Hasan of being unable to substantiate any individual element of personhood. Hasan argues it would be impossible for him to defend every individual aspect of personhood without referring to another element, to which Destiny decides to provide an analogy relating to "why cars are cool": "Because it's not a collection of things that's the problem... Let's say you ask me: Why are cars cool? And I give you three reasons: The color of the car, how fast the car goes, and the type of transmission. Those are the three things that make cars cool. And you were to go Okay, well let's talk about the color. And I go: Okay cool, so the car's color is... blue. So, mine is blue, is that enough to make it a cool car? Then I would say, well no, now a blue car gives it a plus, that's a bonus, but that's not the only reason it's cool, that's just one part of it... But I like the color blue, so that's a positive thing, that means the color is part of my argument. But let's say instead I say: I like the color red because red cars are fast. Well then it sounds like the color isn't important at all, it just sounds like you like fast cars. -Destiny demonstrating Hasan's argumentative flaw with a car analogy Hasan cuts Destiny off as he's wrapping up this analogy, informing Destiny that he doesn't understand what he's trying to convey. Destiny then reiterates his feelings of Hasan "retreating" to other traits of personhood when pressed on a given trait, and re-explains the analogy. Following further confusion from Hasan, Destiny eventually abandons the analogy and cuts back to the heart of the argument. Destiny explains he does not believe all conscious things are moral agents, and points out that Hasan said as much. After further deliberation, Hasan eventually provides a trait agreeable to Destiny: The capacity to develop moral agency outside of the womb AKA viability outside of the womb. Destiny then posits a hypothetical child to Hasan which could not be sustained outside of the womb without further medical assistance, and Destiny argues they should focus on deliberating the distinction between a baby outside versus inside the womb. As Hasan begins to reiterate the child is no longer attached to a "host", he is distracted by his chatroom and proceeds to yell at them for claiming Destiny is "owning him" in this debate. Destiny sympathizes with Hasan's anger, and informs Hasan that he's stepping into a "minefield" of abortion-related arguments with little experience. 38:19 The conversation continues, and Destiny argues the primary focus on this conversation should be the distinction between a baby outside versus inside the womb. As Hasan is giving his explanation, Destiny gets distracted by Hasan's chat claiming they hope Destiny never needs an abortion. Destiny then recounts his experience wherein an abortion could have potentially been justified in his life, but he refrained from doing so. The conversation gets back on track, and Hasan explains the primary distinction between a baby outside versus inside the womb is the "host"(aka the mother), more specifically, the emotional/physical/material harm to the host. Destiny then provides examples of how a newborn can cause just as much, if not more harm to its "host" (crying a lot at night, requiring money, preventing the parents from seeing their friends causing emotional harm), and could therefore justify aborting a one-year-old child by Hasan's logic. Hasan replies that the mother could simply give the child up for adoption, or not let the fetus become a child. Destiny restates his prior hypothetical of a newborn who cannot survive outside the womb without medical intervention, and asks Hasan what should happen to this child. Hasan replies that as long as the fetus has viability outside of the womb, it should be allowed to persist, as it will become a person at some point. Destiny remarks that a fetus also becomes a person at some point, Hasan argues a one-year-old is closer to "personhood", and the two loop through their prior debate on what makes a fetus a person and whether an abortion should be considered as killing a person. 45:06 Hasan eventually requests for Destiny's to elucidate on his position more. Destiny explains that he believes a fertilized egg is a person, and describes how his life experiences contemplating aborting his child while in dire financial straits informed his opinion. Hasan asks what his partner at the time though, and Destiny informs him that Rachel was fine with either outcome. Hasan then argues that Destiny failed to consider the most important factor in his own personal experience, which is that the harm Destiny endured through this scenario, was nothing in comparison to the emotional/physical/material harm his partner at the time endured. Destiny accuses Hasan of ad hominem, and argues this, like his other assertions, is a non-statement. Hasan takes issue and argues he was not ad-hom-ing Destiny, and Destiny proceeds to explain how he did so: "Okay so an ad-hom is when you is when you overtly attack somebody or more subtly cast doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. So nothing that we're talking about now has anything to do with any of the argument listed earlier. You're just saying that because I didn't experience as much material harm as Rachel, who was actually carrying the child, that somehow this should be taken into consideration." - Destiny "No I'm saying that you were thinking for two people but the second person in this conversation... had already accepted the reality that she was going to carry that pregnancy to term, if you came to terms with that as well."- Hasan "What does that have to do with any of the arguments that we said earlier?" - Destiny "Because she had accepted it... therefore when you're considering the emotional suffering that your partner is going to go through, she's already accepted that she's already taken on that burden most people don't... Does that make sense, do you understand what i'm trying to say?"- Hasan "I understand it, it just has nothing to do with any of the arguments we were having."- Destiny -48:12 Following further deliberation, Hasan assures Destiny he did not intend to adhom him. Destiny claims to understand, and briefly steps out of the call to speak with his chatroom regarding what occurred: "There have been three instances in my life where I've tried to give a personal example to make an argument, and I usually don't like doing that because I don't like arguing in that way cuz I think it's a really poor form of rhetoric... Every single time I've done it, the person has flipped the argument back on me, and tried to compromise my argumentation because I used a personal anecdote. It happened with that one Irish dude from the rape shit, it happened with the domestic abuse shit, and it just happened now with the abortion shit. I hate giving personal examples, because people will instantly turn it around and try to ad-hom your argument... It really triggers the fuck out of me, holy shit." -Destiny recounting his experiences giving personal anecdotes 50:44 Destiny returns to the call, and the two continue their debate on what constitutes personhood once again. Hasan reiterates his arguments regarding the capacity for a one-year-old to feel/become certain things, and Destiny routinely points that any trait Hasan points to could eventually develop in a fetus. Destiny event ually provides a steelman for Hasan's argument: A person is some emergent property of several underlying traits, that are worthless on their own. Hasan disagrees with this steelman, and argues once more that it is not sufficient enough to point to a single quality to define personhood. Destiny counters, asserting that this same multitude of factors could be present in a fetus, to which Hasan argues the situation is complicated. Destiny retorts this complication can be avoided by simply conceding a fetus is a person, and then manipulating rules around what constitutes the worthwhile times to perform an abortion/murder someone. The two deliberate on this for some time, before both Hasan and Destiny eventually agree that the philosophical discussion surrounding abortion is "aids" and end the call.