Dr. Mike Adams and Dr. Willie Parker debate Abortion: Reproductive right or moral wrong? The answer is a matter of life and death.
Want to go even DEEPER into these topics? Check out our FREE Basecamp, “If Roe Goes” to see how we as Christians should respond if Roe vs. Wade is overturned
In an ever-changing culture, be equipped to always stand for the truth! Check out our resources, curriculum, Summer Student Conferences, and more at https://www.summit.org/
For more on the differences between being a human being and a person: https://www.summit.org/resources/difference-persons-humans/
Learn more about the scientific facts of the pro-life and abortion argument: https://www.summit.org/resources/articles/why-roe-is-against-reason/
Want to equip your students to discuss these issues with truth and grace? Sign up for Summit Summer Student Conferences!
Killing babies is killing babies and his argument about roe v wade doesn't work now since that's been over turned.
It makes me so sad, speaking as a black woman, that this doctor is helping to perpetuate the killing off of his own race .
Let’s say you’re in a fight, and one guy keeps cheering on your opponent to kick your ass. When the fight is over wouldn’t you want to punch him in the face too? You probably would. Now let’s say your back in the womb…and some guy is trying to convince your mother that aborting you would be right. When you grow up…wouldn’t you like to punch his lights out too? Let’s go back to our fight scenario. Say the other guy doesn’t really want to fight you at first, but the goof cheering him on convinces him to fight you. That’s incitement. It’s a crime. He could do time for it. So why doesn’t the pro-abortion guy do time? He’s not advocating for you to get your teeth knocked out he’s advocating for you to die!! Like…wtf?
You can be pro-life and pro-choice.
Dr. Adams really liking them ad hominem attacks
Wow, I have to say that Dr. Parker's position is repugnant in the guise of being moral and caring.
My hope is that this man goes to another country that enslaves people still and he becomes property. Then he'll understand. It takes this for someone like him to change.
LOL 😂!!!!! HE SAID THAT 11 ABORTIONISTS GOT MURDERED. HAHAHAHA 😂🤣😂🤣
No sir Mr Willy, 11 cold blooded killers got JUSTICE!!!!
Dr. Parker's "best" interview… https://youtu.be/A5RuIRluvEU
Protect Dr. Parker from paper bags. He'd never be able to argue his way out of one.
Willie, your OTHER interview was alot more memorable:
https://youtu.be/A5RuIRluvEU
Interesting that Dr. Willie Parker says he is a Christian, uses vague Scriptural references but denies that John the Baptist jumped in his mother's womb when she came next to Mary in recognition of Jesus in the womb. He would have to deny that John and Jesus were person's then.
Dr. Willy Parker is a baby-murdering moron… Definitely NOT a Christian, as he claims to be!!!
Willie Parker only says hes a Christian to be outrageous and get attention. He gets so much money from parentack hood and because he is black hes such a good advertisement for the black community and the poor in general to keep the money rolling in
The good Samaritan didnt get paid. Love this!!
Dr parker said at Q&A that the fetus has moral weight thats why he wont do gender and racial terminations. But the mother has personhood. Thats contradicting because if the mother who has personhood wants a gender termination, he should be able
To do it because the unborn doesn’t have personhood and the mother trumps the unborn in his argument. In reality he wants to give the fetus right when it suits him and the mother rights when it suits him. What a slippery slope this is
37:20 – word salad. "…the individual AND HER FAMILY…" in one moment, he's asking us to accept the woman's ultimate individual sovereign RIGHT, and in the next, "…and HER FAMILY" has a say in it?? So, sounds like he's suggesting that the FAMILY [which would INCLUDE the BIOLOGICAL FATHER – especially considering FAMILY COURT would include the BIOLOGICAL FATHER] enters into a formula of rights which are dependent on, modifiable by, or affected be, the 'family' also??
Is he even thinking about what he's saying — at all?
he's giving thought to/about eleven people who were murdered in the course of providing murder services?
the irony
willy's argument is: the LAW defines people.
the reality: PEOPLE CREATE THE LAW — LAW does NOT CREATE, DEFINE, DETERMINE, MAKE, etc, PEOPLE
He's got reality inverted.
He's set it up so that the Queen, in Alice in Wonderland, a CREATION OF LEWIS CAROL, can issue a VALID DECREE to have LEWIS CAROL'S HEAD REMOVED. He's asking us to SUBJECT HUMANITY to humanity's written legal fictions in a way that puts the FICTITIOUS as SOVEREIGN over the living….
SO will is asking us to respect that fact that we cannot KNOW what Jesus would THINK about a subject which he never spoke about…
…yet, willy asks us to ASSUME that willy KNOWS that a fetus cannot, and doesn't have thoughts…
and also asks us to assume that just because the LAW does not, [or cannot??] 'SPEAK' about the personhood of a fetus, that a fetus does NOT have personhood? So, if the law CANNOT SAY, for the reasons that willy CANNOT SAY, is somehow absolute proof that a fetus does not have the characteristics necessary to be qualify in the EXCLUSIONARY LEGAL FICTION PSEUDO-WORLD pseudo…
i.e. if 'science' either CANNOT know it, or CHOSES to REFUSE to pursue knowing something — by taking a STAND on saying that it 'CANNOT BE KNOWN'… and then scientists are allowed to PRETEND that it's 'UNKNOWABLE' — and then be able to ENFORCE the position that NOBODY ELSE [exclusivity] is ALLOWED?
…so, if a monk, puts their biological self into a state of brain activity that APPEARS to be 'no thought'/'pure awareness' — do they suddenly lose their 'personhood'? …and the pure awareness of a fetus is arbitrarily disqualifiable by people who refuse to acknowledge/accept this 'person'
have 'fetus' EVER exhibited in-utero 'behaviors' that could easily be recognizable as 'personality'? now what do we do? Disqualify a woman's perceptions of a 'fetus's' PERSONBALITY, because they "are not a degreed expert"? It's that simple… just present yourself as an 'authority', then use that magic spell to just poof take away someone else's expertise in an experience the 'authority' has NO WAY to KNOW…
…layered concocted insanity
so the so the moderator RUDELY tries to cut short the gentleman questioner who was trying to create a context for their single articulate question, but does NOT cut off the "answer" when it's answering a bunch of questions that were not asked, to take an opportunity to grandstand and re-iterate their perceived moral grandeur? wild
1:24:05 – so willy believes that sentience is what defines personhood. and he is UTTERLY UNABLE to claim he has KNOWLEDGE about whether an 'fetus' has 'sentience'. He shouldn't even open his mouth again until he can address this idea that he's SPEAKING FOR ANOTHER entity for which he CANNOT TRUTHFULLY SAY whether or not he KNOWS it has NO SENTIENCE.
willy's personhood definition of sentience, and ability to reason does not apply to a person who was in a coma last week, WHILE they were in it
he has no definition of his own… he abandons his own reason, and defers to NON-SENTIENT books, and laws to tell him what hi sown reasoning is… so, if he has no self-reasoned reasoning of his own in the matter, then is he not a person? His sentience is unable to speak of his direct knowledge of whether a 'fetus' has sentience or not without an arbitrary borrowed argument, and and is unable to speak from his own unique REASONING, but if forced to use some off the shelf reasoning… is he even a person?
is this one of those situations where, since willy, "has no uterus, he should NOT even be speaking on the topic"?
1:32:10 – will just compared a fetus to a murderer. a typically defined murderer is, in some moral systems, is 'justifies' the putting to death of the murderer in order to PREVENT the additional murders which a serial murderer/criminal appears likely to commit, in order for the people of that culture/society to protect the right to life of the rest of the not-yet-murdered… in what case is an infant 'put to death out of fear it 'intends' [sentience??] to commit MURDER' ?
wild comparison
1:35:00 the questioner is suggesting that the POSSIBILTY that a woman MIGHT/maybe/could experience post partum depression and might / maybe /possibly commit suicide, is a literal basis to elect to have an abortion… literally BEFORE when even knows it will happen?
In what other ways can we extrapolate the "my fear of the most extreme hyperbole i can imagine, gives me the ultimate pass to excuse ANYTHING i might decide to do"
i.e. hyperbolic fear based in my own imaginings is the basis of my rights? So, if you have a neighbor who suddenly gets a paranoid fear that you MIGHT put out poisoned treats for the dog, they can use that imagined paranoid hyperbolic fear to what? Have you arrested as a prevention for something they IMAGINED?
Is that what she's asking us to consider? So, what if that fear was an idea implanted by someone else? Now suddenly we have a situation where, party A, can introduce ideas to, and stoke these fearful ideas into party B, ABOUT PARTY C, which would make party B extremely fearful of PARTY C, and then party B should be able to use that fear as a 'right'/'justification' to treat party C … blah blah blah… so, hegelian dialectic weaponry? I mean, as long as we're entertaining the hyperbole game…
wild
1:45:40 – willy just gave a sexist analysis… he is inferring that ONLY MEN seek to chime in on the issue – and in doing so, has TAKEN AWAY the VOICE OF – by NOT ACKNOWLEDGING the existence of — WOMEN who ALSO hold "pro-life" / "anti-abortion" issues.
WOW, willy. Seriously. He, having NO UTERUS WHATSOEVER, just PRETENDED that he spoke for ALL women, and just asked the audience to believe that ALL women are aligned with his view. SO ironic to hear a MAN MANSPLAING that a MAN should NOT be weighing in on WOMEN'S ISSUES… oh, and, willy, what EXACTLY is a/are 'woman'/'women'?
willy CLAIMS to be mr science… then suggests that women should check with their god(s) about their abortion related choices
willy says that slaves had their "labor stolen" ?? Did he mean their LIFE / liberty / freedom / personhood?
Wow. SO he acknowledges that a 'LEGAL SYSTEM' and 'LAWS' can STEAL a SLAVE'S PERSONHOOD.. yet refuses to acknowledge how a MODERN LEGAL SYSTEM / LAWS could STEAL a fetus' PERSONHOOD?? LOL?!
He literally just ACKNOWLEDGED that a LEGAL SYSTEM — which he keeps deferring to for his 'AUTHORITY' and moral compass of whether or not he can be arrested for it, or whether he can have the police called on him for it — RATHER than any INTERNAL personally-responsible-unique-rationalization — a LEGAL SYSTEM CAN, DOES, and DID, REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE PERSONHOOD of human beings == SLAVES.
So, let me see if i got this right… A LEGAL system is ENTIRELY CAPABLE of HAVING BEEN/BEEING INSANELY WRONG, and has been DEMONSTRATED — not just hyperbole — to have DENIED HUMAN BEING PERSONHOOD, and he COMPLETELY DISAGREES with a LEGAL SYSTEM that can just TAKE AWAY A SLAVE'S (human being) PERSONHOOD, but, to ease his conscience about being PAID to take the lives and any possible future personhood, he just winks at the CURRENT LEGAL SYSTEM, and then turns to an audience, and says, well the LEGAL SYSTEM says that human being is NOT a PERSON… and if you CALL the legal system and try to get me arrested, just like this very same legal system in the past, if you'd tried to call the legal system and claimed that someone was killing a slave, that very same legal system would NOT have sent police to arrest anyone — because they HUMAN BEING was not magically DEFINED as a PERSON, with PERSONHOOD?
HOLY CRAP. This guy indirectly argues FOR slavery, and makes a case FOR a 'legal system' that make a MAGIC SPELL (law/statute/ordinance/code) that mysteriously has the power to TAKE AWAY a fetus' PERSONHOOD, or to DISALLOW the fetus' RIGHT to personhood (life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)…
Apparently he holds these legalities to be not self-evident, but that all men are created ONLY by legal systems. and are endowed with LIMITED PERSONHOOD…
witaf
A lady loses her rights if she has a to stay home and watch over a new born baby.
It's all about the money!!
Mike Adams was a staunch born-again Christian. So his suicide was puzzling.
It was a bit surprising and disturbing to notice how strongly Adams attacked on Parker's person. Otherwise the debate was not bad.
What was not surprising to me is how both debaters made things unnecessarily complex – it seems to happen with most debates on this subject. Parker had considerable problems in defining when "personhood" begins – and then it is easy to attack on that kind of vague answers.
To me the basic issue is about self-awareness. Yes, you can kill an unborn baby, because that baby will never know he/she was alive. So, yes, his or her life has less value than that of the mother. On the other hand, why did Parker not want to admit that killing anything that is alive, is something that is not good. Abortion is always a bad thing, but sometimes it is simply less bad than giving a birth.
Finally, a new-born baby is also unaware of his/her life. So, you might say that you can also end the life of a very young baby without it being an equally malicious deed as killing a person who will understand his/her life ending. But where can you draw the line? You sure wouldn't want to take chances on an issue like this, would you? So, to me it is a practical and safe solution the draw the line on birth.
A religious person understandably has another kind of evaluation on this subject, but to me the issue is rather straight-forward – definitely not one-sided, but a straight-forward one.
For Abortionist Willie Parker to bring up the alleged fact that he is a “Christian” while contemporarily engaging in the acts that result in the pictures of the aborted fetuses we saw on the screen is grotesquely tone def and blasphemous. Willie Parker is a cordial degenerate. He will be judged harshly because he has deliberately and appallingly used his faith as a way to try and convince listeners that killing the pre-born child is theologically sanctioned within Christianity. That notion is straight from the pit of hell.
I could not watch the video of abortions.
No one has the “right” or the “choice” to kill another person.
I have watched many debates on this topic and I still have not heard a good argument for prochoice.
Apologies but I think this is an unfair event. It is clear, by his own words, that Dr. Parker is not as eloquent in the arts of debate as Dr. Adams. This means that automatically it seems as if Dr. Adams has an advantage on defending his point of view. This does not mean he actually has better arguments, or otherwise, but it sure does seem that way due to this advantage. I have extreme respect for Dr. Parker to have a go at this anyway. Difficult topic a a whole.
Why do we outlaw the destruction of eagle embryos but condone destruction of human embryos? 🤷🏻♂️
Baby killer willie gets paid to murder children. FULL STOP. He can blow hot air all he wants…but in the end he will be in the great white throne room receiving Gods judgement and wrath. Sick and lost soul he is
I’ve noticed that any actual abortion debates are hosted by anti-abortion organizations. It makes sense, because science and basic morality is on our side. If I supported abortion, I wouldn’t want to have a conversation about it either. Anything on the topic coming from the pro-abortion side, is just pointing and laughing or shouting our side down. Their behavior truly shows their foolishness. The more conversations had about abortion the better. People need to know the truth.
45:44 Love this part
I guess I am naive but I was shocked to find Dr. Parker claims he is a Christian and even dared to bring in God's holy name and the word to defend abortion and his murdering a person"created in the image of God" also in the bible. The bible also states, "These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."
Maybe study the Word of God more and rip babies out of the womb less!😢
I think quoting biology text books to show life begins at conception leaves open the idea that biology is wrong about things. After all, science throughout history has been found to be wrong about 90% of the time. I expect it is only a matter of time until they change what the text books say. Science will never tell us when life begins. We all allready inherently know. Some just will not admit they do not inherently value life.
I almost wish abortion on the annoying moderator.