Life, Equality, and Choice: The Abortion Debate | Ann Furedi & Dr. Calum Miller

This moderator interferes a lot more than Justin. He seemed to interrupt Ann a lot, unfortunately, instead of letting her express her points fully. Overall a good discussion - Ann and Calum would make a great podcast conversation with just the two of them, especially because they are friends who respect each other.

Is Justin Brierley no longer hosting the sessions? I miss his restrained ‘neutrality’. This moderator interrupts so frequently that the session is more like his own Q&A rather than a dialogue between the two invited guests.

You should have Lila Rose on the show. I appreciate her approach to the conversation.

Dr Miller is the foremost apologist for the right to life in this country. He's a national treasure.

Listened to this on a podcast. Had to see who the gentleman interrupting the guests was. Unbelievable is great because Justin would just steers the conversation between the guests rather than interrogating them. This, this chap shouldn’t host.

The whole point of getting experts is having them interact, rather than the moderator interacting with them individually. I really dislike this set-up. You might as well do back to back shows with one guest and then the other.

I enjoyed this, but l felt the critique of the pro-abortion position could have been stronger. The host probed about Furedi's support for abortion one day before the due date, but she wasn't asked about killing babies after they are born. Is she opposed to that? If so, on what grounds and why doesn't that also lead her to oppose abortion? Also, she wasn't really challenged on using language that smuggled in rhetoric, for example, that a women denied abortion is "forced to have a baby" (hmm, is the ban on infanticide also a form of forced parenthood??) or, referring to that the act of killing an unborn baby as "ending a pregnancy".

An eye for an eye.

1:09:22

Sad that humans, who would not want to step over an ant, are debating this! 😢

She thinks that the mother should have more dominant rights ? She has had 20 years give or take to live, she is taking away from her own child the right to even be born. She speaks about the unborn in an abstract, it is her own flesh and blood, her baby. Does she think talking really slow makes her more intelligent ?

Interesting question. We can easily say that when it comes to abortion, the mother has the higher moral status and should be given preferance. Yet, everyone realizes when a firefighter has to choose one to save from a burning vehicle, that choice is innate. I think it is so innate that we know without stating it which one the fire fighter would choose.

Abortion IS a Right! A woman's Right to Vote - To Choose - To Decide ! WithOUT fascist interference!

Pregnancy is not a disease, abortion is not healthcare, unborn babies are not tumours.

It is always wrong to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being. Babies in the womb are innocent human beings, and they deserve the right to life.

It is interesting that the podcast starts with Ruth Jackson speaking of getting Christians thinking, of rights of the unborn & women, when does life begin. Nothing about what God says in His word, the discussion s all about what we think.

I really appreciate Dr. Miller’s approach. More and more I hear Christians relying less on the Biblical/spiritual argument against abortion and focusing on when life begins and the value our society places on life: specifically innocent life. That’s something I have always strived to do when it comes to abortion and it’s good to hear. I also appreciate how this entire discussion was respectful of both sides.

The concept of abortion is detrimental to the understanding of the sanctity of life as a basis for a commandment. I'm a Christian who believes that placing selfish desire above a natural action is abhorrent. It is selfish to assume rights when clearly we have none outside of nature's law which govern and place restrictions on our lives. I can agree with contraception as prevention to pregnancy but abortion is ethically and morally evil and symbolises self worship and is idolatry. Emotionally much damage can be done to someone who accepts abortion as a career move. We are not equal and that is why we need ethics. A child has no concept of responsibility, adults can but refuse to accept a code of conduct and now we they worship themselves not God or nature we have lost compassion to self aggrandisement and the debate about moral efficacy of abortion is profound and viscous. It is murder through the back door to deprive life and breaks our obligation to humility and empathy to sacrifice and commitment to provide life and adhere to support the concept.

The more we understand the earlier we see humanity. At some point you should humble yourself and admit that the things we do not know. One would think the wise thing to do is to take a position of caution toward the being in question. You don't though, you choose you focus on another characteristic that we have noticed, consciousness. I see it as the height of hubris to think we have figured out consciousness or whether it even matters if we could. Do you remember wondering whether born infants could feel pain? Doctors in the 1980's remember wondering 🤔 but cutting anyway till they realized maybe just maybe they were wrong and maybe babies can feel pain. Oops. Anyway you tell me you know what consciousness is and how it truly can be known, detected, understood.

I can't take this seriously with such a biased moderator.