Ethan
Region: US
Sunday 25 October 2026 23:55:30 GMT
29265
1774
292
17
Music
Download
Comments
Gabe itch :
A person is a being with a rational nature
2026-10-26 21:54:55
0
GERM:) :
He said idk bro 😂
2026-10-26 00:22:05
180
Oliwer✝️✌️ :
why exactly does it nned to be a person? i wouldnt necissarily say the inherent value of a human is based on its personhood.
2026-10-26 11:43:09
5
sjhshjaedff :
Just because it’s one organisms doesn’t mean it can’t develop into more people. Conception begins the stage of human development therefore human life. Whether it is 1 nor 10 humans that will develop is meaningless because I’m arguing we protect all of them
2026-10-26 21:35:14
0
烏 :
i hope you find god bro and god leads you down the right path
2026-10-26 00:28:13
29
🎃 Rom, the Horrific 🎃 :
Why is he using his age and lack of credentials as an excuse for not knowing? He's in public inviting people to debate, he should know something about the topic.
2026-10-26 08:55:12
27
tucker :
What is your exact criteria for personhood, then? Mine is simply an individual human organism. What's yours?
2026-10-26 00:42:55
6
🇺🇸✝️Talan✝️🇺🇸 ☭⃠ :
No, actually they are both people, two different hearts therefore two different organisms, not to mention two different brains
2026-10-26 01:41:47
0
Double Jointed :
Pro life vs pro choice shouldn’t even be a debate. Birthing a child when you are not ready more than often ruins the mother and child’s life… that’s 2 life. The pregnant mother should decide, not me, not you, not the government.
2026-10-26 16:16:58
0
🔵Bleu🔵 :
I mean, you could just hold that a human (and value) is capacity/potentiality to experience the human condition, and sentience, as well as consciousness
2026-10-26 14:33:19
0
the_man_with_the_tank :
To be part of a rational kind
2026-10-26 15:31:52
1
prod. wex :
Yo u can use the fact that bible defines a “person” as someone capable of rational thought towards your argument
2026-10-26 04:20:44
6
hunter__griffin :
He would still argue that the conjoined people are human beings though so this isn’t even a good example to critique Bryce?
2026-10-26 14:14:31
0
Ty :
Bryce answered that by saying that it’s a living species of human
2026-10-26 03:23:59
1
John Pendler :
Interesting point. I hadn’t considered this. But what’s the issue with believing that it’s one person that progressively splits into two persons as mental capacity develops?
2026-10-26 10:05:15
0
Weird NoobGuest1 :
Pro-Lifers when Biocomputing/Bioengineering 🤯🙉🙈🙊
2026-10-26 09:04:37
0
MisesHospitaler :
so the whole argument is debunk because he views them as one person but you view them as two? 😹 Are u serious
2026-10-26 14:39:00
0
noxious. :
Human 🧬 + Human 🧬 = New Human 🧬. That new human 🧬is now a person and should be protected.
2026-10-26 02:41:34
1
Zac Nelson :
This issue with your argument is that there are conjoined twins with connected brains, so now what that is one person? I think you would agree that your definition falls down in this case, since you would only count them as one person.
2026-10-26 09:21:50
0
Neo Harry :
would it be contradictory to posit that they're one person but two rational minds due to their unique constitution? (under the pro life worldview) would you still call them two persons if they shared a brain? (under the pro choice worldview) and i don't believe this destroys the pro life position just as how i don't believe the case with baby Jax who's born without parts of the brain leading to severely impeded rational thought destroys the pro choice position exceptions aren't the rule
2026-10-26 01:55:19
0
cooper.allee :
I mean I get it but not everything is that black and white
2026-10-26 00:20:01
1
⚛️Andrew⚛️ :
Personhood doesn’t necessarily require a one-to-one relationship with biological organisms. Most human beings are one organism and one person, but Abby and Brittany may be an exception. An exception doesn’t automatically disprove a general principle about human moral status. My view is that a person’s moral worth comes from the kind of being they are, not from how developed, intelligent, or self-aware they currently are. When we make fundamental rights dependent on things like the ability to feel pain, self-awareness, or reaching a certain developmental stage, we risk turning rights that are supposed to be inherent into privileges granted only to those who meet a certain standard. If human rights are truly inherent, then they shouldn’t depend on how well someone can perform certain functions or whether they meet someone else’s criteria for deserving protection. A person doesn’t become more or less worthy of fundamental rights simply because their cognitive abilities or level of development change. The same principle should apply to human beings at different stages of development. Abby and Brittany’s case might challenge the assumption that one organism always equals one person, but it doesn’t establish that biological differences determine moral worth. Ultimately, pointing out an unusual case doesn’t disprove the principle of inherent human worth, and anyone arguing that certain developmental or cognitive thresholds determine who deserves fundamental rights still has to justify why those thresholds should determine moral worth in the first place.
2026-10-26 02:13:25
1
jasontm.12 :
What point are you trying to make that they are 2 people? I’m just confused 😂
2026-10-26 01:42:48
0
Teo jew nang :
so just agree that we know nothing 😂😂😂😂
2026-10-26 10:37:02
0
Cj Meiers :
what makes a baby, a baby is someone with a soul when a baby get made thay have a soul so thay have rights, if something doesn't have a soul thay are not human its simple as that
2026-10-26 19:02:42
0
To see more videos from user @imofficiallyethan, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
