This is pretty good! I like the way she speaks about these issues.
Her pro-life argument delivered on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada:
And a recent video in which arguing against euthanasia:
And her first pro-life speech has nearly a million hits on YouTube:
Not bad at all! I’d like to know what she’s going to study in school to use this talent on a suitable challenge that will bear fruit for the pro-life side. She’s from Toronto, so maybe she’ll be Prime Minister of Canada some day.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
I guess even kids understand that killing babies is just wrong
LikeLike
So far, so good Lia. The only issue here is as you have said, determining whether the unborn is equal to a human life.
LikeLike
She talks about that in one of the other videos.
LikeLike
Yes, and that is the only issue that matters in this debate. If the unborn is not a human then the issue completely evaporates. If, however, it is a human then there is no argument that would suffice for what amounts to murder in the vast majority of cases.
On another note, this little girl is just plain awesome. I hope my daughter and sons learn how to articulate their views this well this early.
LikeLike
The literature on Thomson’s violinist disagrees with you here, Wes. Plausibly, human beings find themselves in a situation where withdrawing support is morally permissible, even if that results in another human person’s death. So showing that unborn children are persons isn’t necessarily enough.
LikeLike
You’re right, but just keep in mind that we have responses to the Judith Jarvis Thomson violinist argument. Here’s one response that’s short enough. There are more technical ones, like this peer-reviewed response to Thomson by Baylor professor Francis J. Beckwith.
The violinist argument is persuasive to feminists because they do not really believe that they should be responsible for their own actions. They are blinded by selfishness – they do not really think that anyone else has a right to demand anything of them, but only to meet their selfish needs. The world just has to somehow adjust to their hedonism because they have an absolute right to do anything they want to feel happy – even to take innocent lives. And at taxpayer expense, no less. It’s “health care” and women have a right to charge other people for their health care.
LikeLike
Sure, and there are responses to your responses – it’s a big literature out there. My view of it is that Thomson’s side has the balance of persuasive power – especially so if we water down from moral to legal permissibility, and if we buy into generally liberal ideas about voluntarism.
WK, you have this rather unseemly habit of going off on rants that presume bad faith in your opponents (‘you don’t really think abortion is okay, you’re just using it as an excuse for your murderous hedonism’ etc. etc.). It does your position no favours.
LikeLike
Who are her parents?
LikeLike