All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 20, 2020 - The Truth Central - Dr. Jerome Corsi
01:04:04
Dr Corsi DEEP DIVE Interview 10-20-20: Danielle D'Souza Gill 's New Book - The Choice
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
So, Dr. Corsi, it looks like Corsi Nation is kind of turning into the ultimate book
review site.
And so we have Danielle D'Souza Gill with us today and to discuss her new book, The Choice.
That's right. Today is Tuesday.
It's October 20th, 2020.
And I like the idea of having a separate podcast for books.
I think it's a great idea.
It's a real honor to have Danielle D'Souza Gill with us today.
She's the daughter of Dinesh D'Souza, whom I've worked with for many, many years, attended his trial for World Net Daily, reported on it, was sometimes the only reporter in the room favorable to Dinesh.
We were glad to get his pardon.
And Danelle has just written a very important book, and it's called The Choice.
And the subtitle of the book is The Abortion Divide in America.
And this is, I think, an extremely important statement on the whole issue of right to life, the abortion industry that we see in the United States, the left's obsession with abortion.
She dedicated the book to her father, who taught me the most important things in life.
That's sweet, Danielle.
I'm sure Dinesh appreciated that.
And welcome here.
It's great to have you with us.
Thank you. Well, thank you again for having me.
It was funny. He didn't actually realize it until later when he opened it and saw that.
And then he was like, thank you.
But initially when I was working on it, he didn't know that.
Well, that was a great surprise.
I'm sure your father was really happy about that.
Your book is very interesting.
I mean, it goes through a whole series of different sections.
And the first one takes on this whole issue of a cluster of cells, which is I guess what the left wants us to believe that a fetus is.
They want to dehumanize it and make it into just a blob.
And I think what you've pointed out here is that, especially with the technology we have today, ultrasounds and the like, it's much easier to demonstrate that a fetus is a living human being But the point, you make several different points here.
I read a page, a couple paragraphs from page 15.
You say, we have an affirmation that even if the unborn are human beings, nevertheless, it is good for their mothers, their parents, and society.
To have the right of the choice prior to birth to be able to kill them.
That's what the left wants to say.
Even if they are human beings, it's better to have the right to kill them.
It's not a denial of the fact of what's going on, but the fact that there is mass killing.
It's an affirmation of the value of mass killing.
Mass killing is a necessary thing, the left argues.
This whole idea of killing babies and the millions that we've killed since Roe v.
Wade, as you point out, the left does try to justify that.
Is that right, Danielle? Yes, they absolutely do.
I think their argument that, you know, quote, a fetus is a cluster of cells, or it's an appendix, it's a body part, and so on, that they often used to like to say, they realize, wait, this kind of makes no sense because we actually know it's a human being.
So then they had to move to their next argument, which is it's a human, but it's not a person.
And so in kind of dehumanizing them, they basically do that in order to give us license to, you know, kill them, torture them, and so on.
And of course, this is the justification used whenever any kind of mass killing is going on.
And this is the greatest mass killing of our time because we are dehumanizing actual human beings.
Yeah, and you make the point in your book, in the introduction, you say, something I think is very important as you conclude, say, in this book, I face the reality of what is going on in this country.
I do not sugarcoat it.
After examining and exposing it, countering rationalizations for abortion, I lay out how we as individuals can rise above this terrible evil, And how society can abolish this plague from its midst.
We did it in the case of slavery, and we are better for it.
We can do it again. I think that's an important moral statement, and that's really why you wrote this book, isn't it?
Exactly. I think that so often, you know, we think that, you know, we are good people, we're moral people and so on.
But, you know, when we look back on a sin like slavery, when we look back at such a horrific time as that, we think, oh my gosh, you know, why didn't more people do something?
Why weren't more people fighting against slavery?
And, you know, but in reality, the abolitionists were a rather small group.
And there were many people who stood on the sidelines and said, you know what, it's going on, but I'm kind of for choice.
I don't have to have a slave myself, but hey, you can have a slave if you want.
Or, you know, kind of what Stephen Douglas argued, which was popular sovereignty, the idea that, okay, well, in that state, we don't have to have slaves.
In this state, sure, why don't we let them have slaves?
I'm not for slavery, but let's let people have a choice.
And then of course we saw the movement back then move to this idea of slavery as a positive good.
The idea that it's not only good for the slave owner, but it's also good for society.
It's also good for the slave.
The slave is better off, you know, being in slavery as opposed to being free.
So we see the same arguments around slavery that are very similar to the arguments made today for abortion.
I think if we kind of move forward in time and people look back to now, they'll say, What were people thinking?
Why were they not waking up to this horrific thing?
Why were they making such rationalizations and justifications for abortion?
Page 22, you ask, what is life?
And you make a very interesting comparison to how NASA has been looking for the evidence of life on other planets.
And yet we find, you know, the life is within the womb.
From the beginning.
And what you're establishing here is that the fetus meets all the signs of life.
There is life there. In other words, it isn't a blob.
It's a living entity, which is going to be a human life.
And you want to elaborate on that, Danielle?
Exactly. That is in the first chapter of my book because I found it to be important to establish the fact that we are not talking about a blob.
We're not talking about a rock.
We are talking about a human with human DNA, with unique DNA. You can only...
As humans procreate another human.
You can't make a reptile.
You can't make, you know, a fish and so on.
So we know that this is a human being and it may seem absurd to even have to dive into this or explain this, but when the left argues that, you know, this isn't a human or argues that it's an appendix or a body part, I then have to start by showing here's how it is not a body part.
It's an organism that has many body parts.
It has its own toes. It has its own heartbeat.
It has its own, you know, brain.
It has its own hormones it releases.
That's how we know the gender of the child.
That's how we know it's in pain when it releases hormones like cortisol, the same that we do when we're under duress and in pain.
So I wanted to start by establishing some of those facts.
In fact, you write on page 25, since the advent of cell theory, Which was developed by Matthias Schladen and Theodore Schwann in 1839.
We know that the embryo develops from the single-celled zygote.
In 1859, the American Medical Association released a statement on, quote, the independence of the zygote.
This part, I think, really is important.
The zygote is not the father or the mother, but its own unique entity.
Of all the cells in the woman, from her fingernail to her hair, are made up of DNA, but the fetus's cell contain only half of her DNA and half of the father's DNA. I think that's a very important point.
Want to comment on that?
Yeah, absolutely. I think it's important because it establishes the identity of this human.
And actually, if we step out of the abortion debate even, let's even, you know, look at what the left pushes.
Let's look at, you know, IVF. Let's look at kind of this idea that even an entity that is created outside the womb by a very big industry that makes a lot of money, that entity actually has rights.
And that entity is fought over by parents In court over who has the rights to this entity.
So we see that when we step out of the abortion debate, we know exactly the nature of this entity, even, you know, regardless of what we think of the moral complexity of that.
Even so, we know this entity has unique DNA and it was created from two parents.
So when we step into the abortion debate, when we then say, wait, wait, no, no, it's confusion, it's the mother's body, it's all of this, we actually know, no, this is a unique entity.
It's pretty remarkable.
God creates with all the people in the world, no two are identical.
It always reminds me of no two snowflakes or two grains of sand.
It's a remarkable miracle.
But you go through how a baby develops in the womb, and you write again on page 29, by week six, the baby's fingers have formed on the hands, even though the woman usually doesn't feel it until later.
The baby begins to spontaneously move around five to six weeks into the pregnancy.
The baby can hiccup by seven weeks.
Diaphragm muscle is completely formed with intermittent breathing motions beginning about eight weeks into the pregnancy.
Touching the baby will typically lead to squinting, jaw movement, grasping motions, and toe pointing.
That's fairly developed at only six weeks.
And it's pretty remarkable when you understand the development of the embryo.
And I think you do a good job.
You want to comment on why that's so important.
Yeah, I think it's important to know because a lot of what I actually looked at in order to find that out was Mayo Clinic and what to expect when you're expecting.
Whenever women read that book that sold millions of copies, they can know, okay, here's what my baby is doing in the womb right now.
And I can kind of track my pregnancy along the way.
And I was reading that and I was just thinking, wow, it is actually shocking to see that the child is doing all of this.
And yet the left is still arguing that this child is, you know, a blob.
It's, you know, basically dormant.
They oftentimes compare it to an unconscious person or even something like a dead person because they You know, try to paint it as this entity that doesn't move, doesn't think, doesn't feel, all of this.
And if we look at the reality, they actually are doing a lot, even in the first trimester.
And pain, you point out the fetus can experience pain, correct?
Correct. Yes, I do dive into the pain issue because I think that that really humanizes it for a lot of people.
We oftentimes don't think about, you know, what pain is this child going through?
And I think what was most disturbing to me was to learn that, you know, regardless of even if it's a late-term abortion or not, the child is not anesthetized in this process.
When we look at what abortion is, when we look at the dismemberment involved and the pain that's caused on it, we see that there is suffering involved for the child.
It's not an instant death.
And so the fact that we actually know, at least for sure we know, for many third trimester, second trimester abortions, it does feel pain.
And to think that it still suffers is just really horrible.
In fact, the baby sometimes tries to resist being aborted.
Isn't that correct? That is correct.
That's why when you see an ultrasound, you can see the child in the womb try to get away from the suction.
The suction method is the most common method used in abortion today, and that basically is where the suction looks for the child in the womb.
The child tries to get away from it because something's coming towards it.
And then it sucks out as much of the baby as it can.
And then afterwards, the abortionist has to clean out the womb with a curette of some sort.
But they have to make sure that they remove all the body parts or else the woman can get an infection.
In Chapter 3, you move on to say there's a difference.
The left is arguing there's a difference between a human being and a person.
So they concede, okay, even if the fetus is human, it's not a person with rights.
How do you deal with that argument?
Well, I think that that really kind of goes into how do you justify killing someone?
Well, step one is dehumanizing them.
We see that this is what the Nazis did with the Jews and the Holocaust.
We see that they had to say that, hmm, you're a human, but you're not really like the rest of us.
You're not really as worthy as the rest of us.
And I also think what's interesting is the fact that they try to separate humanity from personhood.
Now, obviously, the reality is that every human is a person.
But they like to say, no, no, there are special people.
Special people who are outside the womb.
And only when you exit the womb do you magically get these constitutional rights.
Now, of course, if we look into the details of this, we know that there actually is no magical poof point of birth because birth is a process itself.
And birth is also...
I mean, it's quite arbitrary.
I mean, is it when the baby is half outside the womb?
Is it when it's half inside the womb?
Is it when it's fully outside the womb?
What if there's a c-section?
What if you are scheduling the birth?
So we see that there actually is no difference between a child inside the womb and outside the womb, and we're only talking about a matter of location.
Also, in this first part of the book, you're talking about how The abortionists like to present that abortion is simple, safe.
It's one of the more predictable kinds of procedures.
It's just no muss and fuss.
Take a pill and the baby's gone.
But you are making it clear that that's not the case.
Want to explain? Exactly.
Yeah, there are actually three different types of abortion procedures.
The first one is the abortion pill, two pills actually, and you take one at home and then one a little bit later and basically one kills the child in the womb and the second is to flush it out and it's not an instant process.
It usually takes many, many hours to And they actually tell you on Planned Parenthood's website to be aware for a, you know, something that looks like a little head to come out of there.
Because even at that early stage, we're already seeing the development of the skull and the brain.
So it's not going to be a fun process.
It's a very horrible flushing out process.
And even that is for very early pregnancies.
You can't do that even after 10 weeks.
The second process is the suction process, which I touched on earlier.
I'll move past that one.
And then the third process is called the DNC procedure, which is basically when the baby is so well formed, it has hardened bones, it's really, you can't actually suction it because even though the suction is 20 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner, this child isn't going to fit in a suction.
So that's when they have to pierce the baby's heart or brain with digoxin, which kills the child, not instantly, but usually over a matter of hours.
Saline abortion oftentimes burns its skin from the outside inward.
Then the mother comes back the next day and they hopefully see that the child is dead and then try to remove it using forceps, tearing the baby's limbs from limb.
I spoke to an abortionist about how this works and they said that the answer is that basically they reach for whichever limb is closest.
And then afterwards to clean up, they use the suction to make sure they got any remnants out of there and so on.
So when we talk about abortion, that is what we're referring to.
That is what abortion actually is.
And I think so often with these arguments, it gets confusing because we don't actually know what abortion is.
And that's why I dive into that in one of my chapters.
You also go into the constitutional issues.
I guess Roe v. Wade was based on this right to privacy.
That was kind of invented.
As I recall, Justice Goldberg was one of the ones who invented this right to privacy.
And they say that it's between a woman and her doctor, and so therefore that privacy means that they can have an abortion and kill the baby, which of course, as you point out, they don't see as anything but a cluster of cells.
And I think this is one of the reasons that Judge Barrett was so threatening to the Democrats in the recent confirmation hearings is because she too was saying, we have to go back to the Constitution itself as originally written.
And I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where there's a right to privacy that would predicate abortion.
What's your thoughts on that, Danielle?
Exactly. Firstly, there is no constitutional right to abortion.
Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution.
And secondly, there is no right to privacy.
We do see references to unreasonable search and seizure, and that, of course, refers to not having your car or your home searched without a warrant.
However, that has absolutely nothing to do with abortion or killing a human being.
So when we're talking about this right to privacy, many on the left have even actually said that there is no constitutional backing for this.
This was bad law.
Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg has written about the fact that they should have used different justification for Roe.
They should have used different justification for abortion.
She even talked about how, you know, this justification they used for Roe really was not very strong.
And so I think that, you know, Justice Barrett, when she talked about it, she said that Roe v.
Wade is not super precedent because the American people have not accepted it.
As you develop the book, you go into the arguments that the left makes that abortion is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and it has to be funded by the government, especially for the poor.
On page 87, you make a point and say, one may say that in the church of modern liberalism, abortion has become a sacrament.
I thought that was very important.
And you say, but if you think government should pay for some aspect of health care, abortion is not a right.
And it's certainly not health care.
Abortion is killing. And yet the left wants to say, well, we have to, for the poor who can't afford these babies, who may not want to have the babies and are disadvantaged, that the federal government has to The taxpayer has to pay for abortions, killing their unwanted pregnancies.
What do you think about that, Danielle?
Yeah, I mean, I think, first of all, it's not a right, but let's just say it were a right.
If we look at our other rights, we look at our First Amendment right, our Second Amendment right, do we see that the government pays for those?
And the answer is no. The government does not buy me a newspaper.
The government doesn't give me a computer.
The government doesn't buy weapons for me.
The government doesn't actually supply my rights.
Now, my rights are still my rights, but that doesn't mean that the government has to fund them.
Now, again, this is not a right.
But even if someone were to say it were, it doesn't actually make sense to then move to federal funding for it.
And I think if we look at kind of even the Democrats in questioning Amy Coney Barrett, they've somehow tried to make it so that this is all about health care.
They try to make it, you know, attacking her on Roe v.
Wade, but then saying, oh my gosh, you're going to turn away, you know, people from their health care and all of this, because They kind of want to do this subliminal messaging where they slowly get in the idea that, oh, actually, abortion, bing, that just falls into the healthcare category.
Therefore, it's a right.
You comment on Joe Biden on page 88 and 89.
In 1981, he supported a constitutional amendment that would enable the overturning of Roe v.
Wade. In his 2007 book, Promises to Keep, We're good to go.
He says he believes that abortion should be funded by taxpayers and describes it as a health care and a right.
I guess running for the Democrats today, which have just about become a completely socialist or communist party, it would be impossible for a candidate to object to abortion.
This has become a central part of the Democratic Party creed, has it not?
Exactly. If we look at Joe Biden's record, we see that, hmm, actually, he doesn't really have much value.
He doesn't have a view, per se.
He basically just moves around according to where he thinks he's going to get the most votes.
Where is the Democrat Party?
And so, of course, you know, he's moved to federal funding for abortion, which he was never for before.
And I think he, in a way, mirrors a lot of where the Democratic Party as a whole has gone.
He's been in politics for 47 years.
And where has the Democrat Party moved on this?
They've moved from safe, legal, and rare ideology to abortion on demand, abortion at nine months, federal funding for abortion.
And I think, as you mentioned, they're becoming socialist and all of this.
I think it all really goes together.
It goes to You know, they want to push this view of removing the family, removing the individual, removing all of this, and basically making it kind of these state-imposed, in a way, killing centers that they want to be federally funded by the government.
And then the argument that this is pro-choice, that a person should have the right to make their choices.
It's a woman's body.
She should have the right to decide.
Who the father is, whether to have a child, etc.
And you're basically saying that, you know, this pro-choice position is kind of like popular sovereignty.
And let's say every community, every territory, every state decide for itself it wants slavery.
You pose the question on page 95.
And look at that in the context of how the slavery debate was fought out.
I mean, is there a pro-choice to be able to decide I want to hold slaves?
That would be pretty abhorrent to the left, wouldn't it?
Well, that was their position.
That was the Democratic Party position at the time.
And, you know, of course, they like to distance themselves from that and act like they're in favor of Abraham Lincoln.
But Abraham Lincoln said regarding slavery to those who support it, he says, I would like to see it tried on him personally.
And, you know, I think if many Democrats today were put in the position of the fetus, if they were put in that position where we're arguing about Your protection.
We're arguing about whether or not you're going to be dismembered without anesthesia.
I think that they would quickly say, oh no, Danielle, please defend me.
I'm sorry, and all of this.
But of course, they know that they've already been born.
They're not going to be in that situation.
So we are speaking on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves.
You deal with the argument that saying, well, men do not have to live with the consequences of free sex, so why should women have to?
What's your take on that?
Well, I think this is kind of the left strategy to, A, pit men against women and to make it out like, no, this is actually a battle of the sexes.
This is actually between the man and the woman, when in reality, we are talking about a third party, which is the baby.
But I think secondly, they also want to make it out like, you can't be a successful woman, basically, unless you're a man.
And of course, that puts us in a position of failure because there's no way that women can biologically become men, especially when we're talking about something like pregnancy.
So they basically phrase it as, wow, this womb, this pregnant belly attached to you, that's basically evil.
So we have to find a way to totally get rid of that and crush that.
And then if you do that, you'll somehow be sticking it to the patriarchy.
But in reality, you're not actually sticking it to the patriarchy.
You're sticking it to the child who has to die.
And I think if we even look at, you know, things like maternity leave, if we look at things like that, they were designed so that women could continue to earn money, continue to work, and also be mothers.
But then we see even these, you know, radical woke feminists on the left complain that, oh, wow, you know, what a curse, what a horrible thing.
You know, women can't be mothers and also be, you know, successful women.
And that's why they hate Amy Coney Barrett.
That's why they hate conservative women.
You know, more than anything, because it kind of refutes their narrative.
On page 122, you say girls are bombarded with the messaging that abortion is empowering.
Abortion is the road to the pinnacle of success.
You know, Glamour magazine and actresses that win awards.
I say every little girl should know that she does not need to kill another person to be successful, beautiful, smart, or admirable, or to win a golden statue.
I think you remind me in many ways of Phyllis Schlafly, who I had the great honor to work with for about 10 years or so.
And she, of course, was arguing correctly That the true feminine was one who really accepted their identity as a woman, not rejecting it, and rejected abortion as not necessary in a woman's rights movement.
She rejected the Equal Rights Amendment on the basis that women, you know, should be regarded as special.
And these biological differences can't just be ignored.
And I think you're making similar arguments where, you know, on page 124, you say, the original feminists realized that women's rights begin in the womb.
As we see today with the radical pro-abortion leftists who call themselves feminists, true feminism has been hijacked.
I consider myself an original feminist in line with the desire for political and economic opportunity for women.
But I cannot align myself with the radical leftist feminism that is fundamentally anti-human rights.
We need to take back true feminism.
I think Phyllis Schlafly would completely agree with that.
Do you want to comment on it?
Yeah, I think if we look at all of the original feminists, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, they fought for the women's right to vote, but they also saw that we can't start by killing little girls in the womb.
We can't start with abortion.
Abortion is actually worse for the woman, I think.
And oftentimes, you know, men actually love abortion.
They love it. They say, oh, great, this allows me to have as much free sex as I want.
And I can give women 500 bucks and they can just abort this child.
Now, where does that leave the woman?
That leaves her in an operating room, in a vulnerable situation.
We're having to go home feeling very sad afterwards and kind of having gone through something horrible.
Meanwhile, he's off having fun.
So how is this good for women?
How is this something that feminists should be pushing for?
When in reality, we actually should push men to want to be involved To be responsible people, just as women should be responsible people.
We all have to take up this personal responsibility aspect and say, okay, what is actually best for men?
What's best for women? What's best for the child?
And I think that true feminists and true people who want women's empowerment would see that, you know, sending a girl to that situation or sending a woman to that situation, that's not empowering.
And kind of moving on into the Planned Parenthood, Say, this is on page 135, Planned Parenthood is the corporate giant of the abortion industry.
It currently has over 600 clinics around the country.
And many of these clinics are in the black areas.
And Planned Parenthood in its origin was a eugenics movement.
Do you want to comment on all that?
Yeah, I think that so often, you know, the left paints it as, you know, abortion comes from women's empowerment.
Abortion came from the women's movement.
But in reality, it actually came from the eugenics movement.
And Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, wrote...
Various articles about eugenics.
She wrote about how she could use this as a way to carry out her eugenics philosophy.
So then many on the left say, oh, no, no, but Planned Parenthood doesn't follow the ideology of Margaret Sanger anymore.
But in reality, we see that it does.
We see that all of the clinics are placed in minority areas, at least most of the clinics.
And we see that Black babies are aborted more often than white babies.
We see that baby girls are aborted more often than baby boys.
Many people, you know, wait to find out the gender of the baby and then say, hmm, not what I wanted, abort.
So there is blatant racism, there's blatant sexism going on when it comes to abortion, and Justice Clarence Thomas has written about this as well.
He's written about the connection between, you know, Margaret Sanger's eugenics ideology and abortion today.
On page 150 you say that Margaret Sanger thought of blacks as the lowest of the low.
Quote, once Sanger realized she could not forcibly sterilize everyone she viewed as a human weed, she knew she had to convince blacks to sterilize themselves so they would not procreate anymore and eventually die out.
That's a pretty...
Grim thought, but I think it's at the heart of Planned Parenthood, and I think you would agree.
Yeah, that's why they actually do a lot of their marketing, a lot of their messaging that says, you know, I stand with Black women and all of this is because they do want to market to Black women.
That is their goal. If I was just, you know, purely a marketing director, I would say, okay, you're clearly trying to reach a certain demographic here.
And so I think that we see a clear targeted A goal for Planned Parenthood.
And we also see the fact that, you know, many of their leaders, many of their presidents have talked about how Planned Parenthood looks up to Margaret Sanger, how they venerate Margaret Sanger.
Nancy Pelosi has talked about this as well as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
They look up to Margaret Sanger as well as Planned Parenthood.
So I think we've recently seen some distancing.
They've started to try to distance themselves from Planned Parenthood or Planned Parenthood from Margaret Sanger.
I mean, But for the most part, they embrace her.
On chapter 12, you go into the argument that pro-life movement, the left would argue is a religious movement.
And the only people who are pro-life or religious that abortion, keeping it legal, affirms the separation of church and state.
I mean, I see basically the godless anti-family nature of supporting abortion, which has in its core a denial of God, a denial of the sanctity of life from God, Denial of the importance of children to forming families.
And, you know, it's like abortion at will or even killing the baby after it's out of the womb if it survived an abortion.
Seems to me to be not only barbaric, but very anti-God and very anti-family.
And shirking of the responsibilities that, you know, that sex has to do with procreation, not just with enjoyment.
Danielle? Yeah, absolutely.
And in that chapter, I also talk about how regardless of whether or not you're religious, you can be pro-life because this is a human rights issue.
And that is something we should all care about.
We all have a conscience.
We all know that, you know, something we've agreed on throughout civilizations is killing innocent people, killing innocent babies.
Bad, not good, something we should stop.
And I think in a way we kind of see this modern killing and this justification of it as child sacrifice really to this god of sex, to this god of, you know, regardless of what has to die, regardless of, you know, what has to be used in order for me to continue this, it has to be, you know, this child.
And I'm actually reminded of Christopher Hitchens, an atheist, a materialist who was actually against abortion.
And that's because he saw it as You know, we only have one life to live on this earth, so it had better be good.
And so in order to really harm someone the most, you actually do that by taking away their one life to live on this earth.
Each one of your chapters addresses a myth, and it tries to expose that myth and does a very good job of it.
On chapter 13, you say the myth is that I'm personally opposed to abortion.
But I don't have the right to force my beliefs on someone else, this kind of value relativism.
Do you want to comment on that?
Yeah, I think this was a popular argument used by Mario Cuomo and many Democrats in the 80s who were, you know, maybe religious, but also still kind of pushing abortion policies.
And I think it was a cover to hide behind to kind of say, okay, you know, I want the clout of being pro-life as in I'm a good person, but actually I'm still in favor of this going on.
And I think if we look today, we actually see that that argument has Not been as popular.
Now people still do like to hide behind that one, but in that chapter I write about how there is no such thing as not imposing your views on another person.
We are talking about a human life here.
So if you're saying, oh, you know, I removed myself from the situation, the reality is that your view is It's being imposed on the child.
Now, do any of us have the obligation to physically get involved, to do things in that sort?
No, of course not. But I think it comes down to voting.
And if we're going to be voting for pro-abortion candidates, then you're involved.
And similarly, if you decide to not vote for pro-life candidates, well, you're not exactly pushing the pro-life movement, the pro-life side in terms of policies and actually moving towards saving these children.
Chapter 14, you deal with the myth of Abortion is never an ideal choice, but forcing a woman to carry out a pregnancy will cause her too much emotional pain.
This is a situation only she can understand.
I give preference to the woman, the person already here.
I think it's one of your more effective chapters as well.
They're all very persuasive.
But you're saying here that the idea there's no emotional distress or emotional distress Yeah, exactly.
I think that so often today people kind of live in these I don't know, this relativist world where they say, you know what?
I don't want to be mean to anyone.
I don't want to make anyone uncomfortable.
And I don't want to say that someone shouldn't do something and so on.
And so for that reason, they would say, okay, well, you know, the woman really wants to do this.
So what the heck? Why not?
I don't want to be involved because otherwise she'll be in emotional pain.
And the reality is that abortion actually causes far more emotional pain.
If we look at the numbers, we look at the statistics, we talk to women and hear their stories, abortion causes Does lead to emotional pain.
So if we want to dive into emotional pain, that's where it goes.
And if we look at women who oftentimes say, you know what, I'm going to choose adoption instead.
I know I don't want to raise this child, but the alternative is adoption.
Actually, there are many beautiful stories that come from that.
And a lot of people who are adopted say, you know, wow, I'm really grateful to my birth mom.
I'm really grateful that she, you know, put me up for adoption and found me a home of people who really love me and care for me.
So I think that that actually gives a lot of Kind of reward to a situation like that.
We kind of live in a throwaway society.
I mean, it's like, they don't need to throw it away.
But this, regardless of how people want to dehumanize the fetus, and it is a human being, it has emotional impact and has spiritual impacts.
To me, that's been one of the most important questions that there's spiritual consequences from Aborting a child.
And women I've known in my life who went through abortions have never lost the feeling of that child as being with them constantly.
I mean, it's one of the amazing things, thinking about how old that child would be, almost as if that child that was aborted remains a presence with them throughout their lives.
Want to comment on that, Danielle?
Yeah, exactly. I think there has been a dark cloud over America as long as we've had this mass killing going on in our midst.
I think that it absolutely makes God sad to see this.
And if, you know, Jesus were to hold the body parts of these children, I think he would weep, absolutely.
And I think that's oftentimes what women do, you know, whether they have a miscarriage where they say, you know, wow, this, of course, was something very sad.
And I think that's the right emotion because this is the loss of an innocent life.
And when we look at abortion, you know, the intentional taking of a life, there's just really no way to get around it.
And I know that the left pushes basically denial this idea that, you know, let's not look at it.
Let's not think about it.
Let's not You know, dive into it too deeply.
And actually, let's say how great it is, because then maybe we won't feel bad about it.
That's basically their message.
And, you know, that works for a while, maybe.
But eventually, I think usually that real raw emotion does come back to the surface.
And chapter 16, you take up the myth that abortion is necessary because of hard cases like rape, incest.
Life of the mother and potential medical complications.
No parent should be forced to have a deformed or mentally challenged child.
None of us would want to be in that position.
And so how do you refute that myth?
Yeah, so there are a lot of different parts there, but I guess I'll go backwards.
Children with Down syndrome are the most targeted in the womb.
Unfortunately, you know, countries in Europe have basically tried to move to a 100% abortion rate when it comes to children with Down syndrome.
But I've spoken to people with Down syndrome and they've talked about how their lives are worth living.
If you ask them, would you rather be dead?
They'd say, no, I wouldn't rather be dead.
And so just because this person is different from us, just because they have a one chromosome difference from us, Doesn't mean that we get to decide, hey, your life isn't worth living.
You're better off dead. But again, this goes back to the eugenics principles that really fuels abortion, which is that we get to decide who's the most fit.
We get to decide what kind of person we want.
We're going to create a designer baby.
We don't want these kinds of babies.
You know, God forbid we need them in this world.
Maybe you have a learning disability.
Maybe, you know, you have autism, those kinds of things.
No, we need to get rid of all of that, the left says.
And of course we know that these people are actually very special and oftentimes they have gifts that they give to the world that other people couldn't have done.
You deal with the whole issue of, if I look for instance at chapter, let me get it right here, chapter 18, research shows that children who would otherwise, who would have otherwise been aborted usually become criminals.
Wreaking havoc on all of us.
It may be selfish, but we all want crime rates to drop.
And abortion provides undeniable social benefits.
I remember the book Freakonomics.
It was popular, I guess, maybe in the 90s.
And it was an economist, Stephen Leavitt of the University of Chicago and John Donahue of Stanford.
They were writing papers.
They were looking at unusual outcomes from economic analysis.
And they were saying that Those who basically engage in abortion are actually reducing crime in the future because these are unwanted children.
And so they were arguing there's a social benefit to abortion in that it reduces crime.
This was Levitt and Donahue, who were the two authors of the, ultimately of the, I think it was in the second Freakonomics book that they made this argument.
And these were always very kind of screwy economic ideas that not common sense that came out looking at economic data.
How did you analyze the Freakonomics argument that there's a social benefit in reducing crime to aborting unwanted babies?
Yeah, well, I did. I looked at their data, I looked at their numbers, and I saw that they're right in some instances and that, you know, maybe they could look at the example of New York and say, wow, you know, crime was really up.
You know, crime in the 1970s was horrible.
But then look at, wow, crime is really down, and look, there are so many abortion clinics there.
You know, abortion rates in New York are way through the roof, so we see a correlation.
But if we look at somewhere like Baltimore, we see, hmm, wow, crime was up then, crime is up now, abortion was up then, and abortion is up now.
And so what does that really tell us?
Crime is not actually down because of abortion.
It's down because of, you know, better policing.
It's down because of, you know, better laws to prevent crime from happening.
But I think this idea that, you know, these little babies are going to be killers, they're going to be criminals, That basically is kind of a scare tactic that the other side uses to say, okay, well, the solution is to kind of nip it in the bud before they're born, basically kill them before they've ever done anything.
And I think the solution is actually to, no, we need to create better home environments.
We need to create, you know, better cities and have a better, you know, crime laws and policing and so on.
And of course, they're attacking our police.
So I think it all goes together on their side.
But no, of course, we have no idea how someone is going to live their life before they're even born.
I think I'll make a really important point on page 234.
You say that there's something particularly strange and repulsive about killing people before they've done anything wrong.
Should someone be killed based solely on the idea that he or she might do something wrong?
Basically, that's what this Freakonomics argument comes down to, to assume that someone will become a criminal To assume they are nothing more than a statistic sets them up for failure.
There are so many rich Democrats who think like this and it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy for others because this ideology seeps into the culture.
I mean, basically this is an ideological idea.
How many people who have been born in bad circumstances or less than fortunate have come to do great things?
I think one of the classic examples is Beethoven, whose mother was encouraged to abort the baby, and Beethoven was born.
It's not like we're going to necessarily have this great crystal ball where we can determine who's going to turn out to be what, especially when you point out the statistics analyzed correctly.
It's not simply abortion, but it may be the crime efforts, Giuliani, etc.
that really are what reduces crime in a population or an area.
You want to comment on that, Danielle?
Yeah, absolutely.
And I think what really kind of underpins this whole idea is the Democrat view that, hey, you actually have no agency in your own life.
You're basically the victim of your skin color, your gender, wherever you were born, all of these things.
And anything you do really can't change that.
And that's why they like to go into this whole, oh, you know, if This person might have been born there.
They're going to become a criminal. So we have to basically kill them because they see themselves as the master social planners, as the geniuses, the people who should decide how society lives and also who gets to live at all.
And of course, if we look at many of the people that we would say, wow, I never would have expected that of that person.
I mean, even Abraham Lincoln.
You know, came from a log cabin.
And there are many people who are born into, you know, great homes and all, but then they grew up to be drug addicts.
And unfortunately, they don't actually use any of the blessings that they have been given for good.
So I think that we should instead focus on, you know, raising people with the right values, making our society better as opposed to killing off people.
Arthur is here. Craig, do you want to bring Arthur in?
Arthur is the prayer warrior, Danielle.
He's created ThePrayerfulPatriot.com, which is a companion site to CorsiNation.com.
And we think prayer is extremely important and tend to look at many of these issues as spiritual issues.
Arthur, what are your thoughts listening to this discussion?
Danielle, I think you've done a fabulous job of disassembling these arguments.
I mean, this is absolutely amazing work.
And I commend you to get this word out to a lot of people.
This is really going to change some hearts and minds.
And, you know, listening to you in the first segment when we had you on briefly there, I just I thought this is so sorely needed.
Thank you very much.
Well, thank you. And thank you for everything you're doing with your prayers.
And I think that's so key because we're not only in the midst of a political battle, we're in the midst of a spiritual battle.
And I know that, you know, every time a life is lost, every time that happens, you know, the enemy rejoices in that.
But we have to fight against it and continue to pray and also take action.
Yeah, and there was something that I actually wanted to add, if I may, Dr.
Corsi, to what you were talking about.
We spoke about this after you went off the air today, that when an abortion actually occurs, we talked about this based on the religious beliefs.
In America, it's mostly Judeo-Christian values that they consider religion, but there's also the global constructs of You know, Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism, and all those that are also part of the American experience, don't believe in the same kind of ways with this.
And they believe that, you know, a soul potentially has an opportunity to take embodiment to help the family to learn what they need to to grow with.
And there's even others that believe that that moment of conception is an ordained cycle, you know, in any socioeconomic conditions, even be it rape or incest, and so that the soul can work out their divine plan.
In the conditions upon which that soul needs to grow, as you pointed out, you know, Abraham Lincoln and also Beethoven.
So, you know, we have these conditions, and I absolutely agree with you that the prayer is absolutely critical for the protection of the souls, because I think a lot of our, you know, even standard religious beliefs or arguments are based on really a lack of understanding of true spiritual law.
You also made the point, too, Arthur, that there is a victory for Satan every time an abortion is.
You want to comment on that?
Yeah, I would. Any time abortion is handled, there's that argument that says, okay, well, it's the, as you've so rightly put forth, that the mother has the right to do this, and the father has the right to do this.
Now, here's the problem. The problem is, Spiritually, they will be held accountable.
And what that means is they will eventually have to pay the price of aborting that soul's path through life.
And so what that potentially means is that particular point, every time that that abortionist knife comes down, They've now condemned the mother and the father, you know, to the fact that that soul now will not be able to fulfill its divine plan, has been stopped from meeting the people that they need to.
And, you know, there's firm beliefs that those cycles are preordained by God as to who they're going to meet, who they're going to fall in love with, who they can marry, who they could go to school with.
What their contributions, all of that has been stopped.
And so the parents will be, unfortunately, held accountable for that.
Obviously, there's the mercy of the law.
And again, that's where our prayers need to come in.
And that's the victory that Satan wins over individuals, you know, making that choice.
Craig, you've been listening too patiently.
What are your thoughts? Right, and I agree with everything, and this is a fabulous book, and all these arguments just make so much sense.
And in our country today, common sense seems to have taken a vacation.
And what's interesting is there's an organization, a nonprofit organization that I support.
called Save the Storks. And what they do is they take these mobile vans with ultrasound machines
and they take them around to these areas that have abortion clinics, such as Houston, Texas,
which tends to be one of the largest Planned Parenthood facilities in the nation. Gee whiz,
it also then happens to be the place where there's a lot of poor black women that live there. And
they drive their van up and they go around and in front of the Planned Parenthood facility,
they ask the women that are acting like they're headed there and they can tell
that they're pregnant, gee would you like a free ultrasound?
They then pass out some literature, they get to know them very quickly, and they bring them into that little van, and they give them their ultrasound.
Ninety percent of the women that go through the ultrasound procedure and see their baby in the womb reject the abortion and keep the child.
Daniel, I think the spiritual, you end on the book with the, you know, the need to fight the abortion movement.
And I think you do a very good job.
On page 272, you write, turning away from abortion is turning away from the abortionist.
The abortionist is a wicked figure in our culture today.
The abortionist is the slave catcher of our time.
Lincoln liked to comment on how the slave catcher was seen throughout society, even in the South as a loathsome individual, kind of low character.
Abortionists occupy the same position.
They are sanctioned killers of our society.
We ultimately need to highlight this, just like we need to highlight, as Craig is saying, the fact that this is a life.
And I think that our side has to have the courage of championing These values.
The left has always seemed to me to be perverse.
They want to condemn the United States because of us being slaveholders, yet they want to champion abortion as if this was just fine.
They weren't damaging life at all.
Well, these slaves weren't regarded as living either.
Slaves were dehumanized as well.
And how the left can use slavery to say the United States is an evil country and then embrace abortion to say they're the new wisdom and the light has always seemed to me to be one of the fundamental underpinnings in their argument.
Danielle? Yeah, exactly.
I think the reason I say that the abortionist is the slave catcher of our time is because they're the ones who are doing this systematically.
Now, Can they, of course, see the light and realize later that they shouldn't have done this?
Of course. And there are many who have realized that and they feel horrible about it and there is a reversal in their life going forward.
But the ones who don't do that, the ones who continue to do this and oftentimes don't show women their ultrasounds because they don't want women to see the truth of what's happening and they oftentimes take joy in doing this.
We've seen that with Gosnell, one of the most famous abortionists who Also was a murder of children outside the womb.
But just this idea that, you know, we should cover for abortionists, I think, is just beyond.
And the left actually loves to celebrate them.
Planned Parenthood puts out, you know, things on social media saying, you know, celebrate your abortionist day and, you know, celebrate your health care provider and all of this.
And it's like they're not providing health care.
So I think that we should start with You know, not necessarily saying that all women who do this knew exactly what they were doing, but I think that many abortionists actually did know.
You end the book by, and the book is called The Choice, and you say that you have a choice.
In America, you can make a choice about whether to have an abortion today, but you can also make a choice about whether you will join this cause, the pro-life movement.
Life is full of choices, so I ask you, what is your choice?
Do you make the choice to stand for the voiceless?
As Jesus asks, who do you say I am?
We can almost think of the fetus asking us, who do you say I am?
Do you answer, cluster of cells or person with dignity?
But I'll also ask you, the reader, who do you say you are?
We cannot say we are good or merciful if we live our lives as cold-hearted people devoid of any love for others.
It is often our choices that define us.
Mother Teresa said, do things for people not because of who they are or because what they do in return, because of who you are.
You can define who you are by making a choice here.
You can never be repaid for it, but anytime we're asked to take a stand, hanging out with friends or casting your vote, we make a choice and it reflects our character.
What will yours be?
I think that's very important.
In other words, the opposition to abortion has to do with us, who we are, and what our moral choices are.
So we all have a moral consequence in this to pay ultimately.
And I'll try to remind people that God created all this and God will eventually, for each of us, unplug it.
And we each have to face God.
And the question will be, what type of a life did you live?
And that will be judged by the fruits of what we did here.
And I think this is a very important question you're posing.
And calling your book The Choice, I think, makes that central to your book.
Want to comment on that, Danielle?
Yeah, I think we're not only in a time where we have to choose between having an abortion or not, but choosing what we want to stand for and what we want to live for.
I think that today there's such a lack of meaning in so many people's lives.
You know, we have so many people who are depressed and have anxiety and all of this.
And I think it's largely because there's been a turning away from God, a turning towards the self, and then looking and saying, wow, this is actually extremely empty because I'm not living for something more.
I'm not living for something meaningful.
And I think if we look at the unborn and we look at just the fact that so many of us are afraid to speak for them, are afraid to be seen as, you know, too political, too religious, whatever it is, and then we're sad, we're unhappy with ourselves.
And I think that's because of the lack of meaning there.
So I think that, you know, living for what you believe in and actually carrying out those principles is very rewarding.
We're really at the end of the hour here.
It's gone very fast.
Arthur, do you have any final comments you'd like to make?
Yeah, again, Danielle, thank you.
We'll certainly put the prayers out there for your protection and those people that want to stand for...
For stopping abortion, and I do agree it is the Achilles heel of this nation, and it must be stopped otherwise because we will, that is an open sore that will continue to be a problem for America, and I believe the forces of darkness know the spiritual consequences of all this, and they have confused a lot of people as to what their real role is and their direct connection with the Creator, you know, as we are all really spiritual beings having human experiences as opposed to human beings having spiritual experiences.
And so, you know, there are ramifications to this as religions keep getting more and more understanding as that light comes down upon us and we get that more illumination in your book is a great start.
Thank you, Danielle. Craig, how about you for final comments?
Yeah, once again, this is as all of these interviews, Dr.
Corsi, that we have done this year, whether it be the physicians and their positions on saving lives, the physicians like Dr.
Zelenko and Dr. Graves and others who are doing what they believe is best for their patients to save their lives through the prophylaxis that they're using, hydroxychloroquine and zinc.
And then you end up with interviews with people like Danielle That help us understand the darkness that is behind the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood and what they're trying to do.
And why is it if it was the Planned Parenthood was really out there to help the women, why don't they provide ultrasounds?
Why does it have to be done decision-making for that female but in the dark?
Not even them giving them the opportunity to even see what it is that they're going to be ending.
Life in the womb is just as precious as life out of the womb.
My son has a friend whose younger brother has Down syndrome, and he is the happiest kid I've ever met in my life.
He is always smiling.
He is having a great life, and I just dread the number of people that have been misled into ending the life of people like my son's Friend's brother.
It's just a tragedy.
Well, Daniel, I think you've written a Grateful Care.
I know that Phyllis Schlafly would be proud of you, and I'm sure your dad is.
We're going to interview Dinesh D'Souza later this week on his new DVD or live streaming event, which is Trump Card.
Excellent. I think it may be his best documentary yet.
And thanks for coming with us.
I think, Daniel, you've written a very important book in trying to understand the spiritual aspects of why we will be judged as a society by saving the unborn rather than by killing the unborn.
It's hard to imagine, for me, you know, the gene pool that is wasted, the tragedy, the fact that God's plan in terms of however These people were meant to experience, have enriched us.
This is all denied.
I think it's important that this book be read, and I want to thank you for joining us today, and we wish you great success with it.
Any final comments, Danielle?
Well, just thank you all so much for having me on the show.
Thank you for diving into the book.
I love having an in-depth discussion of it.
I feel like so many shows are just quick sound bites, so I really appreciate this long interview to really go into some of the topics in more detail.
And just for giving this Topic attention.
I think a lot of, unfortunately, people try to shy away from this issue because it does make people uncomfortable.
But I think it oftentimes makes us uncomfortable because it is something that's very bad that's happening.
So I appreciate you putting a spotlight on this issue.
Well, thank you for writing this book.
And we'll look at this on social media and it'll be archived on CorsiNation.com.
We'll begin to create a section of book reviews and you'll certainly be included in that.
And you're free to use this interview as well for your purposes.
I'm sure we'll be able to get you a copy to be able to use in various ways as you promote the book.
We want this to be a bestseller, and we wish you the best on it, Danielle.
Thank you for writing the book.
Thank you again for having me, and thank you also for your prayers.
This was a really fun interview.
I always like to end by saying, in the end, God always wins, and God will win here, too.
And this is Dr.
Jerome Corsi. We're signing off.
My producer, Craig Arthur, the prayer warrior, who's created our affiliate site, theprayerfulpatriot.com, and Danielle D'Souza Gill, who has written this tremendous book, The Choice.
It's about abortion.
It's about the evil of abortion.
And I encourage all, it's on Amazon and it's all the places you can buy books, The Choice, The Abortion Divide in America by Danielle D'Souza Gill.
I encourage everybody to get it.
God bless you all. Jerome Corsi signing off.
We'll see you with our next book review.
It'll be Dinesh D'Souza later this week.
God bless. God bless.
▲
Export Selection