Ep 261 - Why Pro-Lifers Can't Support Rape Exceptions
Today on the show, Alabama has now outlawed abortion. But some conservatives are uncomfortable with the extreme law. Well I’ve got a message for these squeamish conservatives. Also, I will explain why Alabama is right to not allow for rape exceptions. And a lot of pro-aborts are messaging me today to wish death on me and my family. I'll explain what the backlash is about. Date: 05-16-19
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Governor Kay Ivey, as I'm sure you heard, who is a woman, by the way, but now, I suppose, an honorary member of the patriarchy, signed a near-complete abortion ban into law in Alabama yesterday.
It's a great victory for the pro-life movement.
It's a great day for America, for liberty, life-loving Americans.
This is a great day.
But not everyone is happy, of course.
Obviously, abortion enthusiasts are not enthused.
They are extremely upset, to put it mildly.
And we'll get to them in a minute, but leaving them aside for just a moment.
Even some so-called pro-lifers are concerned.
They have concerns about this bill.
They're very concerned.
Even Pat Robertson came out and said that it's too extreme.
It's an extreme bill.
And other conservatives have echoed this, saying, well, I'm pro-life, but, but, And then proceeding to explain why this victory for the pro-life cause is not really a victory at all, and, you know, it's not the right strategy, and blah, blah, blah.
Listen, you're entitled to your own opinion.
I have little patience for it.
Because we're finally making real strides.
We're finally achieving big wins in multiple states.
And still, conservatives are not happy.
They're worried that we're going too far, too fast, etc., etc.
You know what?
60 million babies have been killed.
Okay?
Abortion has been legal for 46 years, and 60 million babies have been killed in the meantime.
And you're worried we're going too fast?
We're going too far?
46 years of slaughter isn't enough?
46 years of gradual victories isn't gradual enough?
It's not enough incrementalism for you?
Wait, so should we wait another 20 years?
No, Alabama, now's not the right time.
Let's wait until 2040.
How about that?
Let's get another 40, 50 years under our belt.
Um...
Stop it.
This is...
We are having this fight right now, whether you like it or not.
It's happening.
We've done the incremental thing for long enough, and now we're going for the throat.
We are going for the abortion industry's throat.
That's what we're doing.
If you consider yourself conservative, get on board or go hide under your bed.
But whatever you want to do, it's up to you.
If it makes your tummy hurt, I'm excited my tummy hurt a little bit.
I'm a little uncomfortable.
Hey guys, I'm a little uncomfortable with this.
Well, go be uncomfortable in your home.
Make yourself a nice little cup of tea and you can sit on your couch and the rest of us will have this fight.
Just don't stand in the way, is the point.
Because the rest of us have finally gotten to a point, I think there are a lot of people who have finally gotten to the point where we can't take anymore of the slaughter and the bloodshed.
We can't tolerate it anymore.
We're not going to.
And so, yes, extreme, yeah, sure.
Sure, Pat Robertson.
We're extreme.
We are extremely pro-life.
We are extremely against killing babies.
Any baby, for any reason, in any context.
That's what we're saying.
And that is a coherent, logical, and morally correct point of view.
And so it's happening.
I really believe, as I've been saying, that this threshold has been crossed.
And we're not going back across it.
Now, related to this topic, Yours truly has been trending on Twitter, and that's never a good thing.
At least for me.
I've never trended on Twitter because everyone agrees with something I said and they're talking about how much they like me.
That's never happened for me.
It never goes that way.
The angry mob has been coming after me because of an entirely valid and true point that I made about abortion.
And when I say angry, I mean very angry.
My inbox is just tens of thousands of people.
Been expressing their disgust with me, and I've got hundreds of messages.
Just to give you an idea, here are a couple of messages.
I'll just read a few that I've gotten because of my position on abortion.
Someone emailed and said, I hope your wife and daughter are both brutally raped.
Someone else says, you are an effing retard.
I wish your mom aborted you.
A lot of that kind of thing.
I wish you were aborted.
Kill yourself.
Jump off a bridge.
Kill yourself.
A lot of kill yourselves.
Someone messaged and said, You're the best reason for abortion I've ever encountered.
It is a crime that your mother failed to exercise her right, and you now breathe the free air.
One can only hope that by some happening, that error in judgment is remedied.
This is not a threat, but a hope, a wish, that you and all who think as you do are permanently silenced.
And that was, uh, that was a message from Tom McCurdy senior at Tom, T-O-M-M-C-C-U-R-D-Y-S-R.
Um, so he's wishing that pro-lifers are permanently silenced.
He's wishing death on us.
He wants us dead.
Me specifically, but if you're a pro-life, then you too.
Also, another message is from at P E Y ghost at P U I goes says absolute effing idiot.
You are don't reproduce abort all three of your already born children.
So wishing death on my children.
And by the way, I put these I put these messages out there.
I publish these messages on my Twitter and I made sure to include the person's face and
name and Twitter handle.
And I'm sharing it here now because here's the thing.
If you're going to wish death on me or my family, then you don't get to do it privately.
I'm not going to respect your privacy.
I'm going to publish that for everyone to see.
So if that's if that's the kind of that's no, you don't get to do that.
You don't get to whisper that one to me.
I'm going to I'm going to pull the megaphone out and you could say to everybody.
It's like, remember in school, if you brought a snack into school, you can't eat the snack.
You have to have enough to share with the whole class.
So it's kind of like that.
If you want to wish death on children or on your opponents, then you've got to share with the whole class.
You don't get to just keep that to yourself.
It's not going to stay between us.
That's not a message being passed between us.
No, that's not how it's going to work.
So a lot of stuff like that.
And why?
Well, because I pointed out That rapists use abortion to cover their tracks and that abortion restrictions can actually protect rape victims, whereas abortion clinics often exploit rape victims and can cause rape to continue.
I made that point in an exchange that began with someone responding to Michael Knowles after Knowles pointed out that cases of rape and incest account for less than 1% of all abortions.
Someone responded to that and said, Michael Knowles is playing down the horrible fact of the Alabama abortion ban that if a 12-year-old girl gets raped by her dad, she has to carry the baby and that the rapist will spend less time in prison than a doctor who aborts the baby.
This is immoral.
Now, I responded to that and said, if a 12-year-old is raped by her father and the father takes her to get an abortion, the evidence of the crime will be destroyed and he will go on molesting his victim for years.
If, however, the child is born, his crime will be discovered and she'll be rescued from the abuse.
And then I continue, and this exact kind of scenario happens all the time with the help of the fine folks at Planned Parenthood who are more than happy to assist an abuser in covering up the abuse.
And then I provided a link with examples of precisely this sort of thing.
Now, Do I apologize for making this point?
No, no I do not.
Not even a little bit.
I'm not ever going to apologize for saying something that's true.
It's never ever going to happen.
Ever.
Period.
Now here's a story from AL.com, Alabama.com, it's right out of Alabama.
It says, a Planned Parenthood center in Mobile provided two abortions for a 14-year-old mother of two in a span of four months in 2014 and failed to report that she was possibly the victim of sexual abuse.
According to a report from the Alabama Department of Health, the report states the clinic is required by law to report possible abuse and neglect, but failed to do so after providing services to the teenager identified as MR-16.
So you've got just one example, 14-year-old girl coming in twice in the span of a couple of months, pregnant.
And the clinic does not report it.
There are many examples of this kind of thing.
Live Action had a whole expose on this, and I encourage you to Google it and find their report.
They did a report about Planned Parenthood covering up sexual abuse.
Let me read a few of the examples that they provide in their report.
Okay, so reading from their report, this is what they say.
Denise Fairbanks had been sexually abused by her father since she was 13.
When she became pregnant at age 16, he forced her to have an abortion at Planned Parenthood, although she told the staff That he was raping her, they refused to report the incident.
Instead, they sent her home with him, where he continued to abuse her for another year and a half.
So that is pretty much exactly the kind of scenario that I mentioned.
The abortion happens, it's not reported, the child is sent home, and the abuse continues.
Now, I was told that I'm a monster for saying, but this, this is, this, that exact thing happened.
And this is not the only example.
George Savannah had repeatedly raped his daughter and impregnated her when she was 14, 16, and 17 years old, each time taking her to Planned Parenthood and forcing her to get an abortion.
Planned Parenthood neglected to report any of the three suspicious incidents to authorities.
So you've got fathers bringing their 13, 14, 15-year-old daughters in for abortions.
No questions asked.
No report.
Nothing.
Police aren't called.
Timothy David Smith had sexually abused his stepdaughter for seven years and took her to Planned Parenthood when she became pregnant at 13.
Planned Parenthood performed an abortion without notifying her parents and without reporting the suspected abuse to authorities as required by law.
Planned Parenthood performed an abortion on a 12-year-old at the request of her 23-year-old foster brother, who was also her abuser.
Shawn Michael Stevens took her home afterwards and continued to rape her.
Planned Parenthood not only neglected to notify authorities, but also failed to notify the victim's foster parents that they were going to perform the abortion.
Okay.
So this does happen.
Now keep in mind, all those people wishing death on me and my children is simply because I pointed out that this kind of thing happens.
The minions of the abortion industry, Radical pro-abortion zealots are truly some of the most vicious people on earth.
And this is not my first run-in with them by a long shot.
If you go after their sacred cow, if you desecrate the altar that they worship upon, the abortion altar, they will come after you in just no holds barred.
And they will feel perfectly justified in doing it.
So the people that are messaging me and saying, I hope that your five year old daughter is raped.
The thing that's really crazy about that is the person who sent that message feels justified, actually thinks that he or she is justified in doing that.
And that was sent anonymously.
It's the only reason I didn't share the name of the person who sent me that.
I would love to share the name if I had it.
Um, Now, as for the issue of rape and abortion more broadly, as you've heard, okay, of course, the Alabama law does not provide for rape exceptions.
And this fact has been a topic of very loud discussion and much outrage.
I addressed it briefly yesterday, but now I want to spend a little bit more time on it now and kind of try to explain why I think that it's right to not have the rape exceptions.
I think mainly there are two points to be made here, okay?
One, as Michael Knowles alluded to, abortion due to rape is very, very rare.
The vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape.
The Guttmacher Institute surveyed pro-abortion women, and they found that the top six reasons for getting an abortion, accounting for 85% of all cases, were, and I'll read them to you, not ready for a child, can't afford a baby, Have completed my childbearing, don't want to be a single mother, don't feel mature enough, and would interfere with education or career plans.
Okay, those are the top six reasons for getting an abortion.
85% of all cases.
And those are abortions for lifestyle reasons.
They are getting rid of the baby because the baby would interfere with the kind of life they want to live.
Uh, less than 1% of all respondents said that they were rape victims.
Considering how often rape comes up in the abortion discussion, you would think that something like half of all women who walk into a Planned Parenthood on a given day are rape victims, but that is clearly not the case.
Instead of half, it's more like half of 1%.
So, why do we focus disproportionately on these rare and difficult cases?
Because pro-abortion people would much rather talk about a 15-year-old girl who gets an abortion because she was raped by her father than a grown woman who gets an abortion because she doesn't want the baby to interfere with her career.
They would much rather talk about the former than the latter.
Because the latter makes abortion seem cruel and self-centered.
And just totally destructive and murderous.
And that's what abortion is.
And abortion for that reason is many times more common than an abortion for rape.
So, in other words, they don't want to talk about the vast majority You know, the 85 to 90% where it's just pretty much clear cut self-centered.
I'm killing the baby because I don't feel like I just don't feel like I don't feel like having a baby.
They don't want to talk about that big chunk of cases because it's just really difficult to try to defend that and yet still, you know, appear to be taking a morally acceptable position.
Because if you're going to defend that, A woman that's killing a baby just because, yeah, I just don't feel like having a baby.
If you're going to defend that, you have to basically abandon morality completely and say, yeah, I don't care about it.
Fine, it's immoral.
I don't care.
There's really just no way to try to dress that up in moral language.
It's just not possible to do.
So that's why they want to focus on the rare and difficult cases.
So, that's the first thing.
Second thing, now that we've established that pro-abortion people focus on hard cases in order to distract from their real position, and that abortion restrictions will actually protect rape victims and help assist in bringing rapists to justice, once we've qualified the discussion with those two crucial points, I think that we can then move on to addressing the question at hand, which is, should there be exceptions to allow raped women to get abortions?
The answer is no.
The pro-life case is simple, okay?
We believe that abortion should be outlawed because unborn humans are people and all people are endowed with inherent rights and dignities.
There is no other reason to be pro-life.
And if we're wrong on either point, if we're wrong about, you know, unborn humans, if we're wrong that unborn humans are people, or if we're wrong that all people are endowed with human rights, if we're wrong about either of those points, then there's no reason to be pro-life at all.
There's just no reason.
But if that's the case, then we don't need to get into rape and incest exceptions, right?
Abortion should simply be legal across the board.
If personhood lies on a spectrum contingent on a human being's ability to care for himself, then forget about limiting abortion just to rape cases, actually.
We shouldn't even limit it to the womb.
So if we pro-lifers are wrong about our fundamental point, then yeah, of course raped women should be able to get abortions, but also any woman should be able to get an abortion for any reason, and probably even after birth, she should be allowed to get abortions.
Now, on the other hand, if we're right, if it's true that unborn humans are people, and thus intrinsically deserving of the same legal protections that you and I enjoy, then again, there is no reason to discuss exceptions.
A baby conceived in rape is not any less of a person than one conceived consensually.
If we believe that unborn people are people and people have rights, it would be incoherent and contradictory for us to say, well, except for.
There are no except-fors.
That's the point.
That's our whole point.
People are people are people.
To pretend that a baby conceived in rape is not a person would be nonsensical.
To admit that he is a person but still execute him for his father's sins is morally abominable and unjustifiable.
We cannot remain consistently pro-life while supporting exceptions because the exceptions must either be based on the belief that not all unborn people are people, or that sometimes it is actually okay to kill a defenseless and innocent human being, but either claim would contradict and ultimately destroy our entire case.
So I say that one more time.
If we support exceptions, Then we must either be saying that actually, as it turns out, not all unborn people are people, which would destroy the pro-life case, or we need to be saying that actually sometimes it is okay to murder an innocent and defenseless human being, which again destroys our entire case.
Because if that's the case, then If we're saying that, well, okay, you know, I mean, sometimes you could kill an innocent and defenseless human being, then, okay, you're making an exception for rape, but then why not?
I mean, what about a woman who's just, she hasn't been raped, but she's poor, and, you know, having the baby would be very difficult for her, and what about all these other difficult cases?
If you're saying that sometimes it is okay to kill an innocent and defenseless human being, then why wouldn't that apply to these other cases, too?
It just seems arbitrary.
It seems like we either take a hardline stance that it is never okay to kill an innocent and defenseless human being, ever, under any circumstance, we take that position, or we say that, meh, sometimes it is okay.
And if we take the, eh, approach, then I think we've opened the floodgates to, then suddenly everything becomes an exception.
Because if it's, if it can be okay to kill, to intentionally kill an innocent and defenseless human being, then I guess what we're saying is that human life is not actually quite as valuable as we had been insisting all this time.
Okay, so that's where it comes down to.
And that doesn't mean, listen, a couple other points here.
Obviously, when we're talking about these extreme, rare, hard cases, obviously I have nothing but compassion and sympathy for a woman who is in that position.
It's unimaginable.
I mean, it really is unimaginable.
And, uh, I, as I said yesterday, I think if you want to talk about aborting rapists, if you want
to talk about abortion for the scumbag who raped her, then we could definitely have that discussion.
I think there's a case to be made for that, for sure.
For executing rapists.
We could definitely talk about that.
Because of what a just horrific, unthinkable Barbaric crime it is to do that to someone.
You have to be an animal.
You have, basically, by your own decision, you have forfeited your humanity.
And that's why I say, you know, it's never okay to intentionally kill an innocent and defenseless human being.
But that doesn't mean that it's necessarily wrong to kill a guilty and dangerous human being.
So, if someone is going to be punished for a rape, then I think obviously we punish the rapist,
and punish him severely.
But I just I don't see how you punish the child with death, especially.
And I don't see how that is going to help the woman heal either.
Adding more death and suffering and misery.
In the long term, I don't see how that helps anyone.
I don't see how it ever can.
So that's the An important point.
Also, we seem to struggle with a nuance here, where you have the objective quality of an act.
So I say abortion is objectively evil, and it is.
It is an objectively, inherently evil act, and it is never okay.
It is always evil to do.
However, the moral culpability of an individual who engages in an evil act can vary.
It can vary tremendously, significantly.
So I would say that in these extreme cases, there's a 15-year-old girl who's raped and gets an abortion.
People say, well, you're heartless, that you would call that evil.
Well, it is an evil act, yes.
But it would also seem to me that the moral guilt of the girl in that position is severely mitigated.
Now, I can't sit here and say how mitigated precisely it is.
That's not for me to say, it's for God to say.
But it does seem to me that it is severely mitigated, given the situation that she's in.
And that this is someone who's been abused, is afraid, is, I mean, just, you can't even imagine the mindset of someone like that.
So I can acknowledge all of that.
I understand those nuances.
And I acknowledge how, when we talk about hard cases, I acknowledge just how hard they really are.
And I also acknowledge that because I've never been in that position, I can't fully appreciate how hard they really are.
I acknowledge all of that.
But it doesn't change the fact that a person is a person.
There is a person, there is another person involved, and that person is a person.
And it doesn't matter how hard the case is, it will not detract from the personhood of this third person who is now involved.
All right.
Let's move on.
Before we get to emails, I wrote something yesterday with kind of a clickbaity title, admittedly, but I do feel that I back it up.
So it's not really clickbait, but the title is the simple preschool level question that no leftist can answer.
And here's the point I was trying to make.
And I made this point before, but I'm just going to lay it out now.
Because I have been, there's a certain question that I have been desperately asking.
With increasing desperation, I've been asking this question of leftists, people on the left, trying to get someone to answer it.
And so now I put it out here in this forum as well.
If there's anyone on the left watching right now, I've got a question for you.
And I really, I would just love to hear your answer.
And I mean that sincerely.
It's a very simple question.
Like I said, preschool level, I just want to know what your answer is.
Now, you'll notice, of course, that folks on the left use the word woman quite a bit.
We all use the word woman, right?
It's a common word to use.
But especially leftists, they make claims about women.
They say that these people known as women have something called women's rights.
They say that those rights are under attack.
They say that women are persecuted and disadvantaged by something called male privilege.
They say that women are the victims of something called a wage gap.
They say things like, we need a woman president, right?
They say all that kind of stuff.
They also say that biological males can be women.
They say trans women are women.
They say that someone can start out life as a male and then transition into a woman.
So they make many other claims in that vein.
How can I understand any of those claims if I do not know what they mean when they say the word woman?
And how can they make any meaningful statements about women if they themselves don't know what they mean by it?
So the question I ask is this.
What is a woman?
Simple question.
What is a woman?
Define the word.
Now, in fairness, I'll provide my own definition.
I tend to agree with Merriam-Webster that woman means an adult female person.
That's the dictionary definition.
That is also the definition that the whole history of human civilization would have given up until very recently.
But you on the left, you disagree.
You say that biology has nothing to do with womanhood.
Well then, what does have something to do with womanhood?
If we cannot define a woman physically, how can we define her?
What is a woman?
You know, your definition must be specific if you make all of these specific statements about what it's like to be a woman, the trials and tribulations that women face, the indignities that women suffer, and so on.
Yeah, we were told that Captain Marvel was an important movie because it was a woman-led superhero film.
Okay, well, so that means what?
That Brie Larson is a woman?
Okay, well, now we're getting somewhere.
Brie Larson is a woman.
I agree with you there.
Brie Larson is also an adult female with all of the biological markers of a female, so the picture seems to be coming into focus.
Maybe Webster had it right after all.
But wait a second.
You also say that Caitlyn Jenner and Chelsea Manning are women, despite the fact that they are both adult males, not females.
You say that they're all three equally women.
Brie Larson, Caitlyn Jenner, Chelsea Manning.
You say they're all indistinguishable.
They're women.
Woman, woman, woman.
Well, suddenly the picture becomes foggy again.
I've been told by the few people that have attempted to answer this question, and there have been a few, I've been putting this question out everywhere, and a few people have tried to answer it on the left, and the answer that I've gotten is that a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman.
But that definition doesn't work because you can't use the word you're defining in the definition.
If I ask you for the definition of tree, and you tell me that a tree is that which, you know, a tree is that which is a tree.
Well, you've told me nothing about trees.
I need you to explain trees using words that don't include the word tree.
You can't use the word of the, so what's the definition of desk?
Well, desk is desk.
Does it work?
I need you to explain the word without using the word.
I need you to explain woman using words that don't include woman.
Give me a definition of woman that does not have the word woman in it.
That's what a definition is.
So, what is a woman?
You might say that a woman is an adult human female or anyone who identifies as an adult human female.
But that's just another way of saying that a woman is an adult human female or not an adult human female.
And that's just another way of saying that a woman is nothing in particular.
Woman has no definition.
If that is the definition, then woman has no definition.
And it would be nonsensical to identify as a woman in that case, because you're identifying as something that is not really anything.
When a man says, I identify as a woman, okay, what is that thing that you're identifying?
What do you mean by that, is the question.
What do you mean by that?
What is it that you're identifying as?
That is a fair question.
If you can't answer it, then that's a problem.
Now, I'll be told that words like woman and man are on a spectrum.
Okay, well, then tell me about this spectrum.
Fine, it's on a spectrum.
It's not on a spectrum, but I'll go along with it for a moment for the sake of argument.
Spectrum, right?
So spectrum, you got point A, point B, and then you've got the gradual increments between.
Okay, what are these things on either side of the spectrum?
Define the people who exist on either side.
Define the people who exist on what I would call the woman's side of the spectrum.
If someone is on the spectrum, so if someone is like right here on the spectrum, between woman and man, okay, well, what does that mean?
They're between what and what?
You can't escape the definition problem by talking about spectrums.
If the spectrum takes us from one undefinable thing to another undefinable thing, then it's not a spectrum.
It's more like a black hole where all sense and reason and the very laws of science break down.
So what exactly does any of this mean?
What is a woman?
Is a woman, in the end, just anyone who enjoys feminine things or dresses in a feminine way?
Well, that can't be it, because we can't define feminine until we've defined the word woman.
The definition of feminine hinges very much on the definition of woman.
And also, this definition would turn a lot of women into non-women, and a lot of non-women into women.
Besides, the left has been trying to break down the societal construct of feminine vs. masculine for years.
Surely you can't go from, not all women should be expected to be feminine, to, the only defining characteristic of women is that they are feminine.
I mean, you can't do such a 180 and undermine everything you've been saying for the last 60 years.
So what is a woman?
It does not seem possible to formulate a definition of woman that rejects biology while still allowing women to be objective, unique, and discernible things.
While still allowing womanhood to be a discernible category.
But I invite anyone to prove me wrong.
I invite any leftist to prove me wrong.
What is a woman?
That's the question.
And you can email me, mattwalshow at gmail.com.
Now, if you're a rational person and you know that a woman is an adult human female, then I don't need your answer.
I know what your answer, but if you're on the left and you subscribe to the leftist gender theory, give me a definition.
And if you can give me one that makes sense, I'll read it on the show and I will admit that I have been defeated.
I really don't think that's going to happen.
I don't think you can define a word.
I think it is a word you use all the time, but that you cannot define.
According to the dictates of your ideology, you can't define it.
All right.
Let's see.
Okay.
Matt Walshow at gmail.com.
We'll go to emails.
From Lisa says, Greetings, Matt.
I've seen some pro-aborts online trying to prove hypocrisy and pro-lifers by claiming that we don't care about frozen embryos that are destroyed, so we aren't really pro-life from conception.
I actually can't recall ever hearing about frozen embryos in the pro-life conversation at all.
What's your take on it morally and legally?
Is it even moral to have embryos artificially created and frozen, much less discarded?
Well, that is something that comes up in discussion, I think, frequently.
And a lot of pro-lifers are spoken out about this, are outspoken about it, I should say.
And the answer is no, I don't think that it is ethical to create These embryos like they are just resources and keep them in a storage locker somewhere, keep them in a freezer somewhere.
I think it is the, in a real literal sense, it's the objectification or maybe I should say the commodification of human life and turning human life into a commodity and saying, oh, you know, I got, I got, I got 50 embryos in storage and, you know, if I get around to using one of them, I got, I got back, I got spares, you know, I got backups.
I think it's a very dangerous thing.
It is not respecting of the dignity of the human person.
And so that's where I stand on that.
Now, a variation of this is, I thought that's where you were going to go with this, where somebody will say, Okay, well, you're in a fertility clinic, and there's a fire, and there's 10 frozen embryos in a box, or 1,000 frozen embryos in a box, and there's a two-year-old child.
You can only save one in the fire.
Now, why is the two-year-old child in the freezer with the embryos?
I have no idea, but that's the hypothetical.
You can only save one.
Which one do you save?
And maybe, I don't know if you've heard this brain teaser before.
I've addressed it before.
I think one of the first pieces I ever wrote for the Daily Wire was actually addressing this question.
And just very briefly, the answer, of course, is that you would save the two-year-old child, right?
I mean, anybody would.
That is, I guess, supposed to prove that we don't really consider embryos to be human life, but of course it proves no such thing.
I would save a two-year-old over a 72-year-old.
I would probably save a two-year-old over a, you know, 30-year-old.
I would save a two-year-old over someone who's, you know, probably over someone who's terminally ill.
I would save the two-year-old over a lot of people.
And does that mean that I don't think the other people are people?
If I save the two-year-old over someone who's 72, does that mean that I don't think that I think 72-year-olds aren't human beings, or they aren't people, or their lives aren't worthwhile, or that they are somehow worth less than the two-year-old?
No.
It doesn't mean that at all.
It just means that in that extremely Difficult and, of course, also far-fetched and ridiculous scenario, you have to make a quick decision.
And that decision is not going to be based on which of these are human.
It's going to be based on other things.
First of all, there's going to be emotion to it.
Like, you see a two-year-old that just elicits certain emotions from you, and so you're going to respond to those emotions, and that's fine.
And maybe you make other calculations, and you say, in this case, The two-year-old has his whole life in front of him.
The 72-year-old's already lived a long life.
I mentioned someone who's terminally ill.
I mean, you might make the choice in that scenario, well, the two-year-old has a whole life in front of him.
This is someone who's unfortunately near death already.
So it's just, you've got to make a decision.
And so you make that decision there.
But again, that does not mean that you're denying the humanity of the person you don't save.
And another thing, very important, is that You're not killing the other person.
So if the hypothetical is, well, you gotta toss one of them into the fire.
You either gotta toss the ambrose into the fire or the child into the fire.
Well, the answer to that is neither.
Even with a gun to your head, you should do neither and die rather than do that.
Because it is never okay to directly, intentionally kill innocent and defenseless human life.
That's the point here.
But when you could only save one and you make your choice, you're not killing the other person.
If that person dies, tragically, it's the fire that killed you.
You didn't do it.
Unless you set the fire.
Assuming that's not the case, it's not your fault.
You could only save one.
So it's just not synonymous with abortion.
Abortion is not choosing someone to save from a fire.
Abortion is tossing someone into the fire.
Very different.
All right, this is from... Tom says...
Hi Matt, I was traveling home from Chicago today listening to your podcast when I look up to see you standing right next to me in the pre-check line.
I know that you're an introvert for being an avid listener to your show, and knowing my introverted self, I certainly would not like someone coming up to me while I was rushing through security line trying to take out my laptop, take off my shoes, etc.
I wanted to take the chance to thank you, but by the time you were through security, I had lost you.
Well, you could have come up to me, Tom.
I always appreciate that.
I am from Philadelphia.
Unfortunately, I could not attend the rally last week.
Many of my family members were there.
Thank you for organizing such an amazing day and thank you for all that you've done for the pro-life movement.
I got to listen to your speech and rally during my lunch break.
It was very moving.
I didn't realize I was going to be reading a bunch of compliments to myself, honestly.
But I appreciate it, Tom.
My wife and I have prayed slash ministered that Planned Parenthood with 40 Days for Life and it made me so proud to see so many pro-lifers come together in response to Bryan Sims.
Made me proud as well.
I agree we are beginning to see a shift in the culture and I believe it has a lot to do with your constant battle for life and willingness to stand up in the face of death.
Okay, I don't want to, no disrespect.
I'm going to skip ahead to the, I don't want to keep reading these.
I appreciate it.
I'll finish reading it off air.
I just feel uncomfortable reading compliments about me publicly.
It feels very self-serving.
All right, here's the question.
Maybe there was, okay.
My question would be, what is your advice on sharing a pro-family, pro-life message in the corporate workplace where any mention of these issues is frowned upon?
All right.
There was a question.
Well, I get this kind of question a lot, and I think of the quote that's attributed to St.
Francis of Assisi, which I think maybe he didn't actually say, but it's, you know, preach the gospel, if necessary, use words.
I'm sure you've heard that before.
And I think it's a very similar thing for the situation that you're in, corporate workplace.
You can't go around Lecturing people about the pro-life cause or sharing your political opinions all the time in the workplace.
You just can't do that.
It's not the appropriate place for it.
Your bosses and your employer probably does not want that.
And for good reason.
Because you're at the job to do a job.
You're not there to have political arguments.
It's not going to be conducive to a productive work environment when there are political debates about abortion and everything.
So, I think in that scenario, that's a time for preaching the message without using words.
And if you're just, which it sounds like you are, just a decent, good person, And demonstrating that to people, then when they discover, if it ever comes up, if you ever are talking to them outside of work, or if somehow it does come up and they discover that, oh, you're pro-life, you're pro-family, you're a Christian.
Once, when they discover that, they're going to, they're all of a sudden going to make this association between, oh, this is a person's against abortion, I also know is a very decent and good person.
And that's going to be a very powerful witness for them.
And you didn't even need to say anything.
They just see it and they connect those two things.
Because there are a lot of people who just, who really, you know, you hear from this argument from pro-abortion people, oh, you're just pro-birth.
You don't care about anyone after they're born, right?
It's so absurd.
The people who say that, these are people who it seems like have never met a pro-life person.
Because if you've ever actually met a pro-life person, you would realize that these are people who very often are very charitable, very compassionate, very generous.
And so you are providing that witness to other people just by being a decent person.
And that's how I would go about that.
Finally, from Matt, says, your argument for rapists loving abortion is not a good argument.
The rapist DNA could still be collected from an aborted baby.
Also, a baby doesn't have to be carried to term to obtain the baby's genetic material.
Genetic testing, such as T21, can pick up the baby's genetic material in the mother's bloodstream in the first trimester.
To be clear, I'm fairly close to your position on abortion generally.
I just think that part of the argument was poorly thought out.
Well, I appreciate that point of view, but as I tried to explain, Matt, That would require the abortion clinics to actually report the abuse and to be proactive.
And what we've discovered is that abortion clinics very often are not going to do that.
They're not interested in getting involved in that, in reporting it.
In fact, they have a vested financial interest in not reporting it.
And their interest is, number one, rape victims are still paying for the abortion, so they make money off of it.
And number two, they don't want this association to be, they don't want people to realize that, oh, you know, rapists try to use abortion to cover up rape.
They don't want to call attention to that.
They don't want to call attention to the fact that, you know, a rapist father brought his victim in to get an abortion.
They don't want to call attention to that, so they're more likely to ignore it.
And number three, Keep in mind what these people do for a living.
They kill human beings for a living.
This is what they do every day.
So obviously these are not going to be people who you can trust to make ethical decisions.
These are going to be self-centered people who care about the bottom line and are completely callous towards suffering and towards innocent human life.
They have to be in order to do this for a living, which is why you just can't trust them for anything.
And it's why it just doesn't work.
It doesn't work to have, you say, well, you get abortion clinics and you have all these regulations and laws and you expect them to do this and that.
And what you find is that abortion clinics, they ignore the regulations.
They ignore the laws.
They ignore the reporting requirements.
They ignore the health codes and everything else.
Because, again, they kill people for a living.
What do they care about?
A reporting requirement?
Rape?
Abuse?
Sanitizing the equipment?
They don't care about that.
They've forfeited their souls just to do this for a living.
These are people who don't even have it in them to make ethical decisions, which is why we could never trust them.
To do the right thing and to call someone and report.
It doesn't mean that, I mean, sometimes maybe someone over there does do the right thing, but we can never trust them to do the right thing.
And we have to expect that very often they will not.
And then, if the abortion, if they do the, in the examples I gave, they do the abortion, the dead child is discarded as medical waste, and that's it.
It's gone.
And that's, the evidence is gone.
A lot more than evidence is gone.
A human life is gone.
But also, the evidence of the crime is gone.
And one of the reasons why that is so terrible is that not only will this rapist not face justice, but then that child will be sent home with the rapist, as in the examples I provided.
