While everyone is blabbering about impeachment, Congress is getting ready to pass a 1.4 trillion dollar spending bill. This is yet more evidence that fiscal conservatism simply does not exist anymore. The spending bill also raises the age for buying tobacco to 21. We'll talk about all of the reasons why that is arbitrary, pointless, and stupid. And a female Fight Club is in the works. But there's one huge problem with the idea.
Can't get enough of The Matt Walsh Show? Enjoy ad-free shows, live discussions, and more by becoming an ALL ACCESS subscriber TODAY at: https://dailywire.com/Walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
There's no reason to even point this out anymore, but I will anyway, that, you know, you're not supposed to be excited about a president getting impeached.
I'm not saying you have to be opposed to it every time, obviously.
That's not my point.
I'm saying that if you support it, the fact that in your mind a president must be impeached
deserves to be impeached in your mind, should, I would think, engender in you
a more of a somber feeling, okay, not a celebratory one.
But this is a pointless thing for me to say, I realize.
We're long past the point of that kind of maturity, of that kind of sober-mindedness.
The mask has long been torn off.
The left wants Trump out because they hate his guts.
They just don't like him.
And they said from day one that they want him impeached.
And now they're actually doing it.
It's as simple as that.
They were looking for an excuse.
They've been searching for an excuse for three years.
They finally found one.
And they went with it.
I do worry, I have to say, I do worry about where all of this heads.
And I don't talk about impeachment much on this show, for reasons I've already explained.
It's talked about plenty elsewhere, plenty of great analysis.
I don't feel like I have to add to it.
Also, I think there are things that, for me, are more important and deserve our focus more.
But I will say, on one of the rare occasions that I talk about the impeachment mess, I will say that I do worry about it.
As I've always said, I worry about the bigger picture, I mean.
Now, as I've always said, I don't see America descending into a civil war.
I don't see that happening.
Because at the end of the day, all anybody really wants to do in this country is binge Netflix.
They want to sit on their couch and binge Netflix.
That's all anybody wants to do.
And having a full-on civil war will very much interfere with that.
And then also, I think our ideological divide in this country does not have the same geographic character as it did in the past.
At least not quite to the same extent where you had that clear dividing line north and south.
We don't exactly have that now, which would make a civil war less logistically feasible, but I am concerned at any rate about the trajectory we're on.
If you think about it, impeachment has historically been a very, very, very rare thing.
It was viewed historically as a step taken only in the extremest of circumstances.
There have been Many corrupt presidents in the past.
There have been many presidents who have done a lot of bad and stupid things.
Almost all of them were not impeached.
Because impeachment is, last resort, the most extreme thing that you can do to a president.
Now this impeachment, motivated plainly by the Democrat Party's overall revulsion to
Trump, this impeachment comes only 20 years after the last impeachment.
And previously, before the Clinton impeachment, there had only been two in history.
Well really actually one, I guess, because Nixon resigned before he was impeached, but
we'll call that an impeachment.
There had been two in history, in over two centuries of American history, and then you
had Clinton, and now we've got another one 20 years later.
So what happens now?
If Republicans take control of the House and a Democrat wins in 2020 or in 2024 or whenever it happens, will Republicans impeach that person out of revenge?
I know there's going to be, there will be among conservatives.
I don't think it's right.
I don't think that this is what we should do, but I think there's going to be, in fact, I've already seen it.
I've already seen a lot of conservatives online saying, next time we get a chance, we're impeaching one of yours.
And I think there's going to be a groundswell of conservative voters calling for that.
Because now a lot of people are in revenge mode.
So, Democrat gets in, you got a Republican House, they're impeached.
Does impeachment become, I guess this is my concern, does impeachment become a standard political tool?
Just something that you do?
Where does it lead when the opposing party always tries to remove the president democratically elected by the country?
Are we getting to a point where that's just the way it goes?
It's not just that you, if you're the opposing party, you oppose the president.
That's always, but now you try to remove him.
You try to get him out of office.
I worry about that.
And speaking of worries, in case you wanted stuff to worry about this holiday season, it's a great theme for a show heading into Christmas, all the stuff to worry about.
There is a $1.4 trillion spending bill currently making its way through Congress.
And also speaking of other things that are important besides impeachment, here's one.
I want to talk about this.
I'll have more to say about it in just a moment.
But first, a word from policy genius.
You know, we've all got our Christmas lists, but I'm guessing that life insurance is not exactly at the top of it because it's something that seems daunting.
It seems like, well, it's something that makes you worried, right?
Well, here's something that you don't have to worry about because policy genius comes in.
And at least this is one area of life that gets a lot easier because you've got Policy Genius.
They'll find the right life insurance at the best price and do all the work to help you get covered.
Policy Genius makes finding the right life insurance as easy as 1, 2, 3. It's a breeze.
In minutes, you can compare quotes from the top insurers to find your best price.
You could save $1,500 or more by using Policy Genius to compare life insurance policies.
Once you apply, the PolicyGenius team will handle all the paperwork.
They'll handle all the red tape.
They're going to do all that for you, so you don't have to worry about it.
And PolicyGenius doesn't just make life insurance easy.
They can also help you with many other forms of insurance.
So, if you need life insurance, but aren't sure where to start, Why not start with PolicyGenius.com?
It only takes a few minutes to find the right life insurance policy, apply, and cross another thing off your to-do list.
PolicyGenius.
When it comes to life insurance, it's nice to get it right.
Okay, so, while everybody is talking about impeachment, both Republicans and Democrats are hoping that we don't notice $1.4 trillion This boondoggle that they're ramming down the public's throat.
Let me read a little bit from the Washington Post.
The House on Tuesday approved a $1.4 trillion spending package that would stave off a looming shutdown and fund the federal government through September, acting in a burst of bipartisanship just a day before Democrats plan to impeach President Trump.
The legislation would also remove three controversial taxes from the Affordable Care Act.
The package passed in two pieces.
One focused on GOP national security priorities, including the Pentagon.
The other on domestic agencies dear to Democrats, such as the Department of Health and Human Services.
The vote on the national security package was 280 to 138.
The vote on the domestic agencies was 297 to 120.
The legislation would add almost $50 billion in new spending, even though the White House and Republicans called for major budget reductions earlier in the year.
The package will also strip back parts of the ACA, legislation that many Democrats say serves as a defining moment of the Obama administration.
All told, the legislation could add more than $500 billion to deficits over the next decade.
The deficits, or annual gap between government spending and tax revenue, is expected to eclipse $1 trillion this year, $1 trillion, and grow in subsequent years, subsequent Subsequent.
That's the way I pronounce it.
Every time I say subsequent, I get emails.
You say subsequent?
It's subsequent.
No, I say subsequent and that's perfectly valid.
Look it up.
Anyway, one trillion dollars and it's gonna grow in subsequent years unless changes are made.
Okay.
All I can say is I hope that we all understand now.
I'm sure we've all understood this for a while, right?
That fiscal conservatism is a myth.
Doesn't exist.
It just doesn't exist.
There is no fiscally conservative party.
There is no movement of fiscal conservatism.
It's not there.
It's been a myth for at least 30 years.
Every Republican president in that span has run huge deficits.
And I want you to think about what a deficit is.
The Washington Post explained it, if you didn't know.
But to reiterate, that means that the government is spending More than it collects in revenue.
Alright?
Basic economics.
But, here's why that's significant.
At this point, the government collects almost 4 trillion dollars in revenue.
I think 2020 it was about 3.7, or it will be about 3.7 trillion for 2020.
So we're getting to the 4 trillion mark.
We're getting very close to it.
Let's round up and call it 4 trillion.
Just for the sake of argument.
So, That means they're spending more than $4 trillion.
And that's not enough.
Okay?
Somehow, they can't get everything they want accomplished with a measly $4 trillion.
Collecting $4 trillion, that's not enough.
They need to spend even more than that.
$4 trillion... I mean, think about what $4 trillion is.
We're dealing with numbers that are beyond human comprehension.
I think that's one of the reasons why fiscal conservatism died.
It was sort of overwhelmed.
It died by overdose.
Because now we're dealing with numbers that no one can even... A trillion?
What is a trillion?
What is a trillion?
I have no idea.
You can't conceptualize that.
It's such a massive number that I think we tune it out.
Because we can't wrap our heads around it.
Well, here's one way to conceptualize it.
Collecting $4 trillion in revenue is the equivalent... So the government collecting $4 trillion in revenue is the equivalent of the government confiscating all of the wealth of half of the world's billionaires.
If they were to line up half of the billionaires in the world, take everything that each one of them is worth, that's about $4 trillion.
And it's not enough.
So they're doing that every year now.
Every year, the government is spending the equivalent of all of the wealth of half of the world's billionaires.
And they need to spend even more.
So, there isn't any party in Washington, and hardly any individual voices in Washington, that care about fiscal conservatism.
That's dead.
That doesn't exist.
Nobody cares about it.
There was a conservative movement for a little while.
I think the Tea Party, this was one of the big focuses of the Tea Party.
What happened to that?
What happened to the Tea Party Republicans concerned about?
Eh, they got bored with it.
That's why I'm often skeptical of these kinds of movements that pop up.
People are out holding signs.
And I went to some of the Tea Party rallies back in, what was it, 2009 or whenever that was.
And I quickly grew weary of it.
I even went to some tea party meetings.
Because it started to seem to me that people just had fun.
They just wanted to go out and hold a sign and feel like they were doing something.
Then you go to a meeting and everyone takes turns getting up and complaining.
But that's it.
That's what it seemed like.
It seemed like people were having fun.
It was something to do.
It was a hobby.
And sure enough, within 10 years, nobody cares anymore.
No one talks about any of that stuff anymore.
Meanwhile, lawmakers have stuffed into this spending bill a provision.
Tell me if you can see how this has anything to do with spending.
They've stuffed into the bill a provision that would raise the age to buy tobacco to 21.
As part of a spending bill, they're going to make it so that you have to be 21 to buy any tobacco product, including e-cigarettes.
What does it have to do with spending?
Why wouldn't this be a separate piece of legislation that they take out and debate specifically?
If you want to do that, make it a separate bill, debate that, pass that.
Well, probably they don't want to debate it because it's impossible to justify something like this.
So let's just think about this now.
You have to be 21 to buy a pack of cigarettes, or once this law passes, this spending bill passes, which it will, You have to be 21 to buy a pack of cigarettes or a vape cartridge.
If that's what, is that what it is?
A cartridge when you vape?
I don't know what, whatever it is.
Whatever the kids are doing these days.
You have to be 21.
You are not, according to the government now, you are not old enough or mature enough to make the decision to buy a pack of cigarettes or to vape before the age of 21.
But, you are old enough to drive at 16.
So at 16, we're gonna trust you to pilot a 4,000 pound chunk of metal down the highway at 75 miles an hour.
We're gonna trust you to do that.
You're competent enough for that, but it's gonna be another five years before you're mature enough to pilot that 4,000 pound chunk of metal to Rite Aid to buy cigarettes.
If Rite Aid even still sells cigarettes, which I'm not sure if they do.
At 18, so that's 16.
16, you're already old enough for that.
At 18, we're going to trust you to open a bank account.
We're going to trust you to get a tattoo, which is permanently marking your body.
We're going to trust you to enlist in the military.
We're going to trust you to go skydiving.
We're going to trust you to serve on a jury.
We're going to trust you to buy fireworks.
We're gonna trust you to buy a shotgun.
We're gonna trust you to sign contracts.
We're gonna trust you to sign a mortgage.
We're gonna trust you to get married.
We're gonna trust you to vote.
But you won't be old enough to vape for another three years.
So you're old enough to do all that stuff, you're not old enough to vape.
No, no, that's where we draw the line.
Oh, and you can also be executed by the state.
So you're so competent, And we expect you to be so confident that if you commit a serious crime, you could be executed, or at a minimum, you can go to federal prison.
Not old enough, though, to smoke a cigar.
Not old enough to smoke a black and mild.
Or to drink a Bud Light, for that matter.
Oh, and you're also old enough to kill your baby in an abortion.
So you're old enough to make that decision.
And you're old enough to get plastic surgery.
Permanently mutilating your body.
Speaking of which, you're old enough to permanently transition into another gender.
Well, you could do that before 18 now.
So all of that, everything, I mean, every responsibility and power and right imaginable, you have, and a bunch, some of which you should not ever have, like the ability to kill your baby, but we're throwing that in too.
You could do all of that before 21, most of it at 18, some of it before that.
But you're still not old enough to buy a cigarette.
The only thing left, I think of what, 25 is when you can rent a car.
So that's the only thing left.
That's the last thing.
That's the last thing you're old enough to do is rent, is go to Enterprise and rent a Toyota.
Does any of this make any sense?
Is there any theory of human psychological and emotional development that can lend any coherence or credibility to this?
I'd like to hear from some psychologist to explain to me exactly how it is that the human mind has matured enough at 18 to do all of that stuff, but still it cannot be trusted.
The person with that mind cannot be trusted to stand at the gas station and have the ability to buy a pack of camels.
And Now, when I've talked about this in the past, people will say, oh well, nobody should be smoking anyway, it's poison.
Okay, but that's an argument for banning it outright.
That's not an argument for raising the age limit.
And if you think that tobacco should be banned, well then make that argument.
I would wholeheartedly disagree with it, but that's an argument you can make.
You can make that argument.
I don't think that anyone has a god-given right to buy cigarettes.
Theoretically, it could be banned.
I absolutely would disagree with that move.
But if that's your argument, if you are okay with this, or if you justify it on the basis that it's a horrible thing, it's poison, nobody should do it, tobacco companies are predatory and all that stuff, yada yada.
Those, all of that, those are all arguments for prohibition.
Those are not arguments for raising the age limit arbitrarily to 21.
Now, I know I'm going to get a million emails that say, but you said porn should be banned.
Yes, and I will, and I have already repeatedly defended my assertion that porn is far more harmful, far more of a danger to society and to children and to people that are involved in it than tobacco products are.
You disagree with me if you want, that's fine, but my position is at least intellectually consistent.
It's not arbitrary.
There's nothing arbitrary about it.
Arbitrary would be me saying, well, I think porn is a terrible thing, it's very harmful, and so therefore the age for viewing or purchasing pornography should be raised to 37.
That would be arbitrary.
And intellectually dishonest.
Why 37?
Why not 21?
One at 18.
One at 16.
I mean, why are we drawing these lines exactly?
I'm not saying that there's no reason to draw a line.
I'm just saying you must present what the reason is.
There could be a good reason.
I'm not arguing that children should have the right to do all of these things at any age.
That's definitely not my opinion.
But there should be a discernible Reason that you can present based partly or largely in human psychology to defend Whatever age limit you've come up with for whatever the thing is So if you want to argue for tobacco prohibition Then make that argument and I'll explain why you're wrong But don't tell me that it makes sense to raise the age from to 21 from 18 When all of these other things can be done at 18
Other things, including, by the way, looking at and purchasing pornography.
As I mentioned, there's another thing you can do at 18, but again, not mature enough to vape.
You need another three years of maturity for that.
Which means we have people voting and driving and buying guns and convicting their fellow citizens of crimes.
Think about what serving on a jury means.
It means we're trusting your judgment to decide if someone should go to prison or worse.
So there are people doing that, driving, buying shotguns, convicting people on juries, all that stuff.
Being convicted of crimes themselves and sent to prison or to death row.
There are people doing that who are not competent enough to wield a vape pen according to the law as it stands right now, or as it will stand once this spending bill is signed.
That's what the law is saying.
Does it make sense?
No, it doesn't.
But here's something that does make sense.
This holiday season, do your friends and family a solid by getting them a Daily Wire gift membership.
And the good news for you is that from now until January 1st, all Insider Plus gift memberships are 25% off.
That means your loved ones will get all the fantastic perks, plus the majestic, glorious, beautiful, triumphant...
Leftist Tears Tumblr, and you'll get the savings.
So they get the Tumblr, you get the savings.
That's 25% off all Insider Plus gift memberships this holiday season.
Go to dailywire.com slash gift to get your 25% off deal.
Again, that's dailywire.com slash gift to get your 25% off.
Give them a gift, they'll thank you for all year long.
By the way, they're talking about, I don't know if you've seen this, they're talking about now doing an all-female fight club.
That's the latest reboot in the works, an all-female fight club.
Now this, obviously, is stupid.
It's not going to work.
For one thing, this is yet again Hollywood pandering to the woke crowd by appropriating popular stories and trying to feminize them rather than just making new stories, telling new stories, having women star in those stories.
You want to tell a story that involves women fighting?
Fine, go ahead and tell that story.
It doesn't need to be a female fight club.
So it's very dumb.
And for another, Fight Club is, to its core, a male movie.
That's part of the whole point of the thing.
You cannot remove the testosterone from that movie while still having it be Fight Club in any distinguishable sense.
So a Fight Club without men, that would be like a Mean Girls remake without girls.
Which, come to think of it, Mean Girls is already kind of the female Fight Club, so I don't know why you need this.
But here's the bigger problem.
This is really my point.
And this is the issue with this.
That no one else is going to point out.
So I feel like I have to.
What's the first rule of Fight Club?
We've all seen the movie.
What's the first rule of Fight Club?
You don't talk about Fight Club.
So there is no way women could ever follow that rule.
It would never happen.
You know that rule is going to be obliterated on the first day.
There is no way you could have a bunch of women in something like Fight Club and they're not coming home and telling their husbands and their boyfriends all about it the very first day.
It would not take a lot of prodding.
It really wouldn't.
They would come home the first day.
Oh my gosh, the craziest thing happened today.
Oh yeah?
What was it?
I can't tell you.
It's a rule.
I just, I can't say it.
Okay.
Well, you don't have to tell me.
No, seriously.
I just, I can't tell you.
I really can't.
I'd be in so much trouble.
I promise that I wouldn't tell you.
All right.
That's fine.
You don't have to tell me.
Okay, fine.
So I joined this thing called Fight Club and oh my God, this girl, Tyler, she started it, but I think she might be a projection of my own personality because I'm going insane.
But anyway, there's this girl there.
She's really fat and And that would be the end of the movie.
That's just, that's the end of the Female Fight Club.
It might be kind of interesting, though.
Come to think of it.
Let's go to emails.
mattwalshow at gmail.com mattwalshow at gmail.com Now that I've given the Media Matters monitors of this show, that's going to be their poll for this show.
That's the one that's going to end up on Twitter.
Daily Wire host goes on sexist rampage Daily Wire host goes, I'll give you what the headline is for Twitter, Media Matters.
Daily Wire host goes on sexist rant about female Fight Club reboot.
There it is.
Put it up.
Matt Walshow at gmail.com.
Matt Walshow at gmail.com.
This is from Paul says, you asked, why would you give your money to someone who hates you?
Christians still patronize Starbucks.
People have no spines when it affects their appetite.
Paul's referring to what we talked about yesterday with Netflix.
They are streaming this grotesque, absurdly, intentionally offensive, quote-unquote, comedy special that portrays Jesus as a gay man.
There's no reason for it other than just to spit in the face of Christians.
And the point that I made yesterday, and a lot of people have made, is Okay, Netflix has every right to stream this kind of material if they want to, but that is obviously a statement to their Christian customers, and the statement is, we hate you, we have no respect for you, we don't want your money.
And if a company is gonna send that message to you as a customer, then it makes sense to say, all right, well, then I'm not gonna give you my money.
If you don't want it, I won't give it to you.
If I walk in the door, metaphorically, and you spit in my face, Okay, I'm not gonna give you my money.
It's not even a boycott.
It's not a boycott.
It's not about making a statement.
The statement has been made by Netflix, in this case.
They made the statement by streaming this content.
And Paul says there are other companies as well, and that's true, of course.
I think, you know, I have long been opposed to boycott culture.
And boycott culture is this thing where a new company is being boycotted every other day, and companies are being boycotted for frivolous reasons.
Companies are being boycotted because somebody in the company made a political statement, or there's some kind of tangential, peripheral thing where the company, through a maze of connections, is being connected to some ideological point that a group of customers don't like, and so they say, we're going to boycott.
That kind of thing.
Um, and that I think is frivolous and stupid and I'm opposed to it.
But I do also think that again, if a company is, is, is making a statement, is making a point to the customer saying, if you are this kind of customer, we really don't like you.
We have no respect for you then.
Yeah.
I mean, of course you're going to, you're not giving money to somebody else, not them.
You put Starbucks in that category.
See, I, I don't really think I would put Starbucks.
I think Starbucks is a, Liberally oriented company, that's for sure.
As far as a company that goes out of its way to insult Christians, I don't think so.
Unless you're going to go with the Starbucks cup thing, where they don't have religious imagery on their cups, instead they just have snowflakes that say happy holidays.
If that's what you're going with, I would say I don't think that's anti-Christian at all.
And actually, I don't even know if that's what you were referring to, but as far as that goes, I may be unique, not entirely unique, but I'm in the minority anyway among Christians, in that it seems like I'm in the minority anyway among Christians, that I don't need... When I go to the store, whether I'm going to get a coffee, or I'm going to the grocery store, or I'm at a restaurant, whatever it is, I don't need the employee to say Merry Christmas to me.
It's not a big deal to me if they say Happy Holidays.
I don't need specific Christian decorations in the store.
If they want to go the secular, more crowd-pleasing general route with just doing snowflakes and snowmen and everything, that's fine.
I don't need it.
I don't really understand why people do.
I don't really understand why.
I think it's really stupid and dumb when people on the left get offended by Merry Christmas, and they do sometimes get offended by Merry Christmas.
In fact, there was someone on Twitter yesterday complaining.
I think it was a blue-checked verified account, so you know they're important.
Complaining that Neil Gorsuch was on Fox & Friends and said Merry Christmas.
There was someone really offended by that.
Okay, so that's definitely a thing.
And that's very stupid.
And to call that overly sensitive would be way underselling it.
But it's also stupid in my mind, and this also happens, where you have some Christians who get kind of upset when they hear the Happy Holidays.
And making a point, oh no, we should say Merry Christmas.
Eh, who cares?
It doesn't matter.
It is a holiday season.
There are other holidays.
Hanukkah's a holiday.
And depending on where you are, now look, if you're If you're at a Walmart in, I don't know, Fort Smith or something, yeah, probably every customer going in there celebrates Christmas.
And so you might as well say Merry Christmas.
But if you're, you know, like I grew up in, where I grew up in Maryland, it was a, it was a probably still majority Christian area, but there was a heavy Jewish population or other people of other faith traditions.
And so, You know, you work at a company there.
People are coming in.
There's a pretty good chance they're not Christian.
And so, why would you say Merry Christmas when there's a good chance you're talking to someone who doesn't celebrate the holidays?
It'd be kind of weird.
So, what's wrong with saying Happy Holidays and being more general?
It's not that you're trying not to offend people.
It just seems more sensible.
Certainly, if you know that someone's not Christian, you're not going to say Merry Christmas to them, right?
That would be weird.
Not offensive, just strange.
You wouldn't go up to a Christian and say, Happy Hanukkah.
So, I think the whole... I think I'm... Paul, you didn't even bring this up, so I may be way off the track here with what you meant to... Whatever you're referring to with Starbucks being anti-Christian, let me know.
I don't know what example you're talking about.
But as for this Christmas thing, I think on both sides, it's just, it's absurd.
Everyone needs to relax.
Doesn't matter.
Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, whatever.
Doesn't take anything away from my celebration, okay?
We're celebrating Christmas in my house.
Whatever Walmart or Starbucks does, or however they decorate the grocery store or the mall, has no effect on me.
Doesn't matter.
Okay, from Jacob says, hi Matt, you discussed the other day the adoption of embryos versus human children and how
priority should be given to the life with a consciousness and life experience.
I have heard arguments from the left about what to do if a box of a thousand viable embryos and a three year old child
were both trapped in a burning building and you had to choose which to save.
I understand that just because you would save one doesn't mean the other isn't a life, but it seems many conservatives would agree that the three-year-old's life is worth more and should therefore be saved.
My question is, do you think the three-year-old's life is worth more?
And if so, what distinguishes current consciousness of the child from the potentiality for all of those experiences and consciousness of the embryos?
It seems to me that if we are to value life inside the womb, we would want to value it just as highly as life outside.
Thanks so much for your time, and I love listening to your show every day after school.
God bless.
Well, Jacob, you're not wrong in anything you said.
In fact, I think you sort of, as you were asking the question, you worked through it yourself and kind of answered it.
And the answer is that Yes, if you're trapped in a burning building, and this is a classic hypothetical put forward by pro-abortion people a lot, even though it doesn't prove anything, and that's always been my response to this hypothetical, it proves nothing.
Yes, if I'm trapped in a burning building, and somehow, for some reason, there's a box of embryos and a child, I don't know what scenario I would ever be in where both of those things would be in the same room and it's burning, but...
Um, for the sake of the argument, yeah, you would save the three-year-old child.
I think anyone would.
You would be, it would be psychotic to, if you could only choose one, to leave the child there screaming to burn to death while grabbing a box of embryos.
I don't think anyone would do that.
Anybody would grab the child.
I certainly would.
But as you said yourself, that does not at all demonstrate that, um, That the life you chose not to save isn't a life.
Doesn't mean that.
And I would also say you're talking about, well, which one is worth more?
It also doesn't mean that one is worth more intrinsically.
I would agree with you that if human life has intrinsic value, Intrinsic means belonging to a thing by its very nature, right?
So, if we have intrinsic value as human beings, if me as a 33 year old man... I'm 33, right?
Or am I 32?
I have to ask my wife.
I think I'm 33.
As a 33 year old man, if I have intrinsic value, that means it's part of my very nature.
Which means if it's part of my nature, it's integral, it cannot be taken away, it cannot be gained at any point.
It's been with me ever since I existed as a being.
From the very first moment that I was a being existing in any form, I must have had that intrinsic worth.
If I didn't have it then, then I can't possibly have intrinsic worth now.
You could say that I have some other kind of subjective worth.
But I don't believe that humans have just subjective worth.
I think they have intrinsic worth.
So if we have intrinsic worth, if you believe that, then you must believe that human embryos have intrinsic worth too.
But this hypothetical doesn't touch on that, has nothing to do with it.
And I think the way to demonstrate that, Jacob, is with another hypothetical.
Let's say you were in a burning building, maybe something a little bit more realistic, though still improbable.
Let's say you were in a burning building, There's a three-year-old child there and a 87-year-old man with terminal cancer.
And you can only save one.
Which one are you going to save?
Well, I think most people would save the child, right?
Probably the 87-year-old man would say, save the child.
But even if he didn't, even if they're both pleading and you can only save one, you're going to save the child.
That's not the same as killing.
Let's be clear about this also.
Just because you save one doesn't mean in any way that you killed or brought about the death of the other person.
You just were only able to save one.
You would like to save both.
You couldn't.
But if you save the three-year-old child, does that mean that the 87-year-old man with terminal cancer isn't a human life?
No.
Does it mean that his life is worth less?
No, not at all.
Not at all.
Not even a little bit.
It's just that you had to make the decision based on other things.
You weren't making it based on which is a life.
You weren't making it based on whose life is worth more.
Those are not your considerations.
And I would venture to say, in that moment, that's not going to all be what you're thinking.
You're not going to sit there and think, well, which life is worth more?
Which one of these is more human than the other?
No, you're not thinking that.
Probably in the moment, it's more of an instinctive choice.
It's an emotional choice.
And if there's any thought process at all, you're going to think, well, this child has the potential to live a long and healthy life if I save him.
This old man is unfortunately at the end of his life anyway, and so it's a horrible choice to have to make, but it just seems like the most just thing to do is to save the child.
And so you make a similar calculation, I think, with the embryos, although on a little bit of a different basis.
I think the basis there is partly, well, this child has the capacity for suffering that the embryos probably do not.
So I'm going to leave, to leave the child there is to consign him to a horrifically painful death that he will suffer and feel.
Um, and also this child, if you save the child and you bring him out of the building, he's going to probably go on barring tragedy.
He's going to go on to live a life that he's going to, he's going to walk off and go to his parents and continue living.
Whereas with the embryos, frozen embryos, I mean, who knows what will happen?
Uh, they could end up being destroyed anyway.
And there's, there's nothing, there's no guarantee at all that all of these embryos are going to go on to be Implanted in a womb and develop and you know have an actual Live an actual life, you know in that sense so you may you might make the determination based on that as well, but These are again.
None of it has anything to do with the question of Intrinsic worth or anything like that.
Thanks for the question from Sam says On Sunday at my youth group, my leader gave a talk about whether or not we should allow LGBT people into the church.
I, being a conservative and Catholic, said that Well, we should have compassion and respect for these people.
We should not let them be a part of the church because their choices go against Christian teachings while everyone else said that the church needs to change with the times and learn that it's okay to live your life like that.
I'm curious to know your thoughts on this and I should go about expressing more traditional opinions.
Should I go about expressing more traditional opinions with this group?
Because it doesn't seem like these people really agree with me on most things.
Well, Sam, I'm a little bit concerned about this conversation you had with your Youth group?
Because it sounds like your youth group leader, unless something was lost in translation here, which is possible, it sounds like your youth group leader presented one heck of a false choice here.
One choice is, it seems, they're not allowed in the church at all, and the other choice is we abandon our biblical teaching and our moral code, and we say that... It sounds like from what you've presented, those were the two choices given.
When in reality, those are not at all the two choices.
Of course we let anyone into the church.
Anyone can come into the church.
We welcome all people.
Especially sinners.
Because everyone is.
Right?
So no, we welcome everyone into the church.
The question is, when it comes to biblical teaching, when it comes to the teachings of Jesus Christ, When it comes to the teachings of the Church for the last 2,000 years, do we abandon those just because they are difficult?
Or just because they're offensive to certain people?
And the answer there is no.
So I think that's how you split the difference there.
We welcome everyone into the Church.
We don't abandon the moral teachings.
For anybody, by the way.
Not just for gay people.
I mean, there are anyone that comes into the Church.
And is it living their life in a certain way, or would prefer if, you know, a certain thing wasn't considered a sin because it makes their life more... No, we don't, we don't, we should not be compromising on any level.
Finally, this is from Neressa, says, Oh, wise and highly revered future Supreme Leader.
Eight months ago, I became a mom to an awesome little girl.
Parenting is by far the greatest thing I've ever done or ever will do.
It is amazing and miraculous beyond comprehension and explanation.
But I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that.
On the flip side, though, parenting has made me acutely aware of my own personal shortcomings.
I tend to be very logical, practical, generally serious.
Creativity, for me, presents itself in the form of a very well-executed Excel spreadsheet.
Basically, I completely lack imagination.
This becomes glaring in my efforts to not speak to my eight-month-old as if she is an adult, to play games with her, to give her toys' voices and storylines, etc.
I humbly ask if this is something that You struggle with as a parent, and if so, do you have any suggestions on how to be more imaginative and creative with her now as she gets older?
Well, I would say, first of all, I've struggled with many things as a parent.
Pretty much everything has been a struggle for me.
But what I would say here is, if your greatest flaw as a parent at this point early on in your journey is that you're too organized, Then you're in really good shape.
I would say don't worry about it at all.
Really don't.
I wish I had this.
This idea of... I couldn't even begin to make a spreadsheet.
I don't even know what it looks like.
I can't even wrap my head around that.
So as someone with no organizational capacity whatsoever, When I look at you, I'm deeply envious.
So that would be my first answer is don't don't worry too much about it.
But the other thing is, listen, you said she's eight months old.
At eight months old, there's playing games with an eight month old.
There's not a there's not a lot of she she can really do in terms of playing games.
She's just not there yet, cognitively.
So I think the most important thing at 8 months old is just that it sounds like this is what you're already doing.
You love your child, okay?
Obviously.
You're spending time with her.
You're giving her that bonding.
And so that's it.
I really wouldn't worry about it.
As long as you're spending a lot of time with her and you're giving her that love and affection, which it sounds like you're doing in spades, then really, it's okay.
That's all she really needs.
As she gets older, as a child gets older, that's when playing becomes more important and more active and more participatory, I suppose.
And I do think you want to play with the child, but I'll tell you what I do.
Now, I say I struggle with everything as a parent.
I don't struggle quite as much with this, what you're talking about, because I have the opposite problem of you.
I'm not organized.
I'm also, I think, at the end of the day, deeply immature.
So I have no problem playing childish games with my kids because I kind of enjoy them too.
So, you know, the other day we went down and played Floor is Lava.
And I had a blast.
It was just fun.
It was fun to do.
So I miss playing Floor.
I mean, it's a lot of fun.
You're pretending the floor is lava.
You're jumping from thing to thing.
And I played that with the kids.
Um, if you're more of an adult than I am, which it sounds like you are, that might not come as naturally to you, but here's what I would say.
As the child gets older, I think when it comes to playing with the child, um, yeah, you can try to incorporate yourself into the things that they do as children, which is important, but it's also really important to incorporate them into the things that you do.
So you find things that you enjoy.
And you, you say it was a girl, you, your daughter, you incorporate your daughter into those things.
And I do that with my kids as well.
Because yeah, there are some childish games that I enjoy playing, but much that I don't, it does get boring after a while.
And I think after a while, the kids can tell that you're sort of bored, even if you're faking it.
So think about things you like to do and just have them do that with you.
And I think that's very important for the kid.
They're going to learn a lot from that.
They're going to learn a lot from seeing you do the things you're passionate about, and they're going to be thrilled by the fact that you're incorporating them into that, no matter what it is.
It doesn't matter what it is.
Even things like what we watch on TV.
Like if I'm going to sit down and watch TV with my kids, I'm sorry, I'm not sitting down and watching Peppa Pig with my kids.
I'm just not doing it.
I can't.
Maybe that's another flaw as a parent.
I don't have the patience.
I can't sit down and watch a kid's show with kids.
I absolutely cannot do it.
I cannot stomach it.
So, I'll find something that I'm interested in watching that's appropriate, and I'll have them watch it with me.
And they love it, because they developed those same interests, and they can tell that I'm interested in it, so that makes them interested.
So for me, one thing, especially on Saturday mornings a lot of times, we'll sit down and we'll watch a nature documentary.
I like nature documentaries.
It's educational, kids love it, and so we'll sit there for an hour and we'll watch a documentary about It's a win-win for everybody.
But congratulations, by the way, on motherhood.
Sounds like you're off to a good start.
We'll leave it there.
Thanks, everybody, for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Senior Producer Jonathan Hay, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Supervising Producer Robert Sterling, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Editor Donovan Fowler, Audio Mixer Mike Coromina.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, the host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
Here in New York, liberals are wishing each other Merry Impeachment Day to reflect their deep sorrow and prayerful seriousness about this so-called historic moment.
But meanwhile, the real history they know nothing about that's being made by those uncovering the Comey FBI scandal.
We'll talk about that and we'll have the mailbag so all your problems will be solved.
