All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 2, 2021 - The Matt Walsh Show
04:38
Matt Walsh Tears Down Pro-Abortion Arguments

Matt Walsh debunks the most common pro-abortion arguments. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
With abortion back in the news, you've probably been hearing lots of pro-abortion arguments.
They come fast and furious and repetitively, and the one thing they all have in common
is that they're all quite wrong and stupid.
So now I'm going to go through every pro-abortion argument and debunk them all in about four
minutes or less, hopefully.
Alright, so four minutes on the clock.
Let's go through them.
Argument number one.
A woman has the right to choose.
Answer.
No, nobody has a universal right to choose.
We all agree that some choices must be prohibited.
The question is not if women should be able to choose generally, but if they should be able to choose to intentionally destroy innocent human life.
If you say they do, then you have to defend that choice on its merits.
You can't defend the choice based simply on the fact that it is one.
Two, pro-lifers want to control women's bodies.
Answer, no.
The body in dispute is not the mother's.
The question again is whether the body of the human in her womb can be intentionally destroyed.
The child's body is the one at issue here, and we as pro-lifers are the ones trying to defend it.
Three, pro-lifers are only pro-birth.
They don't care about babies after they're born.
Answer.
You have no data or evidence to support that stupid claim.
Besides, our position is that babies in the womb have moral worth equal to babies outside.
Of course we believe babies outside have worth.
That's the whole basis of our argument.
Our assertion is that babies in the womb have worth, and that's based on our contention that babies and all people outside have worth.
Our argument hinges on the comparison between humans inside and outside the womb.
And our contention is that there is no inherent difference in these groups, aside from their physical location.
4.
The fetus is just a clump of cells.
Answer.
We're all clumps of cells.
Some of us are far clumpier than the average infant.
None of that is relevant.
What's relevant is whether the fetus is a distinct and separate human entity, which he is.
5.
The fetus is not a person, but a potential person.
Answer.
No, he is, again, a distinct human entity.
If this is not the definition of a person, then none of us are persons.
Also, even if he is a potential person, it doesn't automatically follow that we should destroy him.
Do you believe that all non-persons can be killed?
What if I decapitated a bald eagle?
How would you feel about that?
You see, you're wrong that the unborn child isn't a person.
By definition, he is.
But even if you were right, you'd still be wrong.
That's how wrong you are.
6.
Women have reproductive rights.
Answer.
This one I agree with.
Nobody should ever be forced to reproduce.
But birth is not reproduction.
Conception is reproduction.
By the time the abortion is procured, reproduction has already occurred.
7.
What about rape and incest?
Answer.
That's not an argument.
That's a hypothetical.
Rape and incest only account for about 1% of all abortions.
These are hard and rare cases.
They might mitigate the individual moral culpability of a woman who chooses abortion, but they don't change the fact that the unborn child is a distinct human entity, i.e.
a human being, i.e.
a person, and therefore worthy of the same protections the rest of us receive.
We can't kill the child for the sins of the father.
If you want to execute somebody for rape, execute the rapist, not the baby.
8.
Women cannot be forced to remain pregnant.
They have bodily autonomy.
Answer.
No, they don't have absolute autonomy.
And yes, they should be forced to remain pregnant if the other option is to kill the child.
If this sounds harsh to you, then consider the fact that we already force parents to do all kinds of things for their born children.
We force them to feed their children, clothe their children, care for their children every second of the day.
We impose responsibilities on parents that we don't impose on anybody else.
I am required to do things for my child that I don't have to do for any other human on earth.
If parents don't want to fulfill that obligation, they must find somebody who will.
They can't simply leave their kid on the side of the road, nor can they drown their kid in the bathtub.
Murder and neglect are not acceptable parenting strategies for babies outside the womb, and they shouldn't be for babies inside the womb either.
9.
Fetuses aren't conscious, therefore we can kill them.
Answer.
First of all, how do you know?
We know basically nothing about the nature of consciousness.
We can't even agree on what consciousness is, much less where it comes from or how it works.
Besides, let's say that they aren't conscious.
How does that justify murder?
Especially when we know that their state of unconsciousness is temporary.
Should it be legal to kill people when they're sleeping?
What about a person who's in a coma but expected to recover within a few months?
And if consciousness is the measure, then shouldn't the right to life be granted in degrees according to the level of consciousness?
Not everybody is equal in consciousness.
A 25-year-old has greater consciousness, greater self-awareness, than a one-year-old.
What about people with dementia?
They're conscious to some degree, but it's fading.
So how far does that go?
What's the limiting principle here?
There isn't one.
Ten, finally, pro-lifers are just a bunch of men trying to boss women around.
Answer, not true.
The pro-life movement is and has always been led primarily by women.
Also, it's irrelevant.
Also, it's a double-edged sword.
Roe v. Wade was decided by only men.
Should we overturn it on that basis?
I'm guessing you'd say no.
That's why that argument doesn't work.
None of these arguments work, which isn't a surprise given that you're trying to justify the murder of children.
▲
Export Selection