All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
35:41
Virginia’s New Abortion Bill Explained
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, this is from Vox.com.
I'll put the link below.
It says here, a bill to remove abortion restrictions in Virginia was always going to be controversial, but a contentious committee hearing and some confusing comments by Virginia Governor Ralph Northam have turned the debate over the bill into a nationwide furor.
Now, of course, this goes back to Roe v. Wade, 1973.
It also goes back to the fear that as Trump continues along in his presidency, Especially if Ruth Bader Ginsburg is unable to return to the Supreme Court, that there may be a challenge to Roe v. Wade and women might lose the easy access to abortion that characterizes America at the moment.
So here, Virginia House Bill 2491 would roll back a number of requirements including a 24-hour waiting period and a mandate that second trimester abortions take place in a hospital, all with something of a long shot in the Republican-controlled state legislature.
The bill may now be doomed by the national firestorm surrounding it.
So, this is the issue for me, right in this paragraph.
So, here we go.
The controversy has centered on a provision concerning third trimester abortions.
Under current Virginia law, in order for a patient to terminate a pregnancy in the third trimester, three doctors must certify that continuing the pregnancy would likely cause the patient's death or, quote, substantially and irredeemably impair, end quote, her mental Mental or physical health?
Now, the new bill reduces the number of doctors to one and also removes the quote substantially and irremediably qualifier.
Abortions would be allowed in cases where a mother's mental or physical health is threatened even if the damage might not be irreversible.
Now, here's the challenge.
Mental health.
Mental health, there's no blood tests for depression, as far as I know.
There's no, you know, they always say, well, you're fixing brain chemistry and imbalances, but there's no test for any of this stuff.
It is a subjective perception that may or may not be true.
There's no objective test or measure, as far as I know, to test for mental health issues.
So that is a big, big challenge.
You can't fake whether your child has Down syndrome.
You can't fake whether there are other abnormalities within your child's or your fetus's existence.
But mental health is such a subjective state that it seems like a very challenging standard to have for whether or not a third trimester abortion can occur.
Mental health.
And this means That, let's say, I mean just spin out some scenarios because we need to test this with edge cases.
So some scenarios could be something like this.
Let's say that the woman's husband or boyfriend leaves her and now she's stressed and she's anxious and she's depressed and she's nervous and you name it.
Does that mean that she then has the right to terminate the pregnancy even up to the moment of birth?
And of course, if she wants it, if she wants to, then she can simply put those symptoms on.
I'm not saying that she always would, but she could, right?
Just say, I'm so depressed.
I'm so anxious.
I can't get out of bed.
I'm not eating properly.
I'm so upset.
I'm so unhappy.
Well, then one doctor can say, okay, well, I guess you can have a third trimester.
Abortion and this is the mental the physical health listen.
I mean there's very very difficult situations I think we can all appreciate and understand that very very difficult situations wherein the fetus is threatening the physical health of the mother in a substantial manner and You know I hate to put it down to base biological math, but the mother can have more babies than Unless she's dead or her reproductive capacity is destroyed by some horrible pregnancy situation.
So that, I think we can understand that the adult female life should be placed at a higher standard, if only one can be saved, to the fetus's life.
I think we can all accept and understand that.
Now, the mental health issue, to me, is a big challenge because it is a subjective state.
And there's no objective test for it.
So it seems like if you're going to put in mental health, then why have any barriers at all?
Because the woman can just say, I'm depressed, I'm upset, I'm unhappy, I'm anxious.
So what's the point?
You can't throw mental health in with physical health.
I'm not saying mental health is not a huge challenge.
It is.
But there's no objective test for it.
So why have any restrictions at all, if that's the reality?
So, the bill began inspiring outcry among abortion opponents nationwide after its sponsor, Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran, said in a committee hearing recently that it would technically allow abortion until the point of birth if a doctor agreed it was necessary.
So, Governor Northam, a Democrat, who was actually misidentified as a Republican on CNN.
Just an accident that always seems to go one way, not the other.
Governor Northam, a Democrat, was asked about the bill in a radio interview on Wednesday, and his response only added to the controversy.
Appearing to discuss what would happen if a child was born after a failed attempt at abortion, he said, quote, the infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
No exception.
There was a very contentious committee hearing yesterday when Fairfax County Delegate Kathy Tran made her case for lifting restrictions on third trimester abortions as well as other restrictions now in place.
And she was pressed by a Republican delegate about whether her bill would permit an abortion even as a woman is essentially dilating, ready to give birth.
Right.
So again, I understand that this is rare.
But rarity is not an argument, right?
I mean, you know what else is rare?
Strangling puppies.
Other things that are rare are murder.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have moral discussions.
So the rarity to me is not an argument, because it's a question of principle, not a question of degree.
And she answered that it would permit an abortion at that stage of labor.
Do you support her measure and explain her answer?
Yeah, you know, I wasn't there, Julie.
that it would permit an abortion at that stage of labor.
Do you support her measure and explain her answer?
Yeah, you know, I wasn't there, Julie.
Yeah.
It's a pretty important piece of legislation, brother.
So, I was not informed.
I was there.
I don't know exactly what was said.
You know, come on.
This is your job.
It's your job!
I certainly can't speak for Delegate Tran, but I will tell you, one, first thing I would say, this is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved.
There are, you know, when we talk about third trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way.
And it's done in cases where there... Although I think the bill puts it down to one, but that's sort of important.
...may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-buyable.
So in this... Now this, again, massive challenging situation.
Nobody's going to just be able to wave this away through magic of sophistry and rhetoric.
These are very, very difficult situations.
If the child is only discovered to have a severe abnormality, Then of course the question becomes, and I hate to put it down to dollars and cents, but these are very real issues.
The question then becomes who's going to pay for the usually massive costs involved.
in caring for a child, a baby, that has some significant deformities or something like that.
So, this is a big, big issue.
And later we'll hear, and we'll pause on this, where he says, well, you know, men shouldn't tell women what to do with their bodies.
It's like, okay, but the problem, of course, as everyone knows, is that it's mostly men who pay the taxes.
So, if a man can't tell a woman what to do with her body, Then why does a woman get to tell a man what he should do with his body?
Because you have to use your body in order to make money.
If a man can't have a say in what a woman does with her own body, why does a woman have a say in what a man does with his wallet?
Well, of course we only don't think about that because of the anti-male bigotry and sexism in society.
Particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen.
The infant would be delivered.
The infant would be kept.
Right.
See, now he's in a challenging situation, right?
And this is where the hot water begins to rise.
Because he's saying infant, not fetus, right?
So as soon as the baby is delivered, now it's out of the womb.
Now it's an infant.
It's a baby.
It is not a fetus.
Now, whatever your philosophical beliefs underpinning the humanity of the fetus, we all recognize that once you pass the magic portal, once you escape the snug hopper, then you are an infant.
So now he's talking about an infant, and that is a big challenge, right?
Comfortable.
The infant would be resuscitated if the infant would be resuscitated.
if that's what would happen.
The infant would be delivered.
The infant would be kept comfortable.
The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired.
Ah, okay.
So the infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired.
So in other words, the baby could be born, the baby could be alive, but the mother could choose to not resuscitate it, which basically, as far as I understand it, would not be legal under anti-infanticide.
Once the baby's out, then its life is protected, right?
Like yours and mine.
And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
Again, we're back to the mother, not the father, but... Really blown out of proportion.
But again, we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions.
Ah, right.
Now he's all kinds of libertarian, isn't he?
Isn't that fascinating?
We want the government to not be involved in these kinds of decisions.
Because, you see, he's pro-choice.
He's pro-choice.
Now what if you're a taxpayer and you want to choose whether you have to pay for government schools or not?
Oh, you can't have a choice about that!
What if you want to choose what kind of weapon to buy?
Oh, you can't have a choice about that!
Right?
You understand?
What if you want to choose how your tax money is spent?
Oh, you can't have a choice about that!
What if you want to choose To have more restrictions on who comes into your country from an immigration standpoint.
What if you want to enforce existing immigration laws?
They don't seem to be very pro-choice when it comes to things like that.
But that's just an important point.
They're not pro-choice at all.
It definitely is a pro-death stance because you're killing, in this case, it appears to be, well he's talking about an infant, prior to that a fetus.
The Democrats are not pro-choice at all.
And also, given that men, in general, are going to have to pay for this stuff, they're not pro-choice for the men.
I want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers, and this is why, Julie, that legislators, most of whom are men, by the way... Ah, there we go!
Most of whom are men!
And how on earth could men understand what women need?
...shouldn't be telling a woman what she should and shouldn't be doing with her body.
And do you think that... See, now here's the problem, and this is sophistry on the fly.
So he says that a man should not be telling a woman what to do with her body, right?
Okay, but unfortunately, he's just talked about an infant, a baby, which is now outside of the mother's body.
So this is a very, very different matter.
And this, of course, is where the problems arise.
Multiple physicians should have to weigh in as is currently required.
She's trying to lift that requirement.
Well, I think it's always good to get a second opinion and for at least two providers to be involved in that decision because these decisions shouldn't be taken lightly.
Okay, so he's talking about not the legislation that was being proposed.
And so, you know, I would certainly support more than one provider.
All right, let's...
Some took, this is a Vox article, some took Northam's comments as an endorsement of infanticide.
Quote, in just a few years pro-abortion zealots went from safe, legal, and rare, that's a Clinton phrase, to, quote, keep the newborns comfortable while the doctor debates infanticide, said Senator Ben Sasse, Republican, in a statement on Wednesday.
A spokesperson for Governor Northam told Vox his comments were absolutely not a reference to infanticide, and that they, quote, focus on the tragic and extremely rare case in which a woman with a non-viable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities went into labor.
But you see, here's the challenge, is that the law itself, it goes back to here, her mental health.
What if she's incredibly depressed and anxious and doesn't want to be a mother?
In the past, of course, this would be solved by having the baby and giving the baby up for adoption.
But you can't just say, well, this law, this bill, is only about deformities and all this kind of stuff, because here, continuing the pregnancy, terminated pregnancy, mental or physical health.
Her mental or physical health.
Now, I assume that her physical health, once the baby's out, is kind of a fixed item, right?
So physical health becomes not a factor regarding the termination of the pregnancy after the baby's been born, but her mental health?
Hmm.
Terminate a pregnancy regarding her mental health.
You can't just say, well, it's only about, it's only about severe fetal abnormalities or a non-viable pregnancy.
Now, of course I'm no doctor.
I do not know what is meant by a non-viable pregnancy, because to me, if the baby's out and breathing, well, it's kind of been a viable pregnancy.
Again, correct me where I'm wrong, but it seems like a non-viable pregnancy would be, let's say, the baby is so deformed that it's almost never or won't for sure make it to term, right?
That's a non-viable pregnancy.
An ectopic pregnancy or something like that.
Okay, well, you're not taking a life then because the life won't make it anyway, right?
So, non-viable pregnancy, to me, would be something that can't make it to term, but once the baby's out, and so, yeah.
See, they focused on, this is interesting, this language, right?
You always got to watch these tricky guys with their language, right?
They focused on.
So, he's talking about the tragic and extremely rare cases, severe fetal abnormalities, But focusing on doesn't mean exclusive to, right?
Like, I'm focusing on the webcam, but I also have peripheral vision, so I'm seeing left and right.
So, yeah, that's very interesting.
Northam's words helped stir up a nationwide debate about one of several recent efforts to expand abortion access at the state level.
Laws restricting abortion access are nothing new, having proliferated nationwide since 2010.
But now, buoyed by democratic victories in the 2018 midterms and anxious to shore up access in anticipation of a challenge to the Roe v. Wade, abortion rights supporters and state legislators are backing bills that would roll back some of the earlier restrictions or introduce new protections for abortion rights.
And while the particulars of the controversy in Virginia are unique, versions of it are likely to take place across the country as abortion rights supporters back legislation in purple or even red states.
So, Kathy Tran, a Democrat, elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 2017.
28 women chosen for the legislative chamber that year.
She introduced this bill, HB 2491, earlier this year.
And in a committee hearing on Monday, she was questioned about the bill by fellow delegate Todd Gilbert, a Republican.
So he says, he asked, How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?
Gilbert asked, Through the third trimester?
Tran responded, the third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.
Where it's obvious that a woman is about to give birth, Gilbert then asked, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified?
She's dilating.
My bill would allow that, Tran said.
Now, Todd Gilbert is focusing on the mental health of the woman.
Being unhappy.
You know, a lot of men and women are unhappy and mentally stressed about paying their taxes, about the national debt and its effect on children, on their children in particular, because all the children are born with, what, a million dollars worth of debt these days throughout many Western countries.
If you don't have the money to pay the IRS, it's very stressful.
It really, really interferes with your mental health.
So is that enough to say, well, you know, I've got a note from my doctor that paying taxes is really stressful.
So I'm not going to.
Can I, can I opt out?
Mental health is a big issue.
School is stressful.
I don't, I find it very stressful that some, some parent could say that my child is going to school and learning about the joys of socialism and that there are 4,000 genders and The joys of masturbation are very stressful for me, so I'm going to have to opt out of paying for it.
Well, no, of course not, right?
Mental health is very, very disappointing.
So, impair the mental health, not cause her to be permanently depressed, since nobody can even guess that.
Impair the mental health of the woman, so she can terminate the life of the baby after dilation.
She's about to give birth.
The baby's crowning.
Like, what percentage of the baby has to be out of the womb?
Before, it's protected by the fiery moat of the law.
I mean, we understand.
This is not an argument from extremity.
This is not a slippery slope argument.
I guess it is pretty much a slippery slope.
My bill would allow that, she said.
So the bill would not actually change the time limit for receiving an abortion in Virginia.
Elizabeth Nash, Senior State Issues Manager for the Guttmacher Institute, told Vox they would change the number of physicians required for approval and broaden the health circumstances under which an abortion would be allowed.
Again, very, very uncommon.
She's ready to give birth.
Blah, blah, blah.
92% of all abortions happen in the first trimester, according to Planned Parenthood.
Well, there we go.
1.4% of abortions happen at 21 weeks gestation or beyond.
Third trimester begins at around 28 weeks, right?
The UN Ambassador Nikki Haley tweeted on Tuesday.
Well, she's part of the UN, so... National Review ran footage of the comments under the headline, Virginia Bill would legalize abortion up to birth.
We need to trust women to make their own health care decisions, Tran said in a statement to Virginia's WSET on Wednesday.
I regret that these partisan games have taken the focus away from where it should be on the Virginian women who have asked for this bill to get politicians out of their private medical decisions.
I don't know how to explain this.
You know, it's a very confusing thing for me.
Well, first of all,
nobody seemed to have a big problem on the left like none of the democrats seem to have any problem with the fact that Obamacare massively interfered with people's decisions about their own health and their own health care because you couldn't get to keep your doctor the promised thirty to forty percent reduction in fees never occurred that you have to like you can be an old woman in her seventies and still be forced to pay through your insurance for fertility treatments for younger women so this idea that well you gotta
Trust women to make their own health care decisions.
I agree.
I think women should be trusted to make their own health care decisions.
In which case, stop forcing women into Obamacare.
Stop forcing women and men to pay for things that they don't want.
One of the things that makes health care so expensive is that everybody with an obscure ailment tries to get that obscure ailment hooked into other people's insurance plans so that they get the collective benefit of everyone being forced to pay for them.
So yeah, trust women to make their own health care decisions?
Okay.
Can we trust men to make their own financial decisions regarding who they support, what they pay for, who they give their charity to?
No!
Right, so this idea that you could just trust people to make their own decisions, the left doesn't do that at all.
That's first.
The second thing is that it's not your body.
It's a baby.
I don't know how to explain this unless you still have an umbilical cord attached Woody Allen style to your mom, it's not your body.
It's a baby.
I am not my mother's body.
I was fed by my mother's body, but I'm not my mother's body and haven't been for lo these 52 years plus.
So I find this strange.
You know, I have two kidneys, right?
I guess I could have one taken out.
I could put it in a nappy.
I could put it in the crib.
I could try singing it to sleep.
I could splash milk on its face.
Or cut a hole, I suppose, and insert milk into its kidney innards.
I could hold it up and try and teach it how to walk.
I could take it to the park and put it on a swing.
I could take it to a play center, have it roll down and slide.
But it ain't ever Gonna grow up and go to college.
It ain't ever gonna challenge me.
It ain't ever gonna roll its eyes at me.
Tween daughter style.
It's not gonna happen.
See, that's my body.
Kidney's my body.
It doesn't detach and grow and have its own thoughts and its own dreams and its own ambitions and its own emotions.
And you know what else my kidney can't do?
It can't make another kidney.
But a baby can grow up.
To be a human being, to make another human being.
So this idea that it's just this isolated, standing-on-a-square-space, interstellar Dostoevsky solipsism.
It's just the woman's own body.
It's not just the woman's own body.
Why is this?
But it's just sophistry.
It's got nothing to do with facts.
Get politicians out of their private medical decisions.
Great, then the government should stop funding Healthcare should stop subsidizing healthcare, should stop forcing people, like half, more than half of every healthcare dollar in the States is spent by the government.
So of course, yeah, absolutely.
Get the government out of private medical decisions, but that's not going to happen.
Government's all over private medical decisions.
So, of course, everybody wants as much freedom as possible and wants everyone else to pay for that freedom, which means you get more freedom and everyone else gets less, right?
So she did tell the Washington Post, Tran, that she misspoke in her response to Gilbert's question.
I should have said, clearly no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.
Now this I have some sympathy, real sympathy for.
So she also said she has been receiving death threats since the footage of the hearing spread.
She had not responded to Vox's request for comment.
So that's very, very tough.
It's very tough to receive death threats I'm sure the irony is not lost on you that she's horrified at receiving death threats.
It's just terrible to be threatened with death, you see?
Just terrible.
All right, so we did all of this stuff, and yeah, it is cold.
It is cold.
This is a baby.
Conservative Washington Examiner.
Of course, they have to say conservative, right?
Seth Mendel said the inhumanity on display here is hard to fathom.
The baby would be delivered and kept comfortable while its parents debated whether or not to execute it.
And that's tough.
Once the baby's out, Ben Shapiro weighed in and, uh, yeah.
President Trump said he was surprised to hear about Northam's comments.
He said he'd watched video of trans remarks, calling them terrible.
Do you remember when I said to Hillary?
Do you remember, says Trump, do you remember when I said Hillary Clinton was willing to rip the baby out of the womb?
That's what it is.
That's what they're doing.
It's terrible.
So then, Northam's Communications Director, Ophira Hisku, attempted to clarify the government's comments in a statement to media outlets on Wednesday.
Quote, No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances such as a non-viable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities.
And the governor's comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor.
Attempts to extrapolate these comments otherwise is in bad faith and underscores exactly why the governor believes physicians and women Not legislators should make these difficult and deeply personal medical decisions.
Conspicuously absent, the father, who, of course, in these situations is, in fact, conspicuously absent.
So, that's not the law.
The law says if you're unhappy, if your mental health is impacted, right?
They don't just say non-violable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities.
It's not what the law says.
The law says one doctor certifies that your mental health is going to be negatively impacted.
And how is he ever, how is he ever going to know that?
Whether it's temporary or permanent.
Maybe some depression lifts after a day.
Some depression takes years to lift.
Some people can fake depression.
How's he going to know?
Now, of course, the doctor is going to have a woman saying, I'm depressed, so I want an abortion.
I'm unhappy, so I want an abortion.
Now, if he says, no, I don't believe you're unhappy, yeah, good luck.
Good luck.
She may have a lot of time to complain about you to your governing body.
So, yeah, of course, he's just, he or she is mostly just going to like, right?
Also, if the woman does get depressed and there's a problem with the baby or she doesn't feed the baby, then he's going to be in trouble.
So, whereas if he gives her the abortion, what's she going to do?
Come back later and sue him for giving her exactly what she wanted?
No.
Right?
So you understand.
There's no barrier here.
If there's no objective test, then there's no barrier.
No barrier at all.
Alright.
So, Governor said the Governor had absolutely not been referring to the euthanasia of infants born after a failed abortion.
He said, The spokesperson said the governor's comments focus on the tragic and extremely rare case in which a woman with a non-viable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities went into labor.
I don't know.
That is not... It's not what the law says.
It's not what the law says.
Alright, so this is what I meant.
He supported having at least two providers involved in the decision.
The current law requires three and this new law would require only one.
So yeah, it's pretty, pretty, pretty important.
Sir Matthew Lee Anderson, the founder of Christian Politics and Culture website, Mere Orthodoxy, told Vox, it seemed like he was really raising the possibility of making a deliberate decision to let an infant, even who had been resuscitated, die because of considerations like the mental health of the mother.
That would be in accordance with the law, Matthew.
I agree with this analysis.
And this is kind of tricky, right?
Because they'll insert something like the mental health and then they won't talk about it and just talk about severe abnormalities and so on, right?
A doctor can argue, for instance, as Anderson says, a doctor can argue having a child with Down syndrome would negatively impact a mother's mental health.
Anyway, so we understand all of this stuff.
It's very, very tricky.
So let's bring some philosophy to bear on this situation, which is very, very important.
Here's where you and I probably get apart ways.
And you may call me cold.
You may call me nuts.
You may call me vicious.
Fully aware of all of that.
But my sole concern here is keeping babies alive.
Now, first and foremost, we pay to keep people alive all the time.
We pay for people to be in iron lungs.
We pay for diabetes injections.
We pay for insulin.
We pay for kidney dialysis.
We pour money into keeping people alive all the time.
It's not like we're buying their life.
It's not horrible.
It's just how we apply our resources within society.
Now, we have in the marketplace of human life, which is a very, very important marketplace, We have in the marketplace of human life two symmetrical ones.
The first is married couples.
Just say married for the moment, right?
Married couples who really want children, but who can't have them for some particular reason, right?
Maybe the guy was in too many fail videos when he was younger and still has half a skateboard sticking out of a scrotum.
For whatever reason, 10% of married couples have significant problems with fertility.
They have miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies.
And you know, often it's the woman's plumbing, which is Byzantine and Esher-esque as opposed to the fairly simple straight shooters of the male testes.
But the reality is that a lot of married couples want children and can't have them.
So here you have a deficiency of fertility.
Now there are women who have children who don't want them.
So watch it happen.
You see where I'm going with this, right?
If our sole focus is in maximizing the number of children who get rescued from the brain crushing forceps of the abortion doctor, then clearly we have a symmetry of market wants here.
And that the mother's pregnancy should be subsidized if she's willing to give the child up for adoption afterwards.
That will keep the most children alive.
You say, oh, it's baby sales, and okay, e-baby I'm sure is taken, but yes, okay, we are paying money to keep babies alive.
We do that all the time.
The intensive care unit, the incubators and so on, we spend huge amounts of money on those to keep babies alive.
What's wrong?
What's wrong with this?
It keeps babies alive.
And you could, of course, you don't want women necessarily to turn into baby factories in order to make money.
So you could just limit it to one or two babies or whatever.
But yes, even babies with abnormalities, even babies with down syndromes can be taken on.
The other thing too, I mean, it's going to sound odd, but it's hard to argue against economically.
We pay women for babies all the time.
We pay women for babies all the time.
It's called the welfare state.
So in California, just for example, which has a far more generous welfare state than Sweden or Germany or France.
In California, a woman who has two babies under the age of five can get over $30,000 in benefits, plus another $4,500 in Medicare and Medicaid.
So she'd have to, like that's $35,000, which she doesn't have to pay taxes on.
So that's the equivalent.
of $50,000 or $55,000 in salary, right?
So we are paying her for babies already.
We're paying her for children.
Now, I understand it's the mom and all that, but nonetheless, we are paying money to keep children in comfort.
So if your focus is on keeping the babies alive, which as a baby who was kept alive, I'm pleased that I was and I'm sure you are as well.
We should start to think about this.
We should start to think about this.
These government solutions are terrible.
I mean, we understand, right?
There have been, what, 50 million plus abortions in the U.S.
since Roe v. Wade, and there have been a not dissimilar number of immigrants coming into the country.
You understand?
This is a way of scooping out and replacing a population because without immigrants, the Democrats wouldn't have won a presidential election.
Since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.
So, they want to replace the population because they kind of convince the population.
And one way to do that is to encourage abortion and immigration.
So that the domestic population has fewer children which you can then replace with abortion.
The other thing, of course, is that the by far, by far, by far, by far, the very best environment for a child to grow up in is a two-parent household.
Hopefully with the mom home, breastfeeding and raising the children, transmitting all those lovely cultural values that daycare workers from Guatemala are slightly less likely to do.
So the way that all of this used to be sorted out was, well, you get married then, don't you?
You get married.
But that's tough.
That's tough.
Everybody wants sex for needy, greedy, selfish pleasure now, not use sex as the mortar that cements a long-term pair bonding, marital family structure together.
We just want to indulge.
We want to use sex like we use candy.
It's really, really tough.
The hedonism that draws people to the left is hard to reverse.
It's going to be reversed anyway because the welfare state is going to run out of money relatively soon, but that would be my thought.
I know it seems a little shocking.
It seems a little appalling.
I got into a very good debate in Poland about all of this.
So if you're horrified at the idea of subsidizing a woman in return for her giving the child up for adoption, I guess you just have to ask yourself, Is a dead baby worth it for that? - Well, thank you so much for enjoying this latest free domain show on philosophy.
And I'm going to be frank and ask you for your help, your support, your encouragement, and your resources.
Please like, subscribe, and share, and all of that good stuff to get philosophy out into the world.
And also, equally importantly, go to freedomain.com forward slash donate.
▲
Export Selection