All Episodes
Previous Next
May 5, 2022 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
38:03
THE SOLUTION TO ABORTION
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it is Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain.
I hope you're doing well. And I'm just going to do a little short live stream here so that you can learn to dislike me all over again, just when you think I've given up on the Volatile stuff, I weighed in and embrace it, and I do so out of an intense love for humanity,
an intense love for fetuses and babies and women and motherhood and fatherhood, and with the general understanding that the purpose of abortion, at least from the far left, is not liberty for women.
Of course, if they cared about liberty for women, they wouldn't enslave everyone through communism.
Let's get that right off the table.
I believe that...
One of the purposes behind the push for abortion rights or the pro-choice perspective is simply corruption.
It is taking women and turning them against the primary purpose that we all have, which is to create and nurture life.
That's why we're all here.
It's why we all live. It's why we all survive.
The creation and nurturing of life.
Must be corrupted in the same way that basic common sense must be corrupted in postmodernism and language games and pronouns and so on.
That basic common sense has to be corrupted.
So let's not mistake any of this for women's rights or females' rights, because women, of course, have the right to life, and half the fetuses or more that are aborted are female.
So let's just, and of course, what was it back in the 90s?
It was Biden, I guess back was he, Senator Biden back then, who wanted states to be able to decide on abortion, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not a fan of Roe v. Wade.
The Roe v. Wade was, I think, a leftist, basically, plot to make sure that as many people could be corrupted by abortion as humanly possible.
The woman who was the center of the court case claimed that she was assaulted to him Turned out that she was not telling the truth at that time, which to me would undo any legal precedent.
And she then became fiercely pro-life and so on.
And yeah, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she said, sorry, she said Rose, or the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, Rose, heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to provoke, not resolve.
Conflict. Lawrence Tribe said one of the most curious things about Roe is that behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.
Benjamin Witts, Roe, quote, is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.
Cass Sunstein, quote, the court decided too many issues too quickly.
The court should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges.
Jeffrey Rosen, quote, Richard Cohen, Roe, quote, is a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up.
It seems more fiat than argument.
So, I mean, I think it's true across the world as a whole.
America and Canada and other countries, very few countries, are extreme outliers.
In allowing abortion after the first trimester.
Extreme outliers. And it's kind of funny too because Ukraine has much stricter abortion laws than the United States, but everyone's worshipping Ukraine and wanting to defend it and so on.
But if the Ukrainian abortion laws were put into the United States, everybody would completely freak out and consider it pure fascism or something.
So, in general, most people are like, okay, abortion very early in a pregnancy is okay, second trimester not so much, and really horrible third trimester up to a birth itself.
So that's pretty bad, right?
And what is the number of the count in America since 1973?
63 million abortions.
And, of course, that is one of the reasons why people feel the need for mass immigration.
If you're regularly killing off your domestic population and the feeling is that you need more people, or at least the same number of people that run the economy, then that's pretty rough.
According to one reporter, abortion has killed more people than 10 holocausts than Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler possibly combined.
Hard to say since we're not sure how many died in China.
63 million abortions in the US since Roe v.
Wade. Now, here's the thing, right?
So, it's really, really important.
It's a sort of basic public choice theory.
The presence or absence of abortion cannot be taken as fixed with regards to the numbers.
So if you say, oh my gosh, there's 63 million abortions in America since 1973, therefore there'd be 64 more million people if this hadn't occurred.
That's not the case at all. People change their behaviors based upon the circumstances.
If abortion is safe and legal and often free or heavily subsidized, then some women, not a lot, but some will use that as a form of birth control.
And if abortion becomes more challenging to obtain, then people will change their behavior.
In particular, women will change their behavior, but as well, men will change their behavior to make sure that there's more birth control being used.
Who knows exactly how far this is going to go?
I did read a fairly horrifying story about life in the 50s where Lysol was marketing itself as a kind of douche with hints at contraceptive or abortive abilities, and so all of this really, really rough stuff.
Most people, okay, first trimester, maybe, maybe, maybe second trimester if the mother's life is at stake, but third trimester, not so much.
And I don't know if you knew that there are also trigger laws.
So there are states in America with trigger laws.
So these are pre-Roe v.
Wade bans on abortion that would make abortion illegal in the state if Roe v.
Wade were overturned, which again is kind of floating around with all this kind of stuff.
And... This is an opinion of the court that I think is important.
Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.
Zero. None.
No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right.
Until a few years before Roe was handed down, no federal or state court had recognized such a right, nor had any scholarly treaties of which we are aware.
Although, and although law review articles are not reticent about advocating new rights, the earliest article proposing a constitutional right to abortion that has come to our attention was published only a few years before Roe.
Not only was there no support for such a constitutional right until shortly before Roe, but abortion had long been a crime in every single state.
At common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could have very serious consequences at all stages.
American law followed the common law until a wave of statutory restrictions in the 1800s expanded criminal liability for abortions.
By the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, three-quarters of the states had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy, and the remaining states would soon follow.
So that, again, that's sort of, again...
No lawyer, no legal advice, nothing like that.
But it's also pretty wild when you notice that abortion, people's beliefs or perspectives have changed on a wide variety of social issues.
But public attitudes on abortion since Roe v.
Wade was decided, I guess, almost 50 years ago.
So close to half of survey respondents identify as pro-life and half as pro-choice, but whatever their identification, a majority of Americans are in favor of abortion being legal only in certain circumstances.
Indeed, although most Americans say they support Roe, most also don't seem to know a critical fact about it.
It established a right to abortion until the point of viability, usually at 24 weeks, and granted broad authority to physicians to perform them after that point.
Hence, a majority of Americans also support restricting abortions to first trimester, roughly the line drawn by Mississippi.
The persistence of Roe's many foes is surprising if you see abortion as a culture war issue, like LGBTQ rights or sex education, on which more Americans have embraced progressive views over time.
If abortion were like these cultural issues, we would expect Americans to be far more in favor of abortion rights today than they were 50 years ago, when rates of church attendance were higher and social attitudes were far more conservative, especially on issues related to gender and sex.
But... That's not what happened.
Although the Roman Catholic Church was key in propagating anti-abortion views in the early years of the abortion conflict, steep declines in church attendance have done little to depress pro-life sentiment.
Surveys also show that Americans embraced more egalitarian gender attitudes over time without letting go of their opposition to abortion.
Consequently, citizens on both sides of the issue are now far less divided by their position on gender roles than they were in the 1970s.
So it is one of these situations where Public sentiment has barely budged over 50 years, despite, of course, a massive amount of propaganda.
And, of course, when people say, well, how dare men have rights on women's bodies and women's life?
Well, of course, a lot of these people are the same people who said, well, you should get fired or kicked out of the military if you won't take a vax that you can't sue for if it turns out to be dangerous for you.
And they say, well, you...
But of course, Roe was decided by seven white men and was now overturned by a group, or could be, by a group that includes a woman and a black man.
So I guess diversity is progress in a way.
And in 1982, Joe Biden proposed a constitutional amendment that would overturn Roe v.
Wade and allow states to choose their own policies on abortion.
So I think that's important.
And... A fellow also wrote, if they make abortion illegal, they should make men deserting women who they got pregnant illegal as well, because if a woman can't back out of a pregnancy, a man shouldn't be able to either.
Well, there is already that in law, to a large degree, because if a man gets a woman pregnant, she can sue for child support and put him in baby jail, so to speak, for the next 20 years or more.
And this is one of the few debts, of course, that could end you up in prison, and then you've got to get out of prison and try to earn the money with a prison record and so on.
And of course, the way it currently works is that men cannot opt out, right?
So a woman can... Opt out of childbirth by having an abortion, but a man can't say, I don't want the baby, and opt out of being a father.
That's really very much unto why there's a considered...
It's considered quite...
Unequal in these kinds of areas.
So the U.S. is only one of seven countries that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Elective abortions are not health of mother, not rape, not incest and so on.
So do you guys know what the other six countries are?
There are only seven countries in the world that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
If you guys wanted to make your stabs at the other...
Yes, yeah, Canada. Canada allows it, I think, right up to birth.
Just like, wow, like kill the baby right before it's born.
That's just astonishing.
Not Australia, actually, no.
China, yes, you are correct on that.
So the other six countries, No, not Cuba.
Not Cuba, interestingly enough. So, there are seven countries in the entire world out of, what, 180, 200 countries.
There are only seven countries in the world that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks.
The first is the US, of course, in this case.
North Korea, China, Vietnam, Canada, Singapore, and the Netherlands.
So, I think that's important to understand as far as all of that goes, right?
Because that is the reality of where things are.
Very rare. So, even Vietnam restricts abortions after 20 weeks.
It is something that...
Look...
The reality is that abortion is a tragedy no matter which way you cut it, right?
Abortion is just an absolute tragedy because there are 18 different forms of birth control, not counting the dime, right?
You know that birth control can only cost you a dime because all you do is you take a dime, you put it between your legs, and you just hold on to it, right?
There are 18 different forms of birth control for women.
For men, of course, there's non-vaginal ejaculation, there is condoms, there is abstinence, there are vasectomies, and so on.
So lots of different ways to not get pregnant.
So this is just sort of basic facts and information about things.
Abortion is a tragedy. Pro-choice people would vehemently disagree with you on that.
No, it is a tragedy. I would go to the wall for this one.
It absolutely is a tragedy.
Even if you're pro-choice, it's not like you're pro-abortion.
Because it's a medical procedure, not without risks.
It takes away resources from other people who otherwise could be getting medical help or medical resources and so on.
It's expensive, and there are.
I've read both sides of the argument with regards to cancer risks, so if you want to look that up for yourself, the relationship between abortion and breast cancer, still hotly debated.
Some people say, well, I'm not going to get into the details.
You can look it up. Yourself, but it is absolutely, it is an absolute tragedy because also the woman has very much gone against her nature, which is to create and to nurture and to love the helpless and beautiful life of an infant, a baby, a toddler.
She's gone against that and she's, you know, had a life that she is enjoying, a life, a human life, the life that she enjoys is now carved out of her.
It's rough. And there are significant reports of mental health issues, of post-traumatic stress disorder, of lifelong regrets, of the birthday that never was, and all of these sorts of things.
It's rough. And again, I just think it's a form of corruption.
Whatever your views on abortion, to think that it should be something to be celebrated or that it's just a woman's right and so on, like my body, my choice, well, it's not your body.
It's not your body. Unless you have a spleen that is going to detach from you, argue back, poop the bed, grow up, make friends, and have its own family, go to college, get a job, whatever.
Unless you have a spleen that's going to do that, don't talk about it.
It is not your body.
Your body does not detach and become its own person.
Like, no part of your body, other than a baby, detaches from itself and becomes its own person.
How would you define mental health?
I'm not going to get dragged into that.
And now, of course, there does seem to be some movements towards post-birth abortion, which to me is just straight up infanticide, and I talked all about this in my tour of Australia, just how brutal these cultures are that do all of this.
So, okay, what's the solution?
And again, my main focus here is the happiness of women, the happiness of men, and the survival of the babies.
So what we have in the abortion situation...
I'm going to go through this fairly quickly.
So what we have in the abortion situation is this.
We have, in society, one woman with an excess of fertility.
In other words, a fertility that she has that she doesn't want.
An excess of fertility, like the guy who's got the ice cream truck, to take a silly example, right?
The guy who's got the ice cream truck has an excess of ice cream, more than he could possibly eat, and he's going to sell it to you.
He has an excess of this.
I have an excess of philosophy, and I regularly discharge it on you.
A woman has an excess of fertility and there are other women in society who have a deficiency of fertility.
These are jigsaw puzzle pieces that fit together quite well.
One out of ten couples who are married have significant issues or difficulties conceiving.
The conceiving could be something endemic, and it does tend to be a little bit more on the female side than the male side, because the plumbing is more complicated.
But there are a lot of women who have trouble conceiving, or as a friend of mine, heartbreakingly put it in her late thirties, she said, "I spent all my twenties trying not to get pregnant, now I've spent all my thirties trying to get pregnant.
I was successful in my twenties in not getting pregnant, I'm unsuccessful in my 30s in getting pregnant.
And it's breaking my heart. And it is terrible for the couples who are stuck in that kind of stuff.
It's just awful. I mean, you've got a miscarriage.
You've got the IVFs.
You've got lack of implantation.
You've got the crossed fingers, the spotting blood.
Oh, it's just... It strings you out.
It strings you out completely. I've known some people who've gone through this kind of stuff.
And it's just brutal. So...
You have a woman who is growing a baby that she does not want, and you have other women.
And I know it's couples, but let's just talk about women for a moment.
You have a woman who's growing a baby she does not want to keep, and there are other women who are desperate for a baby.
And so to me, the answer would be, in a free society, what would facilitate the best thing?
Well, to facilitate the best thing would be for the women who have babies they don't want to give birth to those babies, And to then transfer the rights, the parental rights of those babies to the women who want babies but can't conceive.
That's a win-win situation.
Now, of course, I understand you can't force a woman to come to term and so on, and that's terrible for the baby too, because if you're forcing the woman who's pregnant, she's really stressed, she's unhappy, she could sabotage it any number of ways, she could drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, not get enough sleep.
Not exercise, not eat well, lots of things that she can do to mess up the baby.
So I don't think that's a particularly positive thing to do.
And again, is it a violation of the non-aggression principle?
Hard to say. The baby is basically a hostage in the belly of the mother, but the mother has fundamental control over it.
And if you jail some mother, it's very stressful.
These stress hormones can mess up the baby and so on.
That's just a basic fact.
So whatever we can do, if at all possible, in society—I'm talking about a free society here—whatever we can do to attempt to rescue the child, to keep the child alive, then we are—if there's a way to do that and make the mother content with it.
So I use the word content rather than happy.
Because restitution in law is about contentment.
In common law, it's about contentment rather than happiness.
So if I borrow your car, I put a dent in it, and then I get the dent fixed and give you a coupon for dinner for your trouble, you're content.
You're not happy that it happened, but you're okay.
It's fine. Because if it becomes, I'm happy that it happened, then you'll...
Want me to ding your car because I'm going to give you $10,000?
Like if it becomes too much, if restitution becomes too much, you're messing up the incentives, right?
So we want, if at all possible, and again, sometimes it may not be, but if at all possible, we want the pregnant woman who doesn't want to keep the baby to be content...
To give birth. Now, how is she going to be content to give birth?
Well, there's basically two things.
One is the avoidance of a negative and the other would be the pursuit of a positive.
The avoidance of the negative is that the couple who wants the baby would cover the costs, medical costs, time costs, and so on for the pregnant woman.
Positive cash incentives.
I mean, it's appalling, even in my own mind, to think of buying babies.
It's crazy, right? I understand that.
But again, I think there's a lot of propaganda.
Because, you know, we pay to buy life all the time.
We pay people to keep other people alive all the time.
Cancer treatments, COVID ventilators, we pay all the time.
The entire medical care system is paying to keep people alive.
So is it possible to pay a mother to keep the baby alive?
If you're the baby, the ka-ching of the cash transaction is not as appalling as, you know, the faucets coming in and crushing your head into atoms, right?
So, is there a way, or would there be a way in a free society to incentivize a woman who doesn't want to keep a baby for herself to have to give the baby up for adoption by a couple who desperately wants a baby and is happy to cover her costs?
Now, in a lot of places, if the woman is a surrogate, you can cover her costs, but you can't pay her.
So, that becomes a whole different...
So can you pay?
Well, I'm going to give you a historical example, just in case you are, you know, horrified and appalled by this as a possibility, right?
Are you appalled by this idea of paying to keep a baby alive, of paying someone to keep a baby alive?
So hit me with a why if you find this just, you know, it's slave owning, it's buying human beings and so on, right?
Well, I'm going to give you something, and if you do feel this to be a problem, did you know, did you know that in 1833, Britain used 20 million pounds, which was 40% of its national budget, to buy freedom for all the slaves of the empire?
The amount of money borrowed for the Slavery Abolition Act was so large that it wasn't paid off until...
2015. Close to 200 years it took to pay this off, right?
Which means that, you know, even British citizens who were alive helped to pay for the end to the slave trade, right?
Somebody says, my finger was infected last month.
I had to bribe a doctor to give me antibiotics.
Well, I hope you mean just pay a doctor, but because they give it to you anyway, right?
So, yeah, people donate to charity to keep people alive all the time.
People donate organs. They'll give up a kidney to keep people alive.
And again, here... 40% of the entire national budget of England, which took almost 200 years to pay off of Britain, bought freedom for all the slaves in the empire.
Was that wrong?
Was that buying human beings in order to liberate them?
Well, a payment to a pregnant woman to compensate her for the time and stress of bringing a child to term, that is buying the life of a child.
So you don't think of buying babies, because I hate the idea that someone's just going to have a baby and put it on eBay or e-baby or whatever, right?
But when you think of it as we do, like, what are our resources for?
Well, it's to buy life. Fundamentally, because if you don't have your life, you don't have anything, right?
So you are keeping a baby alive by incentivizing the mother to bring the baby to term.
So, I think if we understand that approach and think of it in that way, how would a free society deal with the question of abortion?
Now, of course, one big challenge would be One big challenge would be, again, you want it to be something where the woman is content but not happy.
Because let's say you paid a million dollars for a woman to have her baby.
Well, the challenge would then be that she might turn into a baby conveyor belt in order to just get more and more money and she becomes in the business of producing babies for money and so on.
So you'd want to make it friction.
There'd have to be friction involved in this so that it didn't become...
Some baby cycle cash grab, right?
Because I think that would degrade the entire women as beautiful vessels of human life and the growers of brains and people and wonder and beauty and all of that.
So I don't know exactly how this would work out because we are talking about free society.
All this stuff would be negotiated over time.
But it would be something like what I would not feel comfortable with if there was what I call the dispute resolution organizations or the groups that deal with these kinds of contract negotiations.
I would not want it to be a repetitive thing, right?
So, in a free society, abortions would be extraordinarily rare because women would be raised well, would be raised peacefully, and the dads would be around, and a woman who's raised well and raised peacefully is not promiscuous, does not engage in early sexual activity, will often wait until married, and then...
Pregnancy is not such an issue when you're in a committed, pair-bonded, monogamous, marital, lifelong relationship.
It's not as big an issue.
You may have a baby that's inconvenient.
You may have, oh, we weren't sure we wanted one more and so on.
But, you know, life...
Kind of finds a way and you can have the baby and find a way to make it work and so on.
So abortion would be much more rare, but it could be the case that birth control fails and so on.
In those situations, it's not a money-making thing.
It's a, oops, you know, whatever, right?
And I have a baby.
I really can't take care of it or really, really don't want to.
And so I will give the baby up for adoption too.
But the fact is that adoptions, the woman still has to pay.
She has time off work. She has to pay for her health care and so on.
That's tough. That is tough for women in the current situation, current circumstances, right?
So, on the rare occasions where birth control fails, despite all best efforts to the contrary, that's kind of rare.
Now, you wouldn't want that to be a regular thing for women.
So for me, it would be like, okay, you get a one-and-done situation, right?
So if you do accidentally get pregnant, you really, really don't want to keep the baby, then you can give the baby up for adoption and be compensated by the couple who want the baby infinitely more than you do, since you don't want it at all.
You have a negative, they have a positive, and those things should fit together economically and have throughout history.
So, but if it happened again, that would be much more of a negative and would be much more of a problem.
And it would have been very, very difficult to do that, right?
Abortion has prevented the incentives of the market to create more birth control.
Once there is a good male birth control pill or something, I don't think there would be as many abortions.
That certainly is possible.
Male birth control is tough though, of course, as you know, because you've got millions of sperm and only one egg, right?
So that's a whole different kind of situation.
Let's see here. Yeah, so the British government borrowed about £20 million back in the day to compensate slave owners, which amounted to a massive 40% of the Treasury's annual income, about 5% of the British GDP. The loan was one of the largest in history.
So I think it would be better to pay the slaves, but still it's better to at least pay the slave owners.
Now, there is a big problem as well at the moment, which is that when you have birth control, Sorry, when you have abortion and the welfare state, right?
So I mentioned this in my show earlier today.
The dominoes that fell kind of went along the following lines, right?
You had the pill, and then you had the welfare state, and then you had abortion, right?
So the pill led to rises in sexual promiscuity, which often led to a need for higher treatments for STDs and pregnancy issues and so on, which gave the drive for socialized medicine.
With higher birth rates and less consequential sexuality, sorry, with higher STD rates and negative consequences from sexuality from the pill and the dissolution of a lot of marriages based upon the unleashing of sexuality,
you end up with a lot of women who have I think?
And so then you need abortion.
So the problem is, of course, if abortion is restricted, then there will be, to some degree, I think, more...
And you can see this all over social media, where women are saying, okay, well, if you're going to restrict my abortion, you've got to pay more and more welfare and benefits and so on.
It's like, oh, I can sort of understand where people are coming from, but this is, you know, one government program always leads to another to counter the effects, which leads another to counter the counter-effects and so on.
And so... That issue is something that I think really needs to be addressed.
And unfortunately, it will probably be addressed by the welfare state running out of money and chaos and catastrophe and so on, right?
Somebody has asked, would your solution increase our birth rate to be higher than replacement?
Well, the best contraception is industrialization.
And it's one of the things that happens that strikes me as kind of demonic, right?
Which is a lot of the women who really care about goodness and virtue and responsibility and taking care of the planet, taking care of the environment, they're thoughtful and caring and really, really nice women.
A lot of them then just get really propagandized and really corrupted.
Well, you know, you really shouldn't have babies if you care about the environment.
You really shouldn't have babies if you care about oppression and privilege and so on.
The women who are, in a sense, the most moral are the ones who get hit with the most propaganda to have the fewest babies.
And I don't think that there's much of a gene for morality, but I do know that a moral environment will be the most likely situation in which a child is going to grow up moral.
So if you take the most ethical and responsible and caring for the future and others kind of people and convince them and use that very morality to I mean, napalm their wombs, so to speak, then you're just going to end up with kids raised in a less moral environment by less moral people, and then we wonder why, you know, society's kind of getting worse.
So I don't know what would happen.
I do think that, I mean, I remember when I was on Twitter, and I would talk about the joys of motherhood and so on, you'd get all of this weird crap coming out of the mouths of women, which was like, well, I don't want to be just a broodmare, and, you know, the sole purpose of my life is not reproduction, and it's like, well, you know, A million generations prior to you back to the primordial swamp and soup three billion years ago.
The only reason you're here to say that your entire purpose is not reproduction is because other people reproduced and raised you.
And the degradation of motherhood is unbelievable.
I mean, it's not unbelievable.
It's incredibly brutal.
It's absolutely incredibly brutal.
Brutal to see.
Just how appalling.
And this is probably one of the reasons why I ended up being yeeted from various places, because I was just...
I mean, it was just appalling.
It was absolutely appalling to see all of these...
all of the unbelievable horrors of the baby antinatalist movement.
It's just astounding, right?
And... The celebrities, of course, you know, I mean, George Takai, what can you even say, right?
I mean, yeah, sure, gay men should have lots of opinions about abortion.
It makes total sense to me. It makes total sense to me.
But one woman said, it's important to remember the human tragedy of this, not just for those who will be forced into motherhood, but for all of us who will not get to experience the fruits of female talent cultivated and female ambitions fulfilled.
Forced birth is a needless waste of human potential.
So, I don't know.
You know, you see those memes of, like, someone trying to punch a blurred character, like, responsibility, accountability, responsibility, dodge, dodge, dodge.
And it's wild. It's wild.
Forced into motherhood. I'm not talking about rape here.
I'm not talking about teen sexual abuse.
I'm talking about the vast majority.
It's women who choose to have sex and, in general, choose to have sex unprotected.
To choose to have unprotected sex in the peak years of their fertility.
So, consequences.
If you choose to have unprotected sex, you're most likely going to get pregnant.
If you choose to have unprotected sex, you're most likely going to get pregnant.
The idea that you're then forced into motherhood because you can't kill the baby or kill the fetus.
I don't get how people believe this.
I fundamentally don't get how people believe this.
It's like the people who got really mad at Joe Rogan for taking the, quote, horse dewormer, right?
Well, now there's people on the left advocating horse medicine to induce abortions, right?
I'm not even going to talk about how.
And, you know, this is just being passed along.
It's totally fine. I don't get how people...
I mean, I understand, you know, playing the victim and I'm being forced into this, that, and the other, but how anybody takes this seriously, just say, look, if a friend of yours plays Russian roulette, right, spins and dies because a bullet goes through his head, was he murdered?
No. Was it wise to play Russian roulette?
Absolutely not. Was he murdered?
No. He took his chances, right?
He took his chances. And so this idea that you're somehow being forced into something, that you have to do something very specific, i.e.
have, in general, unprotected sex.
The idea that you're being forced into something when, yeah, consensual sex cannot result in a forced pregnancy.
Yeah, absolutely. You can't.
You can't.
You can't.
All right, let's catch up.
I just wanted to...
That's my sort of major option.
Whatever we can do to keep babies alive and to prevent women from doing what I think is a fairly soul-destroying thing, which is to, I think, attempt to gain the commitment of a man through wild, unprotected sex, then having a baby, and if the commitment doesn't work out or scares the man off, just killing the baby, killing the fetus, that's rough, man.
That is really, really rough.
And, yeah, you can, of course, and people say, well, people don't celebrate abortion.
Oh, yeah, they absolutely do. You can see this all over the place.
You can see people who absolutely celebrate and trumpet and praise abortion, and it's pretty wild.
Yeah, of course. I mean, people want to separate sexuality from babies in the same way they want to separate eating from health because eating food that's bad for you is an enormous amount of fun.
I barely eat any chocolate anymore, but the other day I had a bite of something.
It's like, oh, just as good as ever, man.
It's just as good as ever, but I'll be damned if I put the weight back on after I lost it so brutally with that stomach bug.
So people want to separate.
They want to separate sexuality from procreation, and they want to separate food from health, right?
So they just want to be able to eat whatever they want, and I'm fit at any size and all of that, and that's just not...
Not good. And again, I talked about this earlier, just about how it is a strategy by which you can attempt to get a higher quality man through sexual access than you could otherwise get.
Steve Jobs was adopted and Jeff Bezos' dad adopted him.
Both provided tons of value to the world.
Well, Steve Jobs did not provide a ton of value to his girlfriend and daughter, but...
So it's fair to say you're firmly pro-life, Steph.
Well, I am not a fan, of course, of government regulations, government control, government power, and so on, but I would like to see in a free society what creative solutions people would come up with about the goal of keeping the babies alive, but without terrorizing the mothers, right?
Yeah, Sarah Silverman celebrates a vocal lead.
Yeah, she also did. Horrible.
I think it was an ad for something or other where someone said, a woman gave birth, it's a boy.
And Sarah Silverman said, oh, I'm so sorry, you know.
Like, it's just a tragedy, you had a boy.
Yeah, like, who runs all, who builds the theaters she does her stand-up in?
Who builds the lights? Who builds the cameras?
Who's the cameraman? Anyway, I mean, who knows?
Who knows what to say about that?
So... I just wanted to put that out as a solution, right?
To sort of think about, do we spend money to save life?
Absolutely, we spend money to save life all the time.
Should we not spend money also to save the most vulnerable lives among us, the most helpless and dependent lives among us, and to rescue women from bad decisions that they make in a panic?
And from a lack of alternatives and to match up the people who have an excess of fertility and the people who have a deficiency of fertility so that both people can end up not happy.
You don't want these things to make people happy because that's a positive incentive that's too strong.
But at least, at least, at least to make them content with the situation.
Alright, so I hope that helps.
I just wanted to drop by and talk about that tonight.
I will be back for my regularly scheduled call-in show tomorrow night, 7 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time.
Lots of love from up here.
I hope you guys have a wonderful evening, and yeah, let me know what you think.
There's a part of me that's appalled by this particular solution, but when I try to put it in a philosophical context, which really is the point of the conversation here, I think it makes a lot of sense, so...
Thanks everyone. Lots of love.
Don't forget to help me at freedomain.com forward slash donate.
▲
Export Selection