All Episodes
Previous Next
June 25, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
01:58:02
Roe v. Wade OVERTURNED! The Bad Takes are EVERYWHERE! Viva Frei Live!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We will continue to evaluate so that we can get back to the things we want to do.
And keep at them.
If we all go back to everything we want to do and fall back into another wave, well...
Nobody's going to be very happy with each other on that one.
Getting that balance right and showing how we're able to continue to be patient as Canadians and do the right things, that's what matters.
Not yet.
Not yet.
You're not considering it yet.
My first part of the answer was we're considering everything every step of the way.
We're considering everything every step of the way.
We continue to evaluate and re-evaluate based on the science, based on shifting numbers.
But when we have announcements to make, we will make them, but they will always be grounded in science.
I'm sorry we have to start the stream with that.
That's like, when we have to take a dog and rub his nose in some poop, we're like, this is for the better of both of us.
I'm sorry, I have to take our collective noses and rub it in that political poop.
But we remind ourselves who we're dealing with, who we're dealing with, and the political climate in which we are living, that's giving rise.
Oh man, can we believe what's going on in one week?
In one week, two, three court decisions coming down that shatter what we thought were new constitutional norms, new constitutional standards, or established foregone conclusions of constitutional norms.
going in a crack a crack Sorry, it's all over again.
Let's take two.
Hold on.
How do I hear myself?
Hold on.
Is that better or is that still bad?
I'm gonna go ahead and blame the government.
Okay, that's default.
We're back on the mic.
People's this bad.
Stop using a ticking and plug-in.
My scramble audio, we can hear you.
Yes, better.
Much better.
Better.
Do you agree this is better?
USP.
Headquarters are not a...
Yes.
Everything can be fixed.
With either a dental kick or a gentle blow.
No good again?
Stay tuned to what we're going to do.
Let me think.
Let me think.
I'm gonna go to...
I'm not gonna touch my mic.
Now we're back on mic.
Cutting the note now.
Still bad, very cloudy.
Sounding is better now.
Change your audio output.
You are louder, but...
Sounds like you're prior to steps.
No worse.
I'm gonna come back.
Come back and that won't do anything.
I'm an idiot.
Okay.
Okay, how about now?
Is the audio better now that I've taken myself off mute and am using the computer mic?
Okay, is there sound now?
I'm not even sweating anymore because this is beyond fixed.
Okay, we're going to use the camera, the computer mic, which is still pretty good.
The audio exists, but it's not great.
Huge delay.
Yes, much better.
Yes, yes, yes.
Okay.
Good on the computer, Mike.
Yes, I have sound.
Yeah, there's sound.
Okay.
Do we start again?
Britt Cormier says, while you fix your mic, ponder this.
Why do I see so many people across the internet from outside the US saying, if you are not a woman, shut up or support?
However, they are not US citizens.
Why do they get to talk?
LOL.
Do not expect any intellectual or political consistency in this entire discussion.
It's shocking.
It's discouraging.
But it's par for the course.
Do not expect political or intellectual consistency.
And do not expect accurate understanding of the knowledge, of the situation, of the actual facts.
I missed another super chat from the beginning.
Okay, so while we've gotten over the audio, we'll live with this.
Standard disclaimers before we just start from the beginning.
YouTube takes 30% to Super Chats.
If you do not like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
Rumble has Rumble Rants.
They take 20%.
So it's better if you want to support there, better for the creator, better for the platform.
No legal advice, no election fornification advice, no medical advice.
All opinions are my own.
All facts are objective.
And therefore, if I make mistakes on the facts, let me know.
Doesn't seem I'm going to be able to get back to the first...
Oh, there it is.
There it is.
The first super chat that I missed.
Stop using a tin can and plug in the mic.
So we agree now that the audio is better.
Let me just start back down.
This is not legal advice.
This is true.
I have perfect audio and sound is good.
Okay, good.
Now, hold on.
Hold on.
I'm going to go back here.
You know, the terrible thing is I...
I'm such an idiot.
No, you heard the...
I'm not going to replay the Justin Trudeau video.
I think you heard that.
Hypocrisy.
There's no other way to describe the reasoning that's going on here.
Hypocrisy and ignorance.
Roe v.
Wade has been overturned, people.
In the same week, we have had a hallmark.
The biggest Second Amendment Supreme Court decision come down from the US in over a decade, by all accounts, since Heller.
And now we've had Roe versus Wade overturned.
I have been alive long enough.
I have been even politically conscious long enough to remember, once upon a time, the idea of overturning Roe v.
Wade was You know, the stuff of theorists or the stuff of analysts.
And it's happened.
I mean, it was the stuff of analysts as of a couple of years ago.
When I first started doing the streams with Barnes consistently, you know, I think it started pre-pandemic, but, you know, we got consistent during pandemic.
It was still the stuff of implausible theory.
It'll never happen.
I remember at the time, however, the idea that even according to the Supreme Court in Roe v.
Wade, it was not sound judicial reasoning.
I remember people saying, it's the law of the land until it gets overturned, but it was never sound judicial reasoning from the get-go.
Without getting into the substance of it, because there's a history to the Roe v.
Wade decision itself.
The individual in the decision, the Jane.
Later, regretted the outcome of that decision from what I understand to be the follow-up of the history of it.
The decision itself was always on, even according to the court, even according to scholars, always on shaky ground.
The only argument was that shaky ground or not, it's the law of the land because it came from the highest court of the land.
But people misunderstood or don't fully appreciate the essence of the original decision.
And people don't actually understand the essence of the current decision.
I think it's Dobbs, which now says the amount of people out there who erroneously think and believe it as true as the sky is blue, that America just outlawed shmushmortions, the big A, the number of people who believe that this decision just outlawed the big A across the United States.
It's far too high.
It's far too high, and the ambiguity is even exploited by some very big mainstream media outlets.
Let me just pull up one.
And you can talk about people fomenting misunderstanding.
This is from the Associated Press yesterday.
Is it yesterday?
June 24th?
Yesterday.
Breaking, U.S. Supreme Court overturns the landmark Roe v.
Wade case, ending nearly 50 years of constitutional protections for the Big A. Bans are expected in roughly half the states.
You read this and it almost reads like it's been banned already.
It almost reads like the constitutional protection has been eliminated and therefore there is no longer any actual or potential constitutional protection.
For the act, which there isn't now.
And a part of it is true.
To go back to the context, I mean, for everybody, Roe v.
Wade enshrined the idea that, I think it's the 14th Amendment, privacy rights in the Constitution protected an individual's access, not to any given medical procedure, but to one in particular.
The original rationale, how they got to enshrining as a constitutional protection, the big A, was by arguing that it's covered under a person's right to privacy, which includes the privacy to a certain entity.
Now, I think also along the original iteration or interpretation, it was the privacy of a doctor to carry out this act.
But it was the constitutional protection of the act itself was it was a judicial construct.
The ultimate irony in all of this, and we'll get into a little bit of the absence of judicial consistency, constitutional consistency, people in the streets clamoring that this is an illegitimate decision because it's a constitutional right, an absolute constitutional right, according to many.
That which was never specifically provided for in the Constitution is a constitutional right, absolute, enshrined, cannot be taken away, and yet the Second Amendment...
Specifically provided for in the Constitution, according to Joe Biden, is not absolute.
There is no coherent judicial reasoning to anything that's going on right now, but it's such a highly emotional debate.
It's going to be very difficult to get people to understand this.
I'm going to get to some super chats in a bit, but Danger Hellbender, if you intended to put a comment with this very generous super chat, please do not feel compelled to put another super chat.
Sometimes it's very confusing.
You try to do a super chat.
You think you're putting in a comment.
You hit the super chat and your comment doesn't go with it.
Hellbender, if that was your intention, put in the comment and I'll try to find it.
But do not feel compelled to put another super chat.
But thank you for the support.
Just because I see Mike Bruno, let's read this.
385,000 births per year.
One in 100 are ectopic.
That means outside the uterus, which threatened the lives of women.
3,850 women die every day.
That is more than 9-11 per day.
Mike Bruno, I mean, I'm unable to verify these statistics.
I'll even just, for the sake of argument, take for granted the statistics are accurate.
This goes back to exactly what I was just saying, the misconception out there that this decision outlaws abortion.
And it doesn't.
In fact, it so doesn't that the outrage becomes absolutely, I won't say untenable, it becomes incomprehensible.
Roe v.
Wade, through judicial construct, read into, I hope it's the 14th Amendment, if it's not, just please correct me in the chat, into the right to privacy, the right to access, the big A. Thus, reading in and writing in to the Constitution, which did not provide for that act constitutional protection for that specific act under the argument of privacy.
A lot of people from the get-go and for a long time said it doesn't make any sense.
If and when this ever comes back to the court, they might correct that bad decision.
It's not because it came from the SCOTUS that it's a necessarily judicially sound decision, but that's the way that things work.
Now the court has come and said, Not that it is outlawed.
What they've said is that it's not a constitutional federal issue.
It's a state issue.
Kick it back to the states.
Any given state can enact, draft its own legislation, democratically approved through the legislative process, through the election process, and that's how it should be decided.
If you want to live in a state that has robust Big A laws, go to California.
If you don't believe in it and you don't want to support those policies or those politics, go to a state that will have strict laws like Alabama.
And this all started with the heartbeat law, which said the procedure is outlawed after the heartbeat is detected between 12 and 16 weeks.
A lot of people felt that that was too early and would prejudice a woman's right to have access to that procedure.
Britt Cormier has a facetious tongue-in-cheek.
Viva, if you cannot figure out that, shall not be infringed, quote, end quote, has way too much wiggle room for the courts, but not mentioning something is so concrete it is obvious.
You are being obtuse.
Sarcasm off, Britt.
Forget even that.
Here are the elements of inconsistency that we're going to tackle one by one in this stream.
I'm not going through the decision.
We've already gone through the draft decision anyhow when it was leaked a few weeks ago.
So the decision is what we all knew was coming.
It's not an outright ban on shmushmortion.
It's saying it's actually not constitutionally protected.
It's a state issue.
Have it addressed through state legislation.
If you like your state legislation, so be it.
If you don't, move.
Vote with your feet.
In exactly the same way that some people once upon a time were saying, if you don't like COVID restrictions, leave the state.
Now the argument is flipped on its head where they're saying to those very same people, if you don't like the big A restrictions, move to another state.
And everybody comes in and cloaks their outrage and benevolence.
They're saying, it's not about me.
It's about people who can't afford to interstate, to cross state lines to get this procedure.
And by the way...
I had discussed this with Barnes on the channel.
I said, like, you know, can Alabama say it's illegal to travel interstate to have this procedure, which is illegal in Alabama, in the same way Canada says you can't go to Indonesia to do bad things to underage people, even if it's legal there.
We're making it a crime in Canada to travel knowingly to a place that does these things for the purposes of doing these things, and it's illegal, and it's legit federal law.
Why it's legit federal law as relates to that, but one state cannot ban interstate commerce, interstate travel to prohibit what goes on in another state?
The separation of powers and the Constitution itself.
So people saying it's the end misunderstand deliberately or accidentally, being misled deliberately or accidentally.
Those who say it's going to be illegal for someone in Alabama to go to a neighboring state, also inaccurate.
One state cannot restrict that, and that's something I've learned in my learning curve, doing what I've been doing on the interwebs for a couple of years now.
The inconsistencies.
If you don't like it, move.
Good for COVID restrictions, not good for Big A restrictions.
Inconsistency number two.
My body, my choice, and my goodness, are we going to...
I started off with Trudeau hypocrisy, Trudeau psychopathy.
We're going to get into more of this.
Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh, lamenting.
Lamenting the fact that this is...
Lamenting it as though it's been an outright ban when it has merely been kicked to the states for state legislature.
They either don't understand, they don't want to understand, they're incapable of understanding, or it's just so nice to weaponize what's going on in the states for national purposes.
Jagmeet Singh comes out and says...
This is an outrage.
We need to, in Canada, fight for women's rights by expanding the Big A access in Canada.
Highlighting something else, by the way.
Leave it to Justin Trudeau to bring up the argument as to why exactly Canadians don't have the right to self-defense with firearms.
Why exactly?
Maybe that is not a foregone conclusion either.
But leave it to Jagmeet Singh to highlight the fact that Canada is the only nation on Earth with no federal laws.
We're going to get to that.
I don't think most people know that.
Canada has no federal laws whatsoever at any stage for the big A. We'll get there.
Inconsistency number three.
All of a sudden, people can tell the difference between a man and a woman to tell the man to shut up and sit down.
All of a sudden, all of a sudden, the non-biologists, you know, Aspiring for the Supreme Court, all of a sudden they can tell what a woman and a man is.
All of a sudden, by the way, we're going to get to this with the mayor of New York.
All of a sudden, some people start referring to the unborn entity as a baby.
All of a sudden.
That's the third inconsistency.
What was the fourth?
We're going to get to it.
There's just too many.
Let's get to some super chats before we pull this up.
Can you quickly explain the substantive due process and why Clarence Thomas opposes it?
I'm going to tell you this, Light473, I can't.
I can't with any degree of sufficient confidence.
We're going to talk about the decision itself in greater detail.
I mean, in the substance, the nuances, because I've got a few questions myself with Barnes tomorrow.
And I don't want to misinform, and I also don't want to pretend to know something that I don't.
Even if I get it right by chance, I prefer to err to those, to defer to those who I know know more than me.
I know that they know that I know that they know that they know more than me.
UK greetings.
Roe v.
Wade was the litmus test for every SCOTUS confirmation hearing since 1973.
Now it's gone.
Which ruling will the rabid leftists use to try and batter their unfavored nominee?
It's a good point, by the way.
And one thing, everyone's saying Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, Kavanaugh lied under oath in their confirmation hearings because they swore to uphold Roe v.
Wade.
No, they didn't.
They swore to uphold the law of the land.
And to deal with each and every case on its own merits as it came to them.
The talking points that just rely on ignorance are phenomenal.
Like that smash button.
Wait.
Thank you, Pasha.
Danger Hellbender, thank you very much.
Bruno, states already passed this law, goofy.
Set aside the ad hominem.
Some states have had laws that were ready to go.
True.
Others have not.
I'm not calling you goofy, Bruno.
I'm just saying that's a straw man.
Some states have had laws ready to go.
And obviously, the laws were the laws at issue that brought this to the judicial forum.
The laws at issue are what brought it to SCOTUS.
Here's the thing.
If you don't like Alabama's policy at a state level, maybe it's not a state in which you want to live.
Maybe then you vote with your feet, you vote with your dollar.
It's not my body, my choice, where I want, in the state that I want.
There's a lot of things that are going on in Canada that I'm saying I don't like, and I'll try my best to change Canada.
But if I can't, hey, you vote with your feet, you vote with your dollar.
Go to California.
Where was Norfolk, that doctor who talked about effectively post-birth big A's?
I mean, there's another word for it, and it actually ends with infanticide.
Post-birth, keep it comfortable while the mother makes a decision.
Oh, no, there was context.
There was context to that.
If you want to live in a state with a policy like that, move to a state with policy like that.
That's what the Democratic Republic of the United States, state autonomy for that which is not of a federal issue.
Constitutional, federal issues.
This is not any longer.
The states can take care of it.
In the manner that their constituents vote.
I will not read that Super Chat.
I will thank you for the support, Fringe Canadian.
But to see the people coming out and...
Basically, it's saying we want the most expansive rights possible with no compromise.
I'm curious, actually, where people think I fall on the spectrum of this position.
But again, Personal opinions on this.
It is a fundamentally personal issue.
I agree with Tim Poole on the Big A where there is no point to have a one.
Oh, there's no point to have one if the baby is viable.
I'm sure some of you who have been around the channel for long enough know this anecdote.
I talked about it once, but I got into the Big A debate, a discussion, at a house party when I was studying philosophy at McGill.
I got into it as the man, discussing it with five women, and I did not know that at least one of the women had had the procedure and was very sensitive about any discussion about it, which highlights the fact that these are not discussions that can be had without resorting to or intriguing emotions.
You just can't do it.
And I didn't know that at the time.
I knew it, and then I lived by it for a long time where I just...
I was not going to have the discussions anymore because I don't like upsetting people, even if I think I'm right and they're radically wrong.
And now it's come to a full circle where I will have the discussion in as much as respectfully possible, but it's a discussion that has to be had.
In this debate with the five women at the House Party, I was operating from the philosophical premise that it is wrong to take any life.
At whatever level of existence for the sake of convenience.
Period.
That was my starting philosophical premise.
And I will give one exception to that.
Mosquitoes and ticks.
And invasive lamprey.
And basically parasites that have no functional purpose except for destruction.
You can kill a mosquito if it's smacking you.
But the idea of, you know, killing a squirrel that happens to be living in your...
You know, in a crawl space in your roof.
In as much as possible, remove it, displace it.
Philosophical premise, agree or disagree, it is wrong to take any life purely for convenience.
I include in that an exception to that, or a different rule, taking an animal's life for sustenance, I believe is justifiable.
Within certain limits of the hierarchy of...
Sentient existence.
The individuals, I guess, who had had the procedure and felt as though this philosophical principle was a direct attack on their being, it quickly led to tears, it quickly led to me leaving the party, and it quickly led to me not discussing any of these sensitive issues for a good 18 years of my life.
My, how times have changed.
So that was the, that's my anecdote, parentheses close to story time.
These are hard discussions to have, but if they're going to be had and they have to be had, they do have to be had.
And they have to be had honestly.
And, you know, I won't use certain rhetoric, but okay.
John Rittenhorff, before we get into some of the bad takes and some of the inconsistent views on this.
Conspiracy time.
I am really curious about the decision and now the opinion that says gay marriage.
The right always takes it on the chin any time abortion and gay marriage hit the national talking cycle.
Gay marriage will never be on the judicial chopping block, period.
That's my prediction.
That's my belief.
It will never be on the judicial chopping block, nor should it.
If the issue is whether or not you call it marriage or civil union, if it's a distinction without a difference, some people can have that debate later on.
Recognizing marriage rights, whether you call it civil union, as we do in Quebec, to same-sex marriages, it will never be on the chopping block in the United States.
Of course, a while back, people did say neither would Roe v.
Wade being overturned, but alas, here we are.
I think it's a different argument with Roe v.
Wade versus equal rights because even people at the time, even legal minds at the time, said the decision was not judicially sound.
Based on Rittenhouse, I thought crossing state lines was a crime against humanity.
It is funny how they're actually using the term crossing state lines.
Mad for no reason.
Right.
Just move states.
Ectopic abortions are not.
An ectopic pregnancy is considered a failed pregnancy, so it's a medical procedure to save the mother because ectopic pregnancy is fatal.
Can be.
Can be.
Is fatal to the fetus already?
I don't think it's necessarily fatal, Steve.
I think ectopic pregnancies are much riskier pregnancies, but I don't think that they are fatal by definition.
And I don't think it is.
Now, states, even the heartbeat law, I mean, I believe, I'd have to check the state legislature to see which ones provide for certain exceptions.
Incest, a type of assault.
Risking the life of the mother or birth defects of the baby.
These are exceptions that would be provided for or not in state legislature.
And if people think that there's a judicial problem with this at the state level, you'll take it up with the state courts.
What I personally believe in this, self-defense, the arguments...
Who's this?
Hold on a second, people.
Hello?
No, you've got to call mom.
I'm live right now.
Okay, bye-bye.
Um...
Um...
There will be exceptions provided for in law.
If it poses a risk to the mother, you know, that raises the legal principle of self-defense and whether or not it can be justified.
And I think personally, I would not support a legislation that would not provide that type of exception.
The incest and the type of assault.
You know, there's some very serious arguments as to why, even if that's the cause, why someone would not know within the 12 to 16 weeks, there are a lot of social issues about coming out and disclosing it, which might explain why some people, some victims of that would not say it or would not go look into it within a certain time frame.
There could be exceptions drafted in legislation for that.
But again, these will be state issues as they probably ought to have been from the get go.
But okay.
I can foresee the largest Second Amendment battle coming when the pendulums eventually swing back.
Where do you think the right needs to tread carefully now in order to avoid excess blowback?
See, that's the type of question which, in as much as I've delved into a lot of American politics, legal stuff that's been a learning curve for me, I would think censorship.
Is going to be the next hot topic.
What level of censorship can big corporations have in terms of the blowback?
That's where I think it's going, if I had to guess.
Let's see if that's right.
Viva, I will say this, just like I said for the pandemic, not everyone can move.
There are things that tie us to physical locations, joint custody, etc.
So the move away is not always an option.
Brit, fair point.
But the...
I don't mean to make it...
Glib or too flippant.
Travel for a procedure and then come back remains an option.
That remains an option.
So I appreciate not everybody can up and move.
And it would be harder for people to up and go get procedures, which people have to do sometimes anyhow.
And there's organizations that are probably going to be born out of this to facilitate that for people who can't.
But again, those would be the exceptional cases.
The issue is, you know, SCOTUS does not render federal law of the land based on what might be individual hardships or individual exceptions.
Respectfully submitted, Britt, I know you're a good faith individual who is open for legitimate discourse.
Then why is a plan B outlawed?
To be discussed tomorrow.
That's a nuance.
I'm not even sure that I understand enough about that to have a discussion.
Yet, when I do, we will.
You can read the Dobbs decision and all other opinions at Supreme Court.
It's a well-written and easy to read.
The PDF is only 213 pages, which includes the dissenting opinions.
I read the leaked version when it came out.
Barnes and I talked about it.
Tomorrow night, we will talk about this in much greater detail.
Mike, oh, I thought it said Mike Pence.
I support for medical reasons and forced conception, but not as primary birth control.
There doesn't seem to be any middle ground anymore.
This is it.
It's like...
I love some of the chat here.
Hold on a second.
Let's see this.
People need to shift their anger from SCOTUS and turn their focus to supporting voting for state officials, local officials that align with their Big A views.
The solution to this is obvious.
It's just that the misunderstanding is fabricated, the outrage is fabricated, and the hypocrisy is just undeniable.
Let's just, I'm going to go to the list.
I have so much open in the tab.
I do want to bring out one tweet that Lauren Chen put out, which I, come on, where is it?
Lauren Chen.
Then we're going to dive into Trudeau.
Let's start with Trudeau.
This is Trudeau's take, by the way.
Just make sure that I can see this.
I'm going to do my best to star the Super Chats.
This is Trudeau's take.
I mean, it's so outrageously hypocritical, you'd think he was doing it to troll himself.
And by the way, this is what he drafted.
It's not even like he put in the Big A word to qualify this statement.
Trudeau just comes out and says, no government, politician, or man.
All of a sudden, Trudeau now knows what a man is.
Should tell a woman, all of a sudden he now knows...
Now it's binary.
Now it's binary.
I mean, this, if it were anyone else, would get them cancelled.
Which I don't agree with.
I'm just saying, like, highlight the insanity of this.
No government, politician, or man should tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.
By the way, does this suggest that a woman might...
Under some circumstances, be able to tell another woman what to do with her body?
It seems to admit of the possibility that a woman can sometimes tell another woman what she can and cannot do with her body.
It should read, if this individual had half a brain and half intellectual sincerity, no government politician or person should tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.
This is where everyone should be vomiting a little bit in their mouths.
I want women in Canada to know that we will always stand up for your right to choose.
He doesn't specify for Big A. He doesn't specify for anything.
He wants to say, let me talk to you.
Women.
It's like the Dimitri Martin.
It's like the Dimitri Martin stand-up bit where he says, you know what?
Take any sentence, and if you want to make it sound creepy, just end it with "Ladies." I want...
Let me bring it back up here.
Dimitri Martin is...
Maybe this is not the shout-out Dimitri Martin wants.
It's some of the best humor since Stephen Wright and Mitch Hedberg.
I think everybody knows Dimitri Martin.
I'm not discovering someone that's not undiscovered, but you want to make anything sound perverted, just end the sentence with Ladies.
I want you to understand, we will always stand up for your right to choose.
Ladies.
Trudeau.
Trudeau.
Justin Trudeau.
Justin, I believe that vaccines should be mandatory for AR and plane travel, and I'm not even giving you exemptions for funerals, weddings, or taking care of sick family.
All of a sudden, Justin Trudeau, the man who fired the first Indigenous woman, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, fired her.
Effectively told her what she had to do with her body, get out.
Because she wouldn't adhere to his corrupt political demands.
Justin Trudeau wants women of Canada to know that he will always stand up for their right to choose.
Unless it's their decision not to get vaccinated.
Then they're misogynists.
Then they're ignorant.
Then they're anti-science.
Then they're putting us at risk.
All of us.
It's impossible to be such a hypocrite.
I want to pull a Simpsons where like, you know, you look up hypocrite in the dictionary and I want it to be Justin Trudeau's face.
But Lauren Chen, if you don't know her, definitely worth a follow.
Lauren Chen, I'm a woman.
You tried to mandate that I take the V with unknown fetal side effects while I was pregnant because for those of you who don't know, Lauren recently had a child.
You don't care about women and you sure as hell don't care about bodily autonomy.
If there's ever a mic drop, that's the mic drop.
Hold on.
I wanted everyone to find that tweet and share it.
This flipping guy comes out and says, women, I care about you.
Unless you don't do what I say, then I know better.
Hold on.
I got to start a bunch of super chats here.
And then let's get to the hypocrisy.
Let's just get to the hypocrisy.
No man should tell you what to do with your body.
Unless it's me and it's about a vaccine.
Then me as a man gets to tell you as a woman what you have to put into your physical person.
Because I know better and you're just an ignorant, anti-science, far-right extremist misogynist.
Now, I will steel man the argument that I know many of you out there.
Are or ought to be saying to yourselves, viva.
There's a difference between pregnancies and pandemics.
There's a difference between pregnancies and contagious viruses.
Yes, there's a difference.
People make this argument, not appreciating that it's actually something of a self-own.
There is a difference between pregnancies and communicable diseases.
One, for the most part, is much easier to control or prevent.
Then the other.
And so the idea of saying, pregnancies aren't contagious.
They're actually, for the most part, quite preventable.
So therefore, if it happens, I should have the right to do certain things.
If that which was preventable occurs, I should then have the right to do something else versus contracting, first of all, people call it a disease, a virus.
Imagine now if the standard For compelling anything.
Well, you can do what you want with your body when it comes to something that's preventable.
But when it comes to communicable diseases, you no longer own your body.
Here's the reality, by the way, in my view.
That argument, but one's a communicable disease and the other one is pregnancy.
That argument is tantamount to saying the government, at its sole discretion, Gets to decide when you get to decide what you can and cannot do with your body.
You know what that translates into?
You do not get to control what you do, can and cannot do with your own body by that standard.
If you do not support that standard when it comes to communicable diseases and you defer to the judgment of the government as to when they get to say that you can and cannot do something with your body, you have allowed the government...
to tell you what you must and must not do with your body under certain circumstances, and you know damn well they're going to use it in others.
So you cannot stand up for bodily autonomy only when you think you can stand up for bodily autonomy.
Because by the way, if anybody thinks it's a conspiracy theory, if you have said, okay, well, the government can tell me what I can and cannot do with my body when it comes to a communicable disease, but they can't tell me that when it comes to pregnancy, wait until climate change comes, people.
Wait until they apply this to climate change.
Now I'm telling you that you can and cannot do something with your own body.
You can't leave your house today.
It's too hot.
You can't use a car anymore.
There's too much stuff out there.
If you do not respect your rights everywhere, and if you do not respect all of your rights with equal fervor, you are not respecting any of your rights.
And by the way, the other thing is the government gets to tell you what you must and must not do with your body or the government gets to control your body when it comes to communicable diseases.
Awesome.
Now do HIV.
Now do diseases where there were specific laws put in place to avoid stigmatizing people for the viruses that they contracted through preventable or not preventable means.
I'm thinking blood transfusions would be beyond preventable means.
From the individual lifestyle.
Let's say, okay, hey, you got a communicable disease?
You can't leave your house.
You can't work in certain places.
Setting aside the underlying absolute inconsistency of all of this is that, but one's a communicable disease and the other one is pregnancy.
You're not talking about what to do with someone when they have a highly communicable disease that could cause or spur another pandemic.
You're talking about what What the government says it must or is allowed to do to their body when they do not have a communicable disease.
So it's not even the communicable disease part that's the distinguishing factor.
It's just the motivation as to what they can use as an excuse to compel you to do something with your own body.
And by the way, so no one accuses me of being a hypocrite.
I, I, I am not, I believe that, uh, I apply the same rationale, the same standard to both of these, uh, Topics.
To the big A and to the big P, pandemics.
Under certain circumstances, when it meets a required threshold, when it has a rational connection and a necessary connection to the desired result, you can put people in jail.
You can put people in jail even if it's a violation of their rights when it's done lawfully and properly.
When it's proportionate.
When the urgency meets.
When the exceedingly urgent situation meets the exceedingly exceptional cases for which you can violate an individual's bodily autonomy.
I do not think there should be an outright ban from conception, and I know that might upset a lot of people, but I sure as heck don't believe it's my body, my choice if it goes to the eighth month.
And so I don't have any mutual incompatible double standards here.
In a massive outbreak of a highly contagious virus with a big V that is effective, that is...
Safe, or at the very least, has been proven sufficiently safe given the correlative risk.
And we had this debate between Barnes and Dershowitz.
There can be a justification.
But when that gets bastardized and fluffed out too much, it's only a matter of time before, well, emergency.
It's not a health emergency anymore.
It's a climate emergency.
Now I get to tell you what you cannot do with your own body.
But he actually tweets that.
No government or man should tell you what a woman can and cannot do with her body.
But I have imposed vaccine mandates, fired female employees, prevented people from traveling to visit sick, dying family members to attend funerals.
I get to tell a woman what to do with her body then.
But I want to go out and virtue signal now and stand up for women's rights.
You either stand up for women's rights all the time.
Or when you pretend to do it, it's for purely political exploitation of women.
And that is exactly what J. Trudeau has so consistently done in all respects.
Okay.
Tangential rant over.
Let's get to some super chats.
People need to shift their anger from SCOTUS and turn their focus.
Okay, we got that one.
Ectopic pregnancies are always fatal to the fetus, and if left untreated, most likely fatal to the mother.
I'm going to Google that.
I think I read that one before as well.
Also, the fro is still fabulous.
Thank you very much.
It's actually starting to fall under the weight of gravity.
No politician should tell, says the politician.
Great point.
Now that men can be pregnant, Netflix, he's expecting, can we now be allowed into the conversation?
The pretzel logic on display is amazing.
Brett Cormier, on point again.
I guess everyone who wants the big A can go to Canada to get it.
What's the problem again?
And not just that, by the way, I think Trudeau is going to use this as like, come, we'll administer them.
I wonder if he's going to actually do this under Medicare.
Everyone come to Canada.
There's not much difference between the virus and the STD called LIFE, which is 100% fit.
Well, there is one.
One shortens the otherwise expectancy.
Tankrat AED.
AED, that stands for Association des Etudiants de Droits, which is the Law Student Association that I was president of at one point.
95% of the big A is elective, 5% for health reasons, and big R and rhymes with chess.
Oh, okay.
I don't know that stat.
I'm going to be interested in looking it up because, I mean, the idea that it's used as the history of Planned Parenthood is also something people might want to look into, but not necessarily for now.
Actually, they are saying that pregnancy is a disease.
Is an A word the cure for the disease?
Speaking of, you know, Justin Trudeau opening up the border.
Out of the benevolence of the goodness of his heart, no government should tell a woman what to do with her body, unless it's, you know, what he thinks a woman has to do with her body.
Where is...
These are all Twitter.
Where is the Wikipedia?
Here, check this out, people.
Just to highlight something that people probably don't know.
First of all, hold on.
Don't read.
Stop reading, people.
Stop reading.
Remove.
By way of one or yes, two or no, who knew that Canada had no federal laws prohibiting the big A at any point of pregnancy?
Who knew that?
One yes, two no.
I already just gave you the answer.
Let's just see what happens in the chat.
One yes, two no.
Who knew that Canada had no federal laws?
Lots of twos.
Okay.
It's because we have a smart group here, people.
A well-informed, not smart, well-informed.
See, one, one.
Thank you for being honest.
Whoever puts the one down despite the indirect social pressure of wanting to be among the twos.
Okay, good.
Some people didn't know it.
Look at this.
It's Wikipedia, but Wikipedia can be trusted for easily verifiable facts.
It's the legal...
Is legal at all stages of pregnancy.
Legal at all stages.
No, I like the other way better.
At all stages of pregnancy, regardless of the reason, and is publicly funded as a medical procedure under the combined effects of the Federal Canada Healthcare Act and Provincial Healthcare Systems.
However, access to services and resource varies by region.
While some non-legal barriers, while some non-legal barriers to access continue to exist.
Canada is the only nation with absolutely no criminal restrictions on the big A. Nevertheless, if this is just when they talk about non-legal barriers, good luck finding a doctor who's going to do it in the second and third trimester for no medically urgent need.
Which also should show you something, by the way.
Canada is the only nation with absolutely no criminal restrictions on the Big A. Nevertheless, few providers in Canada offer care beyond 23 weeks and six days without a medical reason, as outlined by provincial regulatory authorities for physicians.
So it's an interesting thing for the purposes of the debate, by the way, that even in a country with absolutely no laws, you won't find a doctor who will do it in the absence of a medical necessity after, what was it, 23 weeks?
Before 24 weeks.
It's an interesting thing that even when there is absolute lawlessness, There's still unanimity among scientists that say we're not doing it after a certain period unless there is a medical emergency, medically necessary reason to do so.
So even the doctors in Canada in a lawless land as relates to this procedure say there's science that will morally, ethically, by our Hippocratic Oath, not allow us to do this procedure after a certain point.
If the Supreme Court had come down and said, okay, It's not a state issue.
It's a federal issue.
And we're setting that as a legal limit.
People would still be outraged.
People would still be outraged, which goes to show you that in the land where there's no law, there's still unwritten scientific law, which some people might find still too restrictive.
And if this were to have been the decision, people would have still taken issue with it because there was a great illuminating.
Clip of the debate between Trump and Clinton, Hillary, talking about it's not right to do this after a certain period of time, and that should be up to the states to determine when that appropriate period of time is.
And then he referenced very late-term acts.
And Hillary says, oh, that type of rhetoric is dangerous and wrong and fear-mongering.
And then, you know, push comes to shove.
You hear people actually saying, yeah, no limitations whatsoever.
So Canada, I mean, Jagmeet Singh and Justin Trudeau are going to now make this an issue of discussion.
It's interesting.
How can there not be any criminal restrictions?
I appreciate that doctors wouldn't do it.
And there's no specific criminal restriction on the act past a certain point, at any point in pregnancy.
I presume there might be other criminal laws that could apply mutandis mutandis.
But why don't we have any laws on this?
Is that what Canada really wants to be known for?
No laws on the big A at any point, with all the repercussions that that can have.
Maybe that's not a good thing.
We're not allowed owning firearms for self-defense.
Maybe that's not a good thing.
Maybe these discussions, which haven't been in the political fore for years, decades, if not ever, on some, maybe these two politicians are going to successfully bring these issues to the fore, and we're going to say, why don't we have certain laws, and why don't we have certain rights?
um um It's almost like building civil rights on sketchy case law was a bad idea.
It was bad law from the beginning, by all accounts.
In as much as, you know, you had the Buck decision.
Bad law.
You had Korematsu.
Bad law.
You had Jacobson.
They still think it's good law, but bad law.
You can get bad law that needs to be corrected over time, especially as objective, actual, true, meaningful science evolves.
Scientific knowledge evolves.
What might have been considered tolerable in the 50s might not be considered tolerable in the 2020s.
And don't forget that natural immunity is conveniently ignored because they trust the science, V for Vendetta.
They trust the science so much that...
Natural immunity, which many doctors believe more powerful and longer lasting, not recognized.
And, you know, the heart inflammation issue, where they say, oh, you know, it might not be the V that causes myocarditis, pericarditis.
It might be the infection itself.
And what better way to double down your risks than to say, even if you've had the infection already with all the risks that, you know, the COVID infection might have, let's just go ahead and exacerbate any risks that you might have by making you submit to another procedure, which, Might be medically not necessary and might actually double down, double certain risks that you might have already been exposed to by mere exposure to nature.
The Big A and slavery both claimed ownership over another.
All lives are supposed to be protected under the 14th Amendment.
But then it gets into the actual science of the discussion.
When is a fetal life recognized or when ought it be recognized as a human life under the law?
That's the question.
That is the question.
And the debate is being falsified.
As if to say, never or always.
I'm just starring some super chats here.
Jacobson is clearly bad law.
When does a fetal life become a human life under the law?
Not conceptually, not potentially, under protection of the law.
And I appreciate people say at conception, it's a human life.
I appreciate that.
I would disagree with it in the sense that I would go more towards the brain activity.
When does it become not murder to pull the plug on another human that no longer has brain activity?
Or sorry, on another human without it being murder.
That line typically is drawn at brain activity.
And so it's not murder to pull the plug on a brain-dead patient, although I understand other people say, still a human, it's always immoral.
We can agree to disagree on the point so long as we understand what we're disagreeing with.
I appreciate there will be people out there who say, you never pull the plug, no matter how brain-dead, because miracles happen, anything's possible, even if some doctors say, scientifically impossible to regain brain function.
I appreciate that.
I disagree with it.
And if I were supporting a policy, I would not necessarily support that policy.
Life beginning at conception, I can appreciate that, but that's not necessarily where I would go in the scientific debate.
I would tend to go.
They've opted for the heartbeat law in some states, which I can understand.
I might go with the brain activity law.
But then, you know, it gets into the question.
If you pull the plug without the consent of the family on someone who's brain dead, Would that still be considered murder under the law?
Even if the person is scientifically brain dead, but the person who pulls the plug didn't have the authorization of the decision makers.
Interesting stuff.
But that's the actual crux of the debate.
When does it become a human life for the purposes of protection under the law?
Some people will say from day one and other people say not ever until it's out and then maybe even for 30 days afterwards.
And 90% of the population, despite the public outcry, find themselves somewhere in between the two.
Okay.
There's much more to get to.
Let's just get to some bad takes.
Supremely, supremely bad positions, which are incompatible with other current trending political issues.
But let's just...
Person.
Interesting.
Civil rights movement is an enormous disaster.
James Hartman from Europe.
U.S.S.C.
Interpretation.
Oh, United States Supreme Court.
Interpretation of privacy in Roe v.
Wade.
Effectively established law.
This responsibility lies with the legislative branch to make law, not judicial.
Agreed.
I mean, that's the argument is that executive, legislative, judicial.
Executive enacts law.
No, wait, hold on a second.
Legislative enacts law.
They legislate law.
Executive enforces law.
And the judicial interprets the law.
The judicial and the executive do not draft or modify the law.
They enforce it or strike it down, respectively.
The legislative drafts it.
The legislative doesn't enforce it.
And the legislative doesn't interpret it.
Because you don't want the people drafting the legislation also interpreting it.
That's how you get to an administrative state where the SEC makes its own rules, adjudicates its own rules, and establishes its own courts.
And that's how you...
Okay.
And when you get the judicial branch, not interpreting the law, but rewriting the law, reading things into the law, a la Obamacare, you have problems.
No man or woman should bring a child into the world who is unwilling to preserve in their nature and education.
A sick society is a society which prioritizes adults over children.
Let me read this again.
No man or woman should bring a child into the world who is unwilling to...
Persevere, sorry, in their nature and education.
I agree.
I'll also agree accidents happen.
I've heard some stories from friends, you know, parents were fooling around.
They weren't even penetrating.
Stuff got somewhere and then leaked somewhere else.
I don't believe the story.
I think they did it and this is their cover-up, but whatever.
Accidents happen.
And then the question is, you know, if you are aware, you know, they're like it or not, unless you just, you know.
Don't agree with it as a principle.
There will be a window within which a decision can be made that balances all human rights.
And then, you know, there are some fortuitous accidents.
My brother was not supposed...
Well, my second to last, my older brother...
The fourth of the five kids in our family was not supposed to be here.
Product of a faulty diaphragm.
I was not supposed to be here either, but not as much of an accident.
My mother was supposed to have her tubes tied, and then she chickened out of the procedure.
Well, little shimmy-shimmy, and then, you know, here I am.
And what would the world have been without me?
Who knows?
Okay, we got this one.
And this, there is science that has settled life begins at conception with a different DNA structure.
Okay, Kyle Brokaw.
There is science that has stated life begins at conception with a different DNA structure.
This is not to be the lawyer semantic.
Yes, we all agree that there is life at conception.
The question is, from a legal standpoint, when does that life become a human life under the law?
I would say, I don't think anyone's going to disagree.
Like, to quote Tom McDonald, bacteria on Mars is proof of life, but a fetus in a womb is not life on Earth.
Hold on, I screwed it up.
Bacteria on Mars...
Is proof of life, extraterrestrial life, I've screwed it up.
You know what I'm getting at.
Bacteria on Mars is proof of life, but a fetus in the belly is not.
Again, too, you know, incompatible in a sense.
Life starts at conception.
Agreed.
And I don't think anyone's going to disagree with that.
The question is, is it human life under the law for the purposes of protection under the law?
I mean, you just take the most...
extreme examples.
Could you even...
Hypothetically, let's just say, Kyle, not to belabor the point, that an individual believes that human life for the purposes of protection under the law begins at conception.
Take examples for which someone could...
A fight occurs and someone...
I think if you, through accident or deliberate act, end the life immediately at conception without even knowing it was there, would that then reasonably, under application of the law, lead to charges of murder?
So the question is, life conceptually versus life as a human concept, warranting or justifying protection under the law of a human life.
That's the question.
And if some people believe...
That human life, in the legal sense, begins at conception.
I would very much understand the position.
But the question is, is there human life without brain activity?
And I think there's a scientific argument as to when the human life actually begins, in the human sense, for the purposes of protection under the law.
And I think when people say life begins at conception, it's more of a potential spiritual possibility of human life.
But would someone say that a human life can exist without any brain activity whatsoever?
Okay, that's it.
The degree to which premature births can survive, it's shocking.
It's shocking from a scientific perspective.
My brother-in-law was premature, was on an intubator for a couple of months, I think, was in the...
I see you for a long time after birth, but I think he was like two months premature.
And you compare that to what is going on now, it's phenomenal.
TS, what is, look at, I don't even want to, look at the money pouring into this guy talking about women's rights.
Cool, cool.
I don't know if that's meant to be sarcastic.
The idea that this is a woman's issue, I take as much issue with that as saying, well.
Only Jewish people can talk about the Holocaust.
Only Jewish people can have a legitimate, justifiable take on the Holocaust.
I don't believe that.
One's gender, one's race, one's religion, it may be potentially relevant to who they are as an individual.
These issues, certain historical events, are not determined on a gender-religious perspective just because Someone thinks, well, it affected me, therefore I have a unique insight and a unique right to speak on it.
So fundamentally disagree with it, but thank you for being here.
But hold on.
Okay, hold on, we're going to get to this.
No longer brain activity and does not have brain activity, yet are not analogous viva.
That's a very good point.
No longer having brain activity was a human whose brain has ceased to function and does not have brain activity.
Is that it has not developed to the point where it does have human brain activity.
It's a good point.
Analogies are necessarily not the same.
That's why they're called analogies and not identicals.
The question is from the substantive point, does it make a difference?
Is it a distinction without a difference?
Not yet being brain active versus no longer being brain active.
No longer being brain active from the legal perspective.
Would that make a difference?
Left to its own devices, it would become something, but at that point in time, it's not yet there.
Versus the argument being, we've established that at 16 weeks, 20 weeks, it's already there.
But that is the spectrum of the discussion, and it's an interesting one to have from a legal and scientific perspective.
90% of biologists agree life begins at conception.
Life.
Human life or life of a form with the potential of becoming human?
I want religious precepts foisted on people, just their religion.
They've beaten us with even, if lying.
Thank you.
Anticami.
Thank you.
Thank you, sisters.
Texas confuses me.
Illegal to do Big A, but death penalty is still okay.
Those would be not analogous, where death penalty...
Having seen what I've seen of the judicial system, I can't even support the death penalty.
Once upon a time, I did.
Adibaba X says, Can late-term Big A advocates even imagine a world worth of billions to promote...
Are used to create technology to finalize birth.
Evictionism has been promoted by Walter Block for decades.
Okay, interesting.
Okay, now, but hold on.
I'm going to flag a few, then I'm going to get to some more.
We've got to get to some of the bad takes.
So the law, the morality, we understand where the disagreement is, but we should still be able to have the discussion.
Let's just get to some of the outrageously bad political takes that they're flowing in faster than they can be kept track of, which is why I like Twitter.
Because it serves as the diary.
I like Twitter because people put things out there.
They're out there forever.
And it's good to know what people said two years ago compared to what they're saying now.
Starting with...
Hold up one second.
Okay, let me do this here.
Starting with...
Okay, hold on.
Where's the share screen?
Which one do we want to go with first?
The breaking this, I believe we've already covered this.
Yeah, that's the confusion.
Let's go with share, share, Chrome tab.
Okay, I'm going to be fair to AOC.
She makes a point in her critique, but let's just see.
Elizabeth Warren, leave it to Jack Missing, defy the court.
Hold on.
Where is...
Oh, here we go.
Okay, this is AOC.
AOC.
Remember, people, we either have standards or we don't, or we have double standards, or we're just liars.
This video made the rounds yesterday.
2.6 million views.
Oh hold on a second Into the streets!
Illegitimate!
Bye.
Thank you.
Still on mute.
This decision, illegitimate.
This decision from the Supreme Court of the United States, not wrong, not immoral, not legally untenable, illegitimate.
The product of one of the branches of government is illegitimate.
Some people have pointed out the hypocrisy that this...
Is somewhat hypocritical coming from the individuals who want to criminalize calling another process of another function of government illegitimate.
That, of course, is legitimate.
It's so legitimate you can't even talk about it.
Hashtag no election fornication advice.
It's so legitimate it should be criminalized to question it.
But this, illegitimate.
A decision coming down.
This one was 5-4.
It was the Second Amendment that was 6-3.
Coming down, months and months of thoughtful analysis.
Anybody who read the decision, it goes into the details of the jurisprudence, the history.
This thought-out decision rendered by five duly appointed, but they're all duly appointed, but rendered by five duly appointed Supreme Court justices who went through the confirmation hearing process.
Who went through the confirmation process, who were appointed in accordance with all the, you know, all of the, I don't even know if it's constitutional requirements.
Illegitimate.
That's fine.
Call that illegitimate.
Absolutely fine.
As we're going to see, Maxine Waters coming out and calling people to not respect this decision.
I think there was also like a tweet from the Justice Department.
Oh, no, that was under the Second Amendment one.
We'll talk about that tomorrow.
There's a tweet, I think, from the Justice Department saying.
They have no intention of respecting the Second Amendment decision.
I'm not sure if that was a real tweet, so if that's not the case, please, someone in the chat, correct me.
Illegitimate.
In the streets.
And by the way, if I'm reading body language and I'm not an expert, I look back at my older videos and I can tell based on my eyes and my positioning when I felt uncomfortable or unsure of myself,
I get the feeling right here, AOC, I think she looks a little uncomfortable,
but she's out there in the streets protesting that the decision is illegitimate, and presumably, if the decision is illegitimate, one does not abide by illegitimate decisions any more than one respects.
Illegitimate high school elections.
What is it called in high school?
You know what I mean?
Presumably.
If it's illegitimate, you don't have to respect it.
And people called her out for that.
But then she sounds...
Wait until you hear Maxine Waters.
So people were making that joke, and she responded.
I say people were making that joke, including Marjorie Taylor Greene.
I want to bring this up.
Because it's fun to watch the argument.
You can watch people argue.
And then you could say, who has made the better point?
Illegitimate.
The fruits of the judicial branch of government's laborious efforts.
Illegitimate.
And here's one of the cases where I think, you know, people can conveniently ignore hyperbole and try to take things literally when they know that.
It's not meant to be literally, but rather figuratively speaking, comparative for the purposes of elucidating hypocrisy.
AOC just launched an insurrection.
Any violence and rioting is a direct result of Democrat...
You know what?
I take this back.
This is a legitimate point.
This is a legitimate point.
I take it back.
This insurrection, that might have been the hyperbolic description.
But this is a point that I have been making.
Therefore, I'll say that I made it before Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Viva alt-right, inspired by extremist Marjorie Taylor Greene.
I said this when Elizabeth Warren comes out and calls six justices of the Supreme Court of the United States extremists.
I think I have that tweet in the background.
What do you think this type of rhetoric does?
I mean, I was just saying before we read this, it will certainly incite people.
To not respect an illegitimate decision in theory.
But we've seen what has happened over the last three weeks.
I don't know.
I don't remember when the decision was leaked.
It was a month ago, I think.
Leaking the decision.
Protesting unlawfully on the front line of...
It was Kavanaugh's house?
Kavanaugh.
Protesting unlawfully.
I forget the provision of the United States Code.
Picketing or parading on the lawn of a judge.
For the purposes of influencing a pending court matter.
Federal law violation.
Then it got even worse.
It got even worse.
And then you...
What's the word I'm looking for?
Radio silence from Joe Biden.
Radio silence from Press Secretary Jean-Pierre.
And I don't know if it was...
No, it was Press Secretary Psaki at the time.
No commentating.
no condemning the illegal protests on the front lawn of Kavanaugh.
They actually said they support the protest so long as it remains peaceful.
You can break the law so long as it remains peaceful, as though conceptually and legally breaking the law itself is not a form of legal violence.
Then the attempt, the individual who was out there purportedly attempting to take the life of Kavanaugh, No condemnation.
What you get now is...
AOC.
Illegitimate.
Elizabeth Warren.
Extremists on the bench.
Six extremists.
I mean, imagine calling a president illegitimate is foreboding, but calling six Supreme Court justices extremists with the dog whistles that that will ring in the minds of those who now think they have been given the political permission slip to act on those words.
Marjorie Taylor Greene says AOC just launched an insurrection.
Any violence and rioting is a direct result of Democrat marching orders.
Okay.
Let's hear the retort, people.
We cannot...
We've been demonetized.
That's fine.
Request.
Okay.
We cannot not present the counter-argument.
And then, among us, we shall decide who has made the better point.
That's right.
It was up here.
Come on.
Come on.
AOC.
I will explain this to you slowly.
By the way, loserthink.
Hashtag first element of loserthink.
Ad hominem.
I'll explain this to you slowly.
I'm sorry, AOC, are you suggesting that rep Marjorie Taylor Greene is slow?
There's a word in French to describe slow.
And that word now gets you cancelled.
Hey, AOC, are you calling her the R word?
Are you suggesting that Marjorie Taylor Greene is the R word?
Because that gets you cancelled.
I will explain this to you slowly because you...
Loser think, okay?
Not substantive, not dealing with any issue, ad hominem attack, undermining the intelligence of the interlocutor.
Exercising our rights to protest is not obstruction of Congress.
True.
They're not the same thing.
Nor was anyone saying if there was...
No one was suggesting there would be obstruction of Congress.
Let's break this down.
Exercising our rights to protest is not obstruction of Congress.
True.
You know what that's called, people?
That's called a straw man.
Marjorie Taylor Greene was not suggesting that their protesting, calling this decision illegitimate, was obstruction of Congress.
What Marjorie Taylor Greene said is that if it leads to riots and violence, then it's as a result of your inciting that rioting and violence.
That's what she said.
So, false analogy, straw manning, and evading the actual point, which is, if anybody feels empowered now to riot, destroy property, cause violence, because that decision is illegitimate, and hell or high water, they now get to act on that bullhorn calling this illegitimate, calling those justices extremists, waiting to hear what Maxine Waters had to say.
I'm not sure that if we apply the same standard of reasoning, when Trump said march peacefully to the Capitol, that was inciting an Wow, I actually almost pulled the Chuck Schumer by accident.
That was inciting the insurrection.
If that is true for that, well, this is 10 times more inciting people to go out and do worse things.
Nor is it an attempt to overturn democracy.
If one were heinous enough to do that, they'd likely seek a pardon for it too.
This is another element of loser think, which is...
Bring in other issues.
Distract.
Divide and distract.
Or distract and conquer.
Because if we're talking about people seeking pardons, well, my goodness, does that apply to both sides of the aisle.
But only one of us here did that, and it ain't me.
That's true.
I guess only one of you was out there.
I don't think that Marjorie Taylor Greene called for anyone to overturn democracy.
And yeah.
Interesting.
So we've heard both points.
Having seen the rhetoric of those who are angry with the decision out there, I think I know which argument won here, but hold on.
Let's do this.
Let's do this.
We have a poll function for a reason, people.
We have a poll function.
We'll call it the poll vault.
We're going to enter the poll vault.
Okay.
Who won the exchange?
Oh, wait a minute.
I've got to do this here.
Let's just go.
Hold on.
Give me a second.
I don't often do this.
Who won the exchange?
AOC, Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Add option.
Just show results.
You know, that'll confuse people.
I won't do an acronym.
Just show results.
Let's see.
Who won the exchange?
AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or MTG, Marjorie Taylor Greene?
Let's see.
Okay, remove that.
But don't worry, by the way, people.
It gets even worse than AOC's calling it illegitimate.
Maxine Waters, man, if there's anybody out there, get in their faces and harass them.
That's fine.
March peacefully and fight for your country.
That's insurrection.
And by the way, I'm not even saying that they're both equivalent.
I think they are not equivalent and they should be treated differently.
And I think that nothing in what Trump said in his speech could reasonably could reasonably have been perceived as a dog whistle call to insurrection, except in those who already wanted to hear it.
Thank you.
Ray Epps might be looking your way here.
I don't think there was anything in his speech that was a call to violence.
Getting their faces and harass them is literally a call to violence.
So I'm not treating them as equal.
They're not equal.
I think one is much worse than the other.
And yet the one that I think is less worse than the other is getting treated exponentially worse than the one which is actually bad.
But I don't expect political consistency from anyone anymore once the ideological blinders have been put on and adjusted.
Okay, we're going to do some super chats, then we're going to get into Maxine Waters' take, because it's...
So what happens to women that go and get it done in a state that lets them, or even here in Canada?
Winston!
Stop that.
Dog scratching himself.
Can they be persecuted?
No.
Just me, Nicole.
I believe the right answer to that would be...
I don't even think there could be a federal...
There could be a federal law that could prohibit going to another country to do something that's illegal.
But one state cannot prohibit someone from traveling to another state to do something which is lawful in another state.
Let's remove that one.
And then let's go to...
How many of these did I keep talking about the law?
Law is not exclusive to men or women.
Thank you.
I can't think of a discussion that is exclusive to any race, religion, creed, gender, whatever.
There isn't.
The trans sport debate is not limited to anybody.
These are human issues.
Someone's perspective may be shaped and influenced by their own personal ethnicity, their own personal life choices, but when it comes to...
Philosophical, legal discussions.
Nobody has a step up or a step down because of their gender, race, creed, ethnicity, or whatever.
They might have more or less experience, but everyone is entitled to have a meaningful discussion about it.
This is not a biology topic, is an ethics one.
The worth of a human life should not be defined by whether someone wants you to exist or not.
Life has value in itself.
It's not extrinsic.
No es nada.
That means no is nothing.
I don't even know what that means.
I think that's what it means.
Can the late-term advocates even imagine...
Okay, I got this one before.
If human life begins at conception under the law, can a pregnant woman drive in the high-occupancy vehicle lane?
There are questions.
These are the questions of the day.
I think at one point, did I even get pulled over?
I had a discussion as to whether or not having a minor in the car allowed me to drive in the carpool lane.
I didn't get a ticket.
But who did I have that discussion with?
We were two in the car.
It was me and the eight-month-old in the back, and I was driving in the carpool lane.
Viva the shimmy-shimmy.
I don't know what that means.
Okay, what is this?
Brain activity as a basis is shaky reasoning, too.
Baby drowned, was brought back, and given treatment.
That recovered it.
I'm going to look that up.
But the other thing is, yeah.
Agreed.
Shelly Babes, thank you very much.
William Murphy.
That is a beautiful avatar.
You look a little bit like my brother-in-law in that, if that's you.
Why would any man sacrifice his life for a society that allows killing of their own children?
When they collapse Western society, women that once had freedom and equality, no society after the fall of the West will ever fall off for the same mistakes again.
I am not quite as black-pilled as you, William Murphy.
And I don't...
First of all, I don't view this as the gender breakdown that you have here either.
The reality of William Murphy, I think if you speak with enough women even on the subject, I think women as much as men are not on the extremes that the vocal minority who occupied a disproportionate amount of the political discourse, social media space, Would have you believe exist?
I think, by and large, the majority of men and women, when asked this question properly, would be ideologically aligned.
I think the debate has been hijacked by the most vocal group on one side.
And yeah, I mean, that's it.
So I don't agree with the substance of the chat.
I thank you extremely a lot for the super chat and the support.
But that's too black-pilled for me.
And I ultimately think, I do think that what is being passed off in the political rhetoric as a woman's choice issue, if you phrased the question properly and asked it to women and men alike, I think 90% of people would be aligned within a certain framework of agreement, the meaningful framework of agreement.
Okay, I got to that one.
Meanwhile, inflation, recession, food insecurity, supply chain disruptions, looming WW3, etc., etc., etc.
continue to get worse.
The timing of this decision seems suspect to me.
By the way, excellent show with Barnes, Eric, and Mark last night.
Etienne de Gaulle, thank you very much.
Last night, it was Freeform Friday on, was it America's Untold Stories or Laidback News?
I think it was America's Untold Stories.
Barnes, Mark Robert, me, and Hundley.
I learned a new word yesterday, people.
You might have to go watch the stream to find out.
What the word is.
It's been around for over 3,000 years.
Legal in the U.S. till the 1850s.
Then AMA pushed to make it illegal.
Interesting history.
A lot of things have been around since there was no violation legal.
Not sure what that is about.
Mike Bruno, but thank you.
I would rather have it banned in all 50 states than have it legal at nine months.
Fortunately, that's not...
That is where some people believe the debate is.
It's an all or nothing issue.
The states are going to enact laws.
I don't think there's going to be any state that's going to say, from conception, illegal.
And I don't think there's going to be any state, but I might be wrong on this one, that says legal until the end of the third trimester.
Hearing what Norfolk said about that, shocking.
Hearing what other people have actually said about it, shocking.
So on one end of the spectrum, I don't think we'll ever see.
I would not be...
I would not be...
I would be shocked and appalled, but I would not be flabbergastedly surprised if some states actually at some point opted for the, whenever you want, just find a doctor who's comfortable doing it, and it will not be a crime.
Even though in the same states, if an individual punches a pregnant woman in the belly and causes a miscarriage, they could be charged with murder.
There is when you have legal inconsistencies as to how you deal with what is supposed to be an independent human life protected under the law.
Okay.
Okay, let me see.
I think I got all these.
I'm going to scroll back down to the bottom.
If I missed any Super Chats, my apologies.
Who would have thought you'd have...
How many people are we on Rumble?
5,500 people on YouTube.
And how many do we have on the Rumbles?
Almost 2,000.
That is almost 7,500 people on what is a beautiful, sunny Saturday afternoon in Montreal listening.
And to law talk, having a meaningful...
It's an exchange, but admittedly, I have the mic, so I can only exchange through comments.
Having a legal discussion on this issue.
The world and technology is beautiful when it works properly.
And I think...
Let's see this here.
Bruno, just because I saw this.
This is commensurate reasoning.
The big A is ethically right, just as giving a person drugs to ease pain, but will end their life.
Mike Bruno, that is a bad analogy because it's as ethically right as giving someone drugs to ease the pain to end their life.
The issue is whether or not this only relates to one person and their own life.
That's the issue.
So we can't bypass the issue.
The whole issue is that it's not, the argument is that it's not only their life.
And the question is, as of what time, as of what point in a pregnancy, is it no longer, legally speaking, only one person's life?
That's the issue.
Yeah, Sarah Brown.
I mean, Barnes has touched on this.
Viva.
Many states.
California, Maryland, Colorado.
Anytime.
Up to or after.
I know Barnes talked about it.
I actually can't fathom the idea that there...
I think he mentioned in California law or some draft they wanted to have until 30 days after.
I can't fathom that.
I wouldn't call that ethical.
Okay.
AOC.
We've done AOC.
We've heard her retort.
Oh, let's go see in the chat.
Who won the exchange?
Hey, look at this.
It's a fair enough split, I think.
Don't end poll.
I want to see the poll.
No, it's not a fair enough split.
It's 4% say AOC, 63% say MTG, and 33% don't want to opine.
They just say, just show results.
Oh, okay, okay, okay.
So hold on a second.
Let's just get to some more of this.
So AOC says...
Illegitimate.
Illegitimate!
And what do you do when something's illegitimate?
You defy it.
Okay, hold on.
We can't hear it.
Come on.
Come on, man!
You see this turn out here?
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Women are going to control their bodies no matter how they try and stop us.
To hell with the Supreme Court.
We will defy them.
Women will be in control of their bodies.
To hell with the Supreme Court.
We will defy them.
To hell with the fill-in-the-blank.
We will defy the schmortification.
Can you just imagine this?
To hell with the judicial branch.
We're going to do what we want.
And by the way, challenging the certification is a process provided for, legally and constitutionally.
So what they did, although it's being criminalized and demonized, was still within the framework of the law.
Defying the judicial branch, to hell with them, we will defy them, is quite literally promoting unlawful activity.
Unless you meant it peacefully.
I mean, first of all...
What does race have to do with this?
They got another thought coming.
Black women will be out in droves.
I'm sorry, is that not...
That is a call to black women to either be out or come out in droves to defy the Supreme Court order.
What does race have to do?
I mean, I know of the racial disparities in...
Among certain issues that relates to this topic, people don't...
I mean...
We will be out by the thousands.
We will be out by the millions.
We're going to make sure we fight for the right to control our own lives.
Thank you.
Hello, everybody!
I just love that.
Can you believe...
Did I back up on this one?
Is that...
Oh yeah, defy the Supreme Court.
Defy a ruling from the highest level of the judicial branch.
That seems even worse than challenging certification in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution itself.
What was I about to say about Maxine Waters?
I forget now.
Darn it, I forget what I was going to say.
Calling for people to come out by the thousands, by the millions.
You ain't seen nothing yet.
I mean, I can only continually go back to compare it to Donald Trump's speech, where we're going to peacefully and patriotically protest.
You've got to fight like hell for your country.
Peacefully, patriotically.
Go home in peace.
Insurrection.
Impeachment.
500 days of investigation.
Four days of January 6th hearing.
To hell with the Supreme Court.
We're going to defy them.
Women, black women, are going to be out in the millions to defy this.
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Totally fine.
And if you think there's a double standard, you know.
Mad Max, why doesn't you both need to be locked up?
Okay.
I feel like a cranky old man right now.
So that's Maxine Waters exercising judicial political consistency.
Superchats.
I'm going to go back and forth here.
Mary Rose, in the House, legal issue was that the fetus was human but not a person per the Constitution.
If it was, the fetus would have rights.
That's the legal question.
Because even what it means to be human to some extent is a legal construct.
So it's going to be interesting when AI becomes sentient.
Haunt us farmer.
I haven't seen you in a while.
First of all, how are you doing?
We need a national law that draws a line in pregnancy after which the fetus is a person.
We need a 21st century Bill of Rights.
Ninth Amendment is not enough.
Yeah, well, first of all, interesting.
I mean, interesting framing.
So from a constitutional perspective, when a fetus would have constitutional rights, as opposed to punting it back to the state level, to establish laws, excuse me, choking on my own tongue, to establish laws as relates to the procedure.
It would be a solution.
Women can't get a hysterectomy in California today if she is under 30. No one's saying my body, my choice about that.
I don't know about that, Shelly Babes.
Women can't get a hysterectomy in California if under 30. It's interesting.
If it's true, why not?
We were talking about this yesterday with the Jordan Peterson.
Was it yesterday or the day before?
The day before.
With the Jordan Peterson page tweet.
An adult who wants to do things to their own body if they're of...
Sound minds should be able to do what they want to their own body, you know, I guess, within certain limits.
I only think about the woman who blinded herself because she identified as seeing impaired.
Kate Dage, I am an Aussie, and I'm so confused as to why some are really distressed over this decision.
Isn't it just up to the States now, which is what we have here in Australia?
I apologize if I have that wrong.
Kate!
You do not have that wrong.
You actually have that 100% right.
Everybody's saying that the woman has been oppressed now by the government, that the government is now saying what a woman can and cannot do with her body.
What they're saying is that it was not a constitutionally protected procedure.
It's a state issue.
States will establish their own laws subject to the judicial process, judicial review within those states, and that's how it's going to be dealt with.
The debate has been so falsified and so bastardized that good-meaning, intelligent people are confused by the rhetoric because by the looks of it, you'd think that as of now, women just can't.
It is true that as of now, women who are pregnant beyond a certain point in states that will now have laws that prohibit the procedure after a certain point in that state might have issues.
They'll have to, you know, if they want to.
There was an article that actually came out and said, This woman found out that she was pregnant with twins.
It was like two hours before or after a state law came into effect, restricting the procedure after a certain point that she was at, and she was forced to have the twins.
It was a long article, and I didn't read it thoroughly enough, but the way they described it is that this woman, she had the twins.
Beautiful babies.
We'll see if in 10 years she agrees with the spin of that article, which was ostensibly an attempt to show how inhumane it was to compel this woman, to deprive her of the ability to terminate that twin pregnancy.
The babies were beautiful.
Re pardon.
Dems claim MTG asked for a pardon.
Re January 6th, MGT says gossip and lies did not ask for a pardon.
You know what?
That's funny.
Now I understand that reference.
And I got to tell you something.
Marjorie Taylor Greene does not strike me as being a person who would ask for a presidential pardon if she was being wrongly persecuted for events of January 6th.
So I'm going to go out on a limb and say I would believe that Marjorie Taylor Greene would not ask for a pardon.
I think she would love to be politically persecuted for those events.
To show the absolute insanity of that January 6th committee investigation hearing nonsense.
Please dispute this stupidity.
Abortion seekers be put on a list, and if they try to get an abortion in another state, they will be arrested for murder.
Oh, you know what's funny?
I was going to pull that tweet up.
People were saying, should I delete this cycle tracker app?
Because if the government knows that I'm pregnant and then finds out that I'm not, they might go after me.
I said that it's ironic that the people who accuse others of promoting conspiracy theories or buying into conspiracy theories or being conspiracy theorists themselves, for whatever the reason, tend to be the ones who buy into conspiracy theories.
And the idea now people are running around saying, should I delete this app from my phone that's a cycle tracker?
Because if I...
Entered into this app where the app knows that I'm pregnant and then knows that I didn't deliver, the government can track me.
Now, first of all, I'm suspicious of all apps.
When Canada's government came up with its mental health app, I was like, dude, you download that.
You are telling the government that you consider yourself to be in such a stage of mental distress that you needed to download the app.
The government knows that now.
And the government...
Might use that against you at some point in time.
Yeah, the idea that the government would violate privacy laws for political purposes is real.
The idea that the government would go after someone who goes to another state to do this, I think it is legally untenable for the reasons that we've discussed earlier and the reasons that Barnes has explained to me and other smart lawyers.
First of all, you cannot regulate interstate You cannot regulate interstate activity to that extent.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I don't know if you could have the...
Flagging that as a question to talk about with Barnes tomorrow, in greater detail.
At least Waters did not tell homeless people to go home in this clip.
That is progress of a sort.
As a woman, I control my body by not getting pregnant, not by destroying a growing person.
That was the, you know, pregnancy is not contagious.
Yeah, by and large, it's avoidable.
By and large, which is why I think one could justify legislative exceptions under certain circumstances.
Wife says, unfounded anger in ill-informed individuals equals irrational interpretation of the law.
David, that's a good expression.
Okay, we got more bad takes, people.
What time is it?
Oh, my goodness.
Can you believe it?
It's going to be two hours of bad takes.
Two hours of bad takes, which allow us to become...
Better, more knowledgeable individuals.
Just going to star some chats and come back to them after the next round of bad takes.
Oh, yeah.
Okay, let's see this here.
Now that the person mentions going across a state line to commit what would be a law in one state in another state where it's not a crime, I don't see that happening.
But then again, two years ago, I did not see Roe v.
Wade being overturned by the courts.
But I was.
A noob two years ago.
I was an absolute...
I didn't even know the levels of my own ignorance.
Well, let's just say four years ago, not two years ago.
Okay.
Start a bunch of Super Chats and I'll try to get back to them.
I know I missed one.
I missed this one.
Rights of the unborn cannot supersede those of the mother whose rights are being infringed.
This is Bass Studios.
By the unborn.
Let me start this again.
Rights of the unborn cannot supersede those of the mother whose rights are being infringed.
Her person invaded by the unborn.
If she refuses invasion, should be done at earliest discovery of invasion.
Here's an issue, bastard, is that I'm arguing for the sake of it and not necessarily what I personally believe.
Some people are going to say it's not an invasion if she welcomed them in in the first place.
Unless you're talking about assault of a certain nature, unwanted or accidental consequences of a deliberate request to enter, I don't think most people would call that an invasion.
I think most people or a lot of people would say, you live with the consequences.
Others might say, okay, you live with the consequences after a certain point, but there has to be a window.
There has to be a window to allow people who've made a mistake or who've discovered an accident.
To make a decision at the earliest stage possible without it potentially legally infringing on the rights of another living entity considered human under the law.
But if what you're talking about here is accidental pregnancies from deliberate sex, I think most people would say that's not an invasion.
You welcome them in.
Okay.
With that said, you welcome them in.
It's like, yeah, I let the guests in my house, but I didn't know they were going to leave such a mess.
Well, you clean up the mess and you learn, you live with, in a sense, that's always the risk.
You can't say, oh my goodness, how could they have let, how could that have happened?
How could they have made a mess in the kitchen when I invite a guest?
That's a foreseeable consequence.
The only question is, even if you know what happens, morning after pill within 72 hours, or, you know, establish a morally, legally acceptable limit after which...
One must just live with the consequences of one's own actions.
And after pregnancy, plenty of people waiting in line for beautiful, healthy babies.
Okay.
AOC, we covered this one, so get this off the back burner.
What else do we've got?
Hold on.
What else do we have?
Not settings, man.
Not settings.
We're going to go with share, screen, Chrome tab.
Oh, yeah.
This is beautiful.
This is beautiful.
This was five seconds of Googling.
Illegitimate decision.
We will defy it.
To hell with the Supreme Court.
We will defy them.
They are extremists.
Remember when Trump criticized justices while, you know, the judge who was, you know, of Mexican descent and therefore biased.
I think it's a dumb thing to say.
Period.
Couldn't adjudicate independently, objectively in his case because of animosity stemming from heritage.
I think it's a dumb thing to say.
I still think criticizing the judiciary, expressing your disagreement respectfully in a way that does not incite people to go picket on their front lawns and worse, is fine.
But remember when Trump criticized judges, justices in real time?
And I just pulled out...
There were too many.
Washington Post.
Critics fear Trump's attacks are doing lasting damage to the justice system.
New York Times.
Trump's war on the justice system threatens to erode trust in the law.
Newsweek.
Federal judge says Donald Trump's attacks undermine faith in the rule of law itself.
What's the last one there?
Damn it, why didn't I include the link so I can...
Anyway.
"Trump's attacks on courts undermine judicial independence." Remember when they cried that Trump's criticism of judges was undermining the justice system itself?
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
It's either always justifiable regardless of politics or it's never justifiable regardless of politics within established bounds that apply equally.
Regardless of politics.
To hell with the Supreme Court.
What could undermine respect for the rule of law more than saying to hell with the highest level of the branch that interprets the law?
To hell with them.
That's fine.
Defy their illegitimate order.
That's fine.
But when Trump does it, it undermines...
It's just...
There's no words for it.
There's no words for the level of hypocrisy where...
It's not accidental.
It's not involuntary.
It's deliberate.
It's overt.
It's in your face.
It is you shut up.
And if ever you say what I've said, when you said it, it's a crime.
And when I said it, it's a right.
And it's endless.
I just spat all over my computer.
Yep, sorry.
Right there.
Sorry.
It's because my tongue is too big for my mouth, I think.
Or, you know, whatever.
Okay.
I should have drawn attention to the fact that I spat.
Nobody probably knew it.
Now it's going to be a soundbite somewhere.
Okay.
It doesn't end there, people.
It doesn't end there.
It doesn't end there.
Let's just go.
There were more.
There were more.
How many more tabs do I have?
I got one, two, three.
I got four more tabs.
No, I don't.
We already got two of them.
Oh, my God.
We might be saving.
If it's not the best.
If it's not the best, it's close to.
And if it's not the last, it's definitely closer to the last than to the first.
Oh, my.
You hear these things and you say, wow.
This is the post-millennial posting, Eric Adams, the New York City mayor.
All of a sudden, they found definitions to babies, men, women.
So clear cut that they can tell people to shut up based on their sex or gender.
Unequivocally.
I was 15. And I just got home from being arrested.
And Linda came to me.
And she said, Eric, I'm pregnant.
And look at your life.
And it was my desire automatically just to say, Linda, keep the baby.
She said, Eric, you're arrested.
Not going to school.
What future is this baby going to have?
Adoption into a family that could and would consider it the greatest blessing of their life to be given this opportunity?
And this goes back to the philosophical question from the beginning.
This justification here is, I don't care if it's a human life, we can actually bypass that discussion.
This is ending a life for what is being here described as nothing other than convenience.
First of all, from a life success story, I had no idea that Eric Adams was arrested at 15. I don't know for what.
I'm going to go look it up now.
I didn't know that he had this history.
In as much as I loathe his politics and his policy, it is good to see success stories of people.
I say, but for the grace of God, I could have been arrested.
Anywhere between the age of 13 and 16, I can think of at least a half dozen legit reasons that I could have gotten arrested had I gotten caught, had I come across authority that was more malicious, more inclined to ruin someone's life, teachers who might have been more inclined to make examples.
But for the grace of God, any one of us, when we were young and dumb, Could have done something that would have permanently altered the future trajectory of our life.
And some made it through this.
So good for Eric Adams.
Sincerely.
But when talking about the philosophical principle, I'm 15, I just got arrested.
Look at your life.
What kind of life is this baby going to have?
That's presumptuous.
First of all, Eric became mayor.
Is it to say...
Okay, sorry.
And look at your life.
And it was my desire automatically just to say, Linda, keep the baby.
She said, Eric, you're arrested, not going to school.
What future is this baby going to have?
And she made the decision that was smart for both of us.
She made the right call because she was in power.
She was in control.
And some years later, when Jordan's mom was pregnant, She made the determination she wanted to have her son.
She made the determination because she was empowered to make that determination.
I'm not following the actual logic here.
She made the determination to have the son, the baby.
It's amazing.
The words that they're using, which would ordinarily end the legal debates.
Don't kid ourselves.
This is the erosion and destruction of the ability of women to have and be empowered.
Five men.
Doesn't that get you cancelled these days?
I mean, aren't they calling it birthing persons because men can conceive?
Or deliver through the...
I mean, it's just...
It's not that...
This is not to be glib, facetious, or like, you know, make the joke.
And there's no but to that.
There is literally no logic, and above all else, no respect.
Because these individuals, two weeks ago, in order to placate, or in order to appeal...
To the politics of a certain demographic say, I can't define what a woman is.
I'm not a biologist.
Now you've made the demographic that you were appealing to two weeks ago happy.
And then two weeks later, they don't exist anymore.
Because there's another demographic that you're trying to make happy.
There is no consistency, and there can therefore be no logic, no morality, and no...
I guess the one thing you can predict, it is predictive in a sense, they're going to be hypocrites.
Made a determination to have and be empowered.
Five men who could never conceive made a determination on what will happen to the women of this city and country.
No, they didn't, Adams.
And if you, I guess you're the mayor, you're not the governor.
If New York State wants to allow and empower women, do it.
This is factually incorrect.
A moral double standard.
It's a political double standard, throwing under the bus and ignoring, denying the existence of the very people they were allegedly fighting for, I would say exploiting two weeks ago, and misrepresenting everything in law, fact, and politics.
No, they didn't do anything.
They just said, hey, you want to do it?
You do it at the state level.
Every decision not to have a child comes with a story.
Every decision not to have a child comes with a story.
Every decision not to have the child, that typically starts at a different stage.
Every decision not to carry a pregnancy to term has a story, and there's no doubt about that.
Other than appealing to the emotions, it doesn't address the material misrepresentation of the substance of the decision and where it's at.
But about five men who could never conceive.
Shut up, sit down.
All of a sudden, we now know what a man is.
And by the way, to all of those striving for...
To all those who we've included now, menstruating persons, birthing persons.
Not now, not on this.
Shut up and sit down.
As if, even if we agree on the terms that men can't get pregnant and cannot conceive, that they then somehow...
Have less of a role to play in the legal interpretation of when a life is a life that should be protected under the law?
What's the endgame of what Eric Adams is suggesting here?
That we're going to have tribunals consisting only of women?
Of women who can conceive?
So excluding trans women?
So just ignore that incongruity of debates.
You're going to have tribunals of only women.
Who could decide?
Oh, and by the way, I'm sorry.
Was there not a woman on the Supreme Court?
Were there not two women who agreed with this decision?
They don't matter.
Those are sex traitors of women.
Oh, so that's another outrageously bad take for a number of reasons.
They're just sucking and blowing depending on the politics of the day.
Throwing allies under the bus in order to placate the allies of the day.
One woman, Amy Coney Barrett, I guess.
And a black man.
He doesn't get, it doesn't matter.
Just as Clarence Thomas's life experience as a black man is irrelevant to Eric Adams' experience.
In life as a black man.
Amy Coney Barrett's experience in life as a woman is irrelevant compared to the life experience of Sotomayor and who's the other justice?
I forget the name now.
Five men voted.
They had no jurisdiction over what women do with their bodies.
Feels liberal to me.
That's a good...
That is a...
A decent interpretation, a decent political spin if one wants a headline spin that's easy to, you know, that's good to promote.
Problem with it is my state of Missouri became the first that banned all of it yesterday.
I can tell you this, I don't agree with that.
I don't agree with that.
Well, all that banned it as of, I don't agree with that.
So that would be a policy issue where you'd want to petition your legislature and have the debate.
And then at some point, ultimately, yeah, not everybody can move.
It's just a question of whether or not it's as easy for everyone.
I'm living in a province right now where they're going to restrict even further my language rights.
I don't agree with it.
I don't disagree with it as much as most because it's a totally separate debate, but it's a French province.
I respect that.
I appreciate that.
I live here.
But when the state, when a province enacts legislation that violates what you consider to be core fundamental rights without exceptions to what you think ought to be legitimate exceptions, you fight it.
And then if you can't fight it and you can't live with it, you leave it.
And you go, I mean, I don't know what to embarrass myself to say what the neighboring state is.
I won't embarrass myself.
Karen Yan, thank you very much.
Viva!
You are familiar with Kristen Ann Hull from Liberty Fist Society.
She does a beautiful job explaining pitfalls of amending U.S. Constitution.
Not familiar with her.
Screenshot, and I'll have a look.
States being politically relevant disrupts a de facto federal dictatorship being put in place.
Real reason for the outrage, less federal power.
States being politically relevant disrupts a de facto federal dictatorship.
I see what you're saying.
Okay.
Yeah.
Washington wants more control.
Passing this down to state levels is doing what the Constitution, in theory, wants it to do to some extent.
SCOTUS has a tool called Judicial Review to utilize if legislative or executive act in violation of the Constitution.
Bordeaux drinks Bordeaux.
Oh, that's Bordeaux drinks Bordeaux.
Talk to Barnes about 14A protecting the unborn.
Screenshotted.
Will do.
It's funny how the loony lefties suddenly know what a woman is now that Roe v.
Wade was overturned.
Hypocritical much.
Ha ha.
Who is it?
The Hawaiian governor?
Shut up and sit down.
Men, shut up and sit down.
I just, I wonder, what was her name?
What was her name?
I'll get this.
I wonder what would happen if a politician told a trans woman, a biological male transitioning to female, shut up and sit down.
You don't get a say in it.
I mean, geez Louise, imagine if they did that in sports.
But now they get to do it because it's politically convenient for their political exploitation of the day.
Due process.
▲
Export Selection