Latest / Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News / The honest moral question behind abortion

Transcript

The honest moral question behind abortion · Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News

• 0:00
  In a world full of lies and deception,
• 0:03
  it takes courage to speak the truth.
• 0:05
  In a nation hell bent on its own
• 0:07
  destruction, it takes honor to seek a return
• 0:09
  to glory.
• 0:12
  Join us in cutting through the lies.
• 0:14
  Join us in cutting through the propaganda.
• 0:18
  Join us as we seek the truth on
• 0:20
  cutting through the fog from the America Out
• 0:22
  Loud Network.
• 0:24
  And here's your host, Wallace Garno.
• 0:28
  Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Cutting Through the
• 0:31
  Chaos on the America Out Loud Network, where
• 0:33
  we cut through the lies and the propaganda
• 0:35
  to bring you the out loud truth.
• 0:38
  I'm your host, Wallace Garneau, and uh, you
• 0:41
  know, I've been writing now for the America
• 0:43
  Out Loud Network for six years.
• 0:46
  Not quite at my six-year anniversary yet, but
• 0:47
  it's coming up.
• 0:48
  So I've been writing for America Out Loud
• 0:50
  almost for six years now.
• 0:52
  I don't remember what the first article I
• 0:54
  wrote for America out loud was.
• 0:56
  I've been writing, obviously, before I I came
• 0:58
  onto America Out Loud.
• 1:00
  I wrote for Global Liberty Media, which is
• 1:01
  no longer around.
• 1:03
  Uh I have my personal blog, the Daily
• 1:04
  Libertarian.
• 1:06
  I had earlier blogs, one was called the
• 1:07
  Enemy Combatant.
• 1:09
  Uh that would have been oh, right after
• 1:11
  nine, right?
• 1:12
  That would have been right after uh right
• 1:14
  after 9-11, and then maybe within uh within
• 1:16
  six months of 9-11.
• 1:18
  And then I had one before that when
• 1:20
  I was still in the army called the
• 1:22
  Dog House.
• 1:24
  So I've been doing this off and on
• 1:26
  going back into uh into the into the
• 1:27
  mid-late 90s.
• 1:29
  Uh I don't remember the first article I
• 1:31
  wrote for America Out Loud.
• 1:33
  I do remember the first article I wrote
• 1:34
  for the Dog House.
• 1:35
  It was on Social Security.
• 1:37
  And I remember the first article that I
• 1:39
  ever wrote, any opinion piece at all, it
• 1:41
  was for my high school newspaper, Calamazoo Central
• 1:43
  High School, the Giants.
• 1:46
  One of the students was uh a girl
• 1:47
  named Tony.
• 1:48
  She was uh a mixed race group in
• 1:50
  South Africa, she had uh mixed race parents,
• 1:52
  one was black, one was white.
• 1:53
  You could imagine what that would have been
• 1:56
  like for her being born in South Africa
• 1:58
  to mixed race parents under apartheid.
• 2:01
  And of course, that's what she was writing
• 2:02
  about.
• 2:03
  She was writing an article against apartheid.
• 2:05
  Our teacher, I think his name was Mr.
• 2:07
  Michelosi.
• 2:09
  He had a policy that every single opinion
• 2:11
  piece needed to have a counter-opinion.
• 2:14
  And uh, well, this is in high school
• 2:17
  in Kalamazoo in 1986, 87, whatever it was.
• 2:20
  I was the only conservative in the class.
• 2:22
  So my job for the newspaper uh basically
• 2:25
  consisted of writing every single counteropinion, and uh
• 2:28
  in this case, the first article I ever
• 2:31
  wrote was a counter-opinion on apartheid.
• 2:35
  Well, what do you do?
• 2:36
  I I was of course against apartheid, so
• 2:38
  what am I gonna write?
• 2:40
  Well, the best I could come up with
• 2:42
  writing a highly nuanced article against America being
• 2:45
  the spearhead for sanctions on the grounds that
• 2:47
  Jimmy Carter had applied them like cotton candy,
• 2:49
  and that other nations no longer really respected
• 2:52
  our use of them.
• 2:54
  I told them sanctions would hurt, but first
• 2:56
  and foremost, they'd hurt the very black South
• 2:58
  Africans we were trying to protect.
• 3:01
  So my article, it was against apartheid, but
• 3:03
  it was also against America being the driving
• 3:05
  force behind sanctions.
• 3:07
  Basically, I said we should be an early
• 3:09
  follower of sanctions.
• 3:11
  We should not be the first country that
• 3:12
  applies, and we should let a few other
• 3:13
  countries do it, and then we could jump
• 3:15
  on board.
• 3:16
  But if we do it first, we have
• 3:18
  no credibility in the world of sanctions, at
• 3:20
  least we did not at that time.
• 3:22
  Other countries would continue to trade with South
• 3:24
  Africa, and it would be und counterproductive, and
• 3:26
  uh it would hurt the people we're trying
• 3:28
  to help.
• 3:30
  That was what the article is about.
• 3:32
  Same issue of the uh of the paper,
• 3:34
  somebody had written an article, a very, very
• 3:36
  pro-choice article.
• 3:38
  So I was also, of course, tasked to
• 3:40
  write an article on abortion.
• 3:43
  Now, what I really latched on to in
• 3:45
  high school was a poll that had come
• 3:48
  out uh somewhat recently at that time, the
• 3:50
  poll had showed that 80% of Americans supported
• 3:53
  a ban on abortions in the third trimester,
• 3:55
  and 80% of Americans opposed a ban in
• 3:58
  the first trimester.
• 4:01
  Not the same 80%.
• 4:02
  It's not like 80% wanted both.
• 4:04
  No, the 80% of Americans wanted the first
• 4:07
  trimester to be legal, some of which wanted
• 4:10
  the third trimester to be legal too, and
• 4:13
  then 80% wanted the third trimester illegal.
• 4:17
  Some of them wanted the first trimester illegal
• 4:18
  too.
• 4:20
  So it was 80% two separate questions.
• 4:22
  But 80% of Americans wanted a ban on
• 4:25
  abortions in the third trimester, and 80% of
• 4:28
  Americans opposed a ban in the first trimester.
• 4:31
  So basically what I wrote in the article
• 4:33
  is that we should have a constitutional amendment
• 4:35
  banning abortions in the third trimester, but it
• 4:37
  should also make them a true constitutional right
• 4:39
  in the first trimester, and then we could
• 4:41
  leave the second trimester up to the states.
• 4:44
  Make 80% and 80% of the public happy
• 4:46
  and meet somewhere in the middle.
• 4:48
  That was basically what I was saying.
• 4:49
  I also argued that Roe vs.
• 4:51
  Wade was one of the worst decisions in
• 4:54
  Supreme Court history, conjuring up right to privacy
• 4:56
  out of thin air, and then utilizing that
• 4:59
  right to privacy to try to create a
• 5:02
  right on abortions as if abortion relates somehow
• 5:04
  to privacy.
• 5:07
  So you create one mythical right, and then
• 5:09
  you create a second mythical right on top
• 5:10
  of it.
• 5:12
  I also said that short of a constitutional
• 5:14
  amendment, the question of abortion should be left
• 5:16
  up to the states.
• 5:17
  It's not really any business of the federal
• 5:19
  government.
• 5:21
  Interestingly, that's kind of where we are today.
• 5:23
  However, I don't think that if we looked
• 5:26
  at polls today, I don't think that they
• 5:28
  would still show the same level of support,
• 5:30
  either for allowing abortions in the first trimester,
• 5:32
  nor for banning them in the third.
• 5:34
  I think too many people now view abortion
• 5:36
  rights as synchrosanct.
• 5:38
  And uh the science shows that fetuses develop
• 5:41
  a lot faster than previously thought in terms
• 5:43
  of when they can and uh cannot feel
• 5:45
  pain.
• 5:48
  They they can they they apparently can feel
• 5:50
  pain earlier than we originally thought.
• 5:52
  So the first trimester, by the end of
• 5:55
  that, it's it's more developed than I think
• 5:57
  in the in the 80s people understood.
• 6:00
  Uh the other thing about abortion, I didn't
• 6:02
  touch on it in the article, but it
• 6:05
  has affected my beliefs in the ensuing years.
• 6:07
  I don't know that Roe vs.
• 6:10
  Wade would ever have been tolerated.
• 6:12
  I don't know that it would ever have
• 6:14
  been tolerated in the United States if somebody
• 6:17
  had told us that by the time we
• 6:19
  get to the year 2000, the rates of
• 6:21
  abortions would be so high that if abortion
• 6:23
  were counted as a cause of death, which
• 6:26
  it's not, the CDC does not consider abortion
• 6:28
  a cause of death, but if it was
• 6:30
  counted as a cause of death, it would
• 6:32
  be the number one cause of death in
• 6:35
  the United States.
• 6:37
  It has been the number one cause of
• 6:39
  death in the United States, going back before
• 6:41
  2000, but for the past 26 years at
• 6:43
  least, it has been the number one cause
• 6:45
  of death in the United States, were it
• 6:47
  counted as a cause of death.
• 6:50
  CDC does not count it, so they see
• 6:52
  heart disease is the largest cause of death.
• 6:54
  But more babies are aborted every year than
• 6:57
  people die of heart disease.
• 7:00
  As painstaking as that is.
• 7:00
  As painstaking as that is.
• 7:01
  And I want you to think about that
• 7:01
  And I want you to think about that
• 7:02
  for just a minute.
• 7:02
  for just a minute.
• 7:04
  More babies are aborted in the United States
• 7:04
  More babies are aborted in the United States
• 7:06
  every year than people die of heart disease
• 7:06
  every year than people die of heart disease
• 7:09
  with heart disease as the number one cause
• 7:09
  with heart disease as the number one cause
• 7:12
  of death in the United States.
• 7:12
  of death in the United States.
• 7:15
  That's how many babies are being aborted every
• 7:15
  That's how many babies are being aborted every
• 7:17
  year.
• 7:17
  year.
• 7:20
  Well, that really affected me because I just
• 7:20
  Well, that really affected me because I just
• 7:22
  I I can't believe that any country would
• 7:22
  I can't believe that any country would be
• 7:24
  be so barbaric that that that could possibly
• 7:24
  so barbaric that that could possibly be the
• 7:27
  be the case.
• 7:27
  case.
• 7:29
  And yet.
• 7:29
  And yet here we are.
• 7:31
  It is the case.
• 7:32
  If we could go back in time and
• 7:34
  say, hey, America, if this happens, understand that
• 7:36
  abortion will be the number one cause of
• 7:38
  death in the country.
• 7:40
  I don't think it would have happened, but
• 7:42
  we didn't know that, and that happens.
• 7:45
  So now we have to, I think, look
• 7:46
  at it differently.
• 7:48
  And uh, well, yeah, let me frame the
• 7:51
  abortion question what I think is the correct
• 7:53
  way to frame it today.
• 7:56
  What I want to do is I want
• 7:59
  to equate abortion to another subject where someone
• 8:02
  is sometimes allowed to kill someone else, and
• 8:05
  that is self-defense.
• 8:08
  And what I want to do here is
• 8:10
  I want to properly introduce a term.
• 8:12
  You've all heard this term before.
• 8:13
  This is not a new term for you,
• 8:15
  but I don't know that you've ever heard
• 8:16
  it in this context.
• 8:18
  The definition for, or the word we use
• 8:20
  when a human being kills another human being.
• 8:23
  The word that that is the definition of
• 8:25
  that word is homicide.
• 8:27
  Now, when we think of homicide, we think
• 8:29
  of the homicide department in the police office.
• 8:32
  And so we think homicide, ooh, murder, crime.
• 8:34
  But homicide is not always a crime.
• 8:37
  Uh, there was uh somebody, I don't remember
• 8:39
  who it was, but somebody was uh somebody
• 8:41
  mentioned that there was a celebrity recently that
• 8:44
  it came out that she had when she
• 8:46
  was a little girl run over her sister
• 8:48
  with a golf cart and killed her sister.
• 8:51
  That was homicide, but it was accidental homicide,
• 8:53
  it was not a crime.
• 8:55
  Uh justifiable homicide, of course, is self-defense.
• 8:58
  That is what we call, that is one
• 9:00
  of the things that we call self-defense.
• 9:02
  We call self-defense justifiable homicide.
• 9:04
  So you have accidental homicide, you have justifiable
• 9:08
  homicide, you have manslaughter, you have negligent homicide,
• 9:11
  you have uh accidental manslaughter, you have all
• 9:15
  of these different kinds of things, all of
• 9:18
  which are subversions or subcategories of homicide.
• 9:22
  Homicide is what you call it when a
• 9:24
  human being kills another human being.
• 9:27
  Manslaughter is a form of homicide, self-defense, a
• 9:29
  form of homicide.
• 9:31
  Sometimes people are made heroes because they have
• 9:33
  committed a lot of homicide, such as Sergeant
• 9:35
  York in World War I.
• 9:38
  He went to war, he's a war hero,
• 9:40
  he killed a lot of Germans in World
• 9:42
  War I, and well, each case of that
• 9:44
  was justifiable homicide.
• 9:46
  So when you hear the word homicide, don't
• 9:49
  automatically think crime, think human being killing human
• 9:52
  being.
• 9:55
  And that's relevant because if I say that
• 9:57
  abortion is a cause of death, somebody will
• 9:59
  say, well, wait a minute here.
• 10:02
  I don't think that you could call it
• 10:04
  a cause of death when you just kill
• 10:05
  off a clump of cells, the morning after
• 10:06
  pill, whatever.
• 10:08
  I don't think you can say that it's
• 10:10
  a person that early on, and as a
• 10:12
  consequence, I don't think you can call it
• 10:13
  murder.
• 10:15
  I don't think you can call it, I
• 10:16
  don't think you can use those kinds of
• 10:17
  terms.
• 10:19
  I don't think you can call it that
• 10:20
  because I don't believe it is personhood.
• 10:22
  Well, the response to that is okay, it
• 10:24
  is a clump of cells.
• 10:26
  What kind of clump of cells is it?
• 10:28
  What is the species of this clump of
• 10:29
  cells?
• 10:30
  I have a dog downstairs.
• 10:32
  His name is Sherlock.
• 10:33
  Sherlock is a canine.
• 10:35
  Is that clump of cells a canine?
• 10:37
  Is that the species?
• 10:39
  No, of course not.
• 10:40
  It's not a dog, its species is not
• 10:41
  canine.
• 10:43
  Its species is Homo sapien.
• 10:44
  It's species is it is a human being.
• 10:48
  And as a human being, well, what do
• 10:50
  we call it when a human being kills
• 10:51
  another human being?
• 10:53
  The term for that, of course, I just
• 10:55
  gave it to you, homicide.
• 10:57
  An abortion is a homicide.
• 11:00
  There's no way around that.
• 11:01
  It is a homicide.
• 11:03
  It is a form of homicide.
• 11:06
  So that's what I want to say.
• 11:08
  It is legal to kill someone in self-defense
• 11:10
  in every state in our country.
• 11:12
  Although, of course, the specific laws regarding when
• 11:14
  self-defense is justifiable and what it is excessive
• 11:17
  varies.
• 11:19
  Technically, we we call it justifiable homicide when
• 11:21
  it is justifiable, when it's not, call it
• 11:24
  something else, such as murder or excessive use
• 11:26
  of force or whatever the whatever the case
• 11:28
  may be.
• 11:31
  Or the question of abortion, it's not a
• 11:33
  question of women's health.
• 11:35
  It's not a question of reproductive rights.
• 11:37
  It's not the question of it's it's it
• 11:40
  is it is the simple question of when
• 11:42
  the killing of an unborn baby should qualify
• 11:44
  as justifiable homicide.
• 11:46
  And now, whenever the topic of abortion comes
• 11:48
  up, that is how I frame it.
• 11:50
  Somebody will say, I would like to have
• 11:52
  an abortion, and I will say, okay, you
• 11:54
  want to have you want to, you know,
• 11:55
  how calculated how can you justify this homicide?
• 11:57
  And I'll say, well, it's not homicide.
• 11:59
  And I'll say, of course it's homicide, you're
• 12:00
  killing a human being.
• 12:02
  Well, I don't believe I'm killing a human
• 12:03
  being, I believe I'm killing a clump of
• 12:04
  cells.
• 12:05
  What species is the clump of cells?
• 12:07
  Is it a canine?
• 12:08
  No, it's not a canine.
• 12:09
  Okay, it's a human being.
• 12:10
  The definition of homicide is a human being
• 12:12
  killing a human being, you are a human
• 12:14
  being.
• 12:16
  The clump of cells you would like to
• 12:17
  kill is a human being.
• 12:19
  It is homicide.
• 12:21
  Very hard to back away from that.
• 12:23
  Uh and uh, you know, it doesn't matter
• 12:26
  how much an abortion supporter you are, you
• 12:28
  can't deny that abortion is the killing of
• 12:31
  an unborn child.
• 12:34
  An unborn child, by the way, is a
• 12:36
  perfectly functional definition of a fetus.
• 12:38
  Now, a pro-life person, a pro-abortion person, they
• 12:41
  can try to argue that a fetus is
• 12:43
  a clump of cells and that killing it
• 12:46
  is not murder, but that too is a
• 12:48
  justification for killing it, leading us right back
• 12:50
  to whether or not the homicide is justified.
• 12:54
  When I hear that a woman has a
• 12:56
  natural right to control her own body, my
• 12:58
  argument is that all people do.
• 13:00
  I have a natural right to control my
• 13:03
  body, you have a natural right to control
• 13:05
  your body, what gender we are does not
• 13:07
  change that women are no exception.
• 13:10
  That means that if a fetus were a
• 13:12
  cancerous growth, of course, a woman would have
• 13:14
  the right to have it surgically removed, as
• 13:15
  would a man.
• 13:18
  But a cancerous growth kills its host, whereas
• 13:20
  a fetus grows into a separate person, which
• 13:23
  abortion kills.
• 13:26
  Once again, all roads lead to the question
• 13:29
  of whether or not it is justifiable homicide.
• 13:33
  Now, some pro-life people don't like this framing
• 13:35
  as they misread it as justifying, I'd say
• 13:37
  pro-life now, some pro-life people don't like this
• 13:39
  framing, as they misread it as me justifying
• 13:42
  that homicide.
• 13:44
  But this is nothing of the sort.
• 13:46
  I'm free to debate whatever position I want
• 13:48
  on when or where such homicide is or
• 13:51
  is not justified from a pro-life perspective, and
• 13:53
  I am pro-life, I can argue that that
• 13:56
  it's never justified.
• 13:59
  Now, I don't I do not argue that
• 14:00
  Not argue that it's never justified, but If
• 14:01
  it's never justified, but If somebody is who's
• 14:02
  somebody is who's very, very pro-life that doesn't
• 14:03
  very, very pro-life that doesn't even believe in
• 14:04
  even believe in in uh abortion in the
• 14:05
  in uh abortion in the case of rape,
• 14:06
  case of rape, incest, or the life of
• 14:07
  incest, or the life of the mother, you
• 14:09
  the mother, you could argue that your argument
• 14:09
  could argue that your argument is it's not
• 14:11
  is it's not justified there.
• 14:11
  justified there.
• 14:13
  Okay, so it's never justified in your opinion.
• 14:13
  Okay, so it's never justified in your opinion.
• 14:16
  That is your opinion, that this particular form
• 14:16
  That is your opinion, that this particular form
• 14:18
  of homicide that we call abortion is never
• 14:18
  of homicide that we call abortion is never
• 14:19
  justified.
• 14:19
  justified.
• 14:21
  Well, from a pro-abortion perspective, somebody, I wouldn't
• 14:21
  Well, from a pro abortion perspective, somebody, I
• 14:24
  argue this, but somebody could argue that it
• 14:24
  wouldn't argue this, but somebody could argue that
• 14:26
  it is always justified.
• 14:26
  is always justified.
• 14:28
  That is, in fact.
• 14:28
  That is, in fact, what they are arguing.
• 14:31
  When somebody says it's entirely up to the
• 14:33
  woman and it's none of your business, what
• 14:35
  they're saying is that she has the right
• 14:37
  to justify that homicide whenever she wants to
• 14:39
  until delivery.
• 14:41
  So you can argue both sides as whether
• 14:44
  or not it is justifiable homicide.
• 14:46
  That doesn't change the debate.
• 14:48
  It simply makes it honest.
• 14:50
  What are we talking about?
• 14:52
  We are talking about homicide.
• 14:54
  We are talking about a human being killing
• 14:56
  a human being.
• 14:58
  The modern pro-abortion position, incidentally, is not that
• 15:01
  the unborn child is non-existent.
• 15:04
  Increasingly, the debate is that the unborn child's
• 15:07
  right to life is subordinate to the autonomy,
• 15:10
  the interests, or the preferences of the mother.
• 15:14
  That really is an argument about justifying homicide.
• 15:17
  So call it that.
• 15:18
  Whenever somebody says abortion, you know, justifiable homicide.
• 15:22
  Is that what you're saying?
• 15:23
  Are you saying this homicide is justifiable?
• 15:25
  Don't let them retreat from the word homicide.
• 15:28
  Stick in it.
• 15:28
  You keep saying it.
• 15:30
  So you're saying that this particular case, it
• 15:32
  is justifiable homicide.
• 15:34
  Because the baby has only been developing for
• 15:35
  a day or two, you're going to take
• 15:37
  the abortion pill.
• 15:38
  You're having you're justifying the homicide by the
• 15:41
  fact that you're doing it right away.
• 15:43
  Okay, that's what you're saying.
• 15:44
  So that's let's call it that.
• 15:46
  Just just use that phrase.
• 15:47
  Justify that you're attempting to justify the homicide
• 15:49
  of an unborn child.
• 15:52
  That is what an abortion is.
• 15:55
  Now I can accept, incidentally, that uh that
• 15:57
  a woman should not have to bring a
• 15:59
  child to term if the child is the
• 16:01
  product of rape or incest.
• 16:03
  I can accept that.
• 16:04
  I can accept that women may have the
• 16:06
  right to an abortion if her life is
• 16:07
  in danger.
• 16:09
  I can accept that there are severe fetal
• 16:11
  deformities, where a mother should not be forced
• 16:13
  to bring the baby to term.
• 16:15
  I can accept that.
• 16:17
  What I cannot accept is that abortion is
• 16:19
  a human right.
• 16:21
  It is nothing of the sort.
• 16:24
  I cannot accept that a mother has the
• 16:26
  right to kill a baby that is partially
• 16:28
  crowned.
• 16:30
  If you have to partially crown the baby
• 16:32
  to kill it, but partially crowned it's a
• 16:34
  baby, at that point, you're killing a baby
• 16:36
  that is not justifiable homicide.
• 16:39
  I cannot accept that as justifiable.
• 16:41
  Well, if I can't accept a partially crowned
• 16:44
  abortion as being justifiable homicide, I also cannot
• 16:47
  accept that an unborn child is functionally different
• 16:49
  somehow five minutes before it is partially crowned.
• 16:52
  So at some point, I believe that killing
• 16:55
  it is unjustifiable.
• 16:57
  You can't kill it partially crowned, at least
• 16:59
  you shouldn't be able to.
• 17:00
  It actually happens.
• 17:02
  Uh, but I don't believe you should be
• 17:04
  able to kill it five minutes before that.
• 17:06
  So it's not a matter of the birth
• 17:07
  itself.
• 17:08
  It is a fully developed baby before it
• 17:10
  actually comes out and takes its first breath.
• 17:13
  I also cannot accept that it is justifiable
• 17:15
  to kill a fetus if to do so
• 17:17
  you must cut it apart and remove it
• 17:19
  in pieces.
• 17:21
  I cannot accept that a fetus is just
• 17:23
  a clump of cells.
• 17:24
  And I would hope everyone would agree that
• 17:27
  if a pregnant woman is going to have
• 17:30
  an abortion, it is better to have that
• 17:33
  abortion before the unborn child has developed enough
• 17:36
  that it can feel pain and suffer.
• 17:39
  That's that's that's I would hope everybody can
• 17:40
  agree that that causing pain is bad, that
• 17:42
  suffering is bad, and that if you're going
• 17:44
  to abort a child, whether or not you
• 17:46
  should abort it before that or not, if
• 17:48
  you're gonna do it, it's best to do
• 17:50
  it early.
• 17:52
  I would hope we can all agree that
• 17:53
  we should avoid pain and suffering as much
• 17:54
  as possible.
• 17:56
  Now, of course, uh the mainstream position is
• 17:59
  that the meaningful pain perception likely does not
• 18:03
  occur until about 24 to 28 weeks, as
• 18:06
  that is when the cortical neural pathways believed
• 18:09
  necessary for conscious pain perception.
• 18:12
  That's when they're developed.
• 18:14
  They're not fully connected before that.
• 18:15
  Uh, but there's a lot of research out
• 18:18
  there, more recent research out there that says
• 18:20
  that uh uh I don't know what these
• 18:22
  are called, no susceptors, I think something like
• 18:25
  that, no susceptors, that those actually begin developing
• 18:27
  around seven to ten weeks, and that spinal
• 18:29
  reflex responses appear even earlier.
• 18:32
  Thalamica and subcortical structures develop before full cortical
• 18:35
  maturation, and premature infants at every early or
• 18:39
  very early gestational ages.
• 18:43
  Well, they exhibit pain responses, and they're treated
• 18:45
  for pain clinically.
• 18:48
  So how early does pain start?
• 18:50
  How early are they capable of suffering?
• 18:53
  Well, I'm not a doctor.
• 18:54
  I don't even know what some of those
• 18:55
  terms, like I already told you, I don't
• 18:56
  know what a no-susceptor, I don't even know
• 18:57
  what that is.
• 18:59
  What I do know is that is generally
• 19:02
  immoral to intentionally cause another human being pain.
• 19:06
  And so, in my opinion, the bar for
• 19:09
  having an abortion uh should be much higher
• 19:13
  after that point wherever it is than before.
• 19:17
  Now, my old framework, and I use this
• 19:18
  a long time.
• 19:20
  This was this was this kind of a
• 19:23
  libertarian viewpoint, I guess, on abortion.
• 19:25
  Uh, my old framework was that there are
• 19:28
  three competing rights that are involved.
• 19:30
  You've got the mother, you've got the developing
• 19:33
  baby, and you've got the father.
• 19:35
  Now, the father legally, whether or not this
• 19:38
  is moral is is that's a matter for
• 19:41
  debate, but legally in all 50 states, the
• 19:43
  father has equal rights to the mother once
• 19:46
  the baby is born, but not before that.
• 19:49
  Before birth, the father has no right to
• 19:51
  make a decision in whether or not a
• 19:53
  woman has an abortion, that whether or not
• 19:56
  that should be that way, it is that
• 19:58
  way currently in all 50 states.
• 20:01
  The fetus, however, as it develops, shouldn't its
• 20:04
  right to survive grow?
• 20:08
  And at some point, shouldn't the baby's right
• 20:10
  to survive supersede the right of the mother
• 20:12
  to kill it?
• 20:15
  To me, I think that makes sense.
• 20:18
  Now that's still a viable framework.
• 20:20
  However, the the central question is not one
• 20:23
  of whose rights are most important, but when
• 20:25
  and where the killing of an unborn child
• 20:28
  should be justifiable based upon those rights.
• 20:31
  So this framework, it correctly portrays the killing
• 20:35
  as homicide, and homicide, of course, requires justification.
• 20:38
  If you tell me I want to commit
• 20:40
  homicide, I'm gonna say why.
• 20:43
  How can you justify this?
• 20:44
  What is your justification for doing so?
• 20:46
  Because I want an abortion.
• 20:48
  Well, okay, you want an abortion.
• 20:49
  What does the baby want?
• 20:50
  Well, I don't know what the baby wants.
• 20:52
  Good point.
• 20:53
  Maybe you shouldn't kill it.
• 20:54
  So that's what we're trying to do is
• 20:56
  we're trying to reframe it, and we're trying
• 20:58
  to say it is homicide, and homicide can
• 21:00
  And homicide can be justified.
• 21:00
  be justified.
• 21:02
  So please try to justify this homicide you
• 21:02
  So please try to justify this homicide you
• 21:04
  would like to commit.
• 21:04
  would like to commit.
• 21:07
  Now, there are two sources of data for
• 21:07
  Now there are two sources of data for
• 21:09
  how many abortions there have been.
• 21:09
  how many abortions there have been.
• 21:11
  One is the CDC abortion surveillance reports, which
• 21:11
  One is the CDC abortion surveillance reports, which
• 21:14
  are often cited by people on the political
• 21:14
  are often cited by people on the political
• 21:16
  left, primarily because it's incomplete.
• 21:16
  left, primarily because it's incomplete.
• 21:19
  It does not have California in it, for
• 21:19
  It does not have California in it, for
• 21:20
  example.
• 21:20
  example.
• 21:22
  California does not fully report.
• 21:22
  California does not fully report a lot of
• 21:23
  A lot of states do not fully report.
• 21:24
  states, do not fully report.
• 21:25
  So those numbers generally are lower, which is
• 21:25
  So those numbers generally are lower, which is
• 21:27
  which is of course why people that are
• 21:27
  which is of course why people that are.
• 21:29
  proponents of abortion use those.
• 21:31
  They'll say, well, there aren't that many abortions,
• 21:33
  not as many as you're claiming.
• 21:34
  Whether using the CDC data, though.
• 21:36
  And even the CDC data, as I said,
• 21:38
  if the CDC counted it as the as
• 21:39
  a cause of death, it would be the
• 21:41
  leading cause of death.
• 21:43
  So I'm not saying that there aren't a
• 21:44
  lot of abortions according to the CDC.
• 21:46
  I'm saying that those numbers are lower than
• 21:48
  real because some states like California do not
• 21:50
  fully report.
• 21:53
  The other source is the Gutmacker Institute data.
• 21:55
  This is generally considered more comprehensive by researchers
• 21:58
  because it's it provides uh surveys are providing
• 22:00
  the numbers directly.
• 22:03
  And uh if we look at the number
• 22:06
  of abortions by year, going back to Roe
• 22:09
  versus Wade, 1973, the first year, uh, there
• 22:12
  are about 744,600 abortions.
• 22:15
  In 1974, it had grown to 898,600 abortions.
• 22:20
  In 1975, it broke a million, 1.03 million.
• 22:24
  You get up to 1980, 1979, excuse me,
• 22:26
  1.5 million.
• 22:30
  Uh in 1990, there was 1.61 million in
• 22:32
  that one year alone.
• 22:35
  You go up to uh it's been dropping
• 22:38
  since about 2009, it was at 1.15 million,
• 22:40
  it dropped back below a million in 2013
• 22:43
  at 958,700.
• 22:46
  Uh, but then you get into 2023, it's
• 22:49
  back over a million, 1.03 million.
• 22:52
  2024 is somewhere around 1.04 to 1.14 million.
• 22:56
  They don't have the full numbers yet.
• 22:58
  Uh, it's just an estimate.
• 23:00
  But abortions rose very, very rapidly after Roe.
• 23:04
  They peaked around 1990 at about 1.6 million
• 23:05
  a year.
• 23:08
  They've declined steadily for about 30 years, but
• 23:11
  then after 2017, they began to rise again.
• 23:14
  And uh one of the things I've noticed
• 23:17
  is that as people have become more and
• 23:19
  more focused on it being a human right,
• 23:21
  uh right women can have, uh, more and
• 23:24
  more people are.
• 23:26
  I think the reason why it's going up
• 23:29
  is because I think something fundamentally broke around
• 23:31
  that time period, and uh, you know, I
• 23:33
  don't remember growing up seeing a woman wearing
• 23:36
  a shirt saying I've had 25 abortions.
• 23:38
  I don't think growing up somebody would have
• 23:41
  admitted to have having 25 abortions, but now
• 23:43
  you have people, these celebrities saying crazy things
• 23:46
  like uh you're not a fully developed woman
• 23:49
  until you've had your first abortion.
• 23:52
  The the attitudes toward abortion, something fundamentally changed
• 23:55
  right around the time I think Trump was
• 23:58
  elected, something in this country fundamentally changed.
• 24:01
  Uh it was actually changing before that, but
• 24:03
  it really broke through the glass ceiling right
• 24:06
  around the time in our country that Trump
• 24:08
  was was uh was elected.
• 24:11
  Similarly, something broke in Europe when Brexit occurred.
• 24:15
  You had these movements that were they were
• 24:17
  kind of, I don't want to say they
• 24:19
  were suppressed, but they weren't mainstream.
• 24:21
  Then all of a sudden something happened and
• 24:23
  Brexit, and then and then hear Trump being
• 24:25
  elected, and and all of a sudden it
• 24:27
  just exploded and went mainstream.
• 24:30
  And what we're seeing is the number of
• 24:33
  abortions were declining, now they're going up, and
• 24:36
  and people are are wanting to celebrate abortion.
• 24:39
  Uh it's absolutely insane.
• 24:40
  Now the same kinds of people that wear
• 24:42
  vagina hats.
• 24:43
  They the the celebration of abortion that some
• 24:46
  people, not everybody, not a lot of people,
• 24:48
  but some people are doing.
• 24:51
  It's a part of this broken mindset that
• 24:53
  in America, the election of Trump seems to
• 24:56
  have created.
• 24:58
  I don't understand the mindset.
• 24:59
  I kind of do understand the mindset.
• 25:01
  It's a little off topic on abortion.
• 25:03
  Uh, but I kind of do understand the
• 25:05
  mindset in the sense that uh the political
• 25:08
  left has become it's become more reactionary.
• 25:11
  I'm actually working on a piece now where
• 25:13
  part of the piece I talk about how
• 25:15
  uh about how it's uh it it gets
• 25:17
  its it's getting its base from Thomas Paine
• 25:19
  and the French Revolution.
• 25:22
  The French Revolution, the uh Thomas Paine was
• 25:25
  obviously not French, he was an American, but
• 25:27
  he was he was admired by the revolutionaries,
• 25:30
  and uh his works inspired the French Revolution.
• 25:33
  Uh when you look at the revolutions in
• 25:35
  France and you look at the revolution in
• 25:37
  the United States, the difference was the direction
• 25:39
  of the revolutionaries.
• 25:42
  You had in the United States, of course,
• 25:44
  Thomas Paine was there, but you also had
• 25:46
  Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and and a
• 25:48
  bunch of other people.
• 25:50
  And uh if you wanted to follow the
• 25:52
  Thomas Paine approach, it would have been far
• 25:53
  more radical, it would have been far more
• 25:55
  bloody, it would have been far more violent
• 25:56
  as it was in France.
• 25:58
  Well, we followed the Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
• 26:01
  uh that approach.
• 26:03
  Uh John Adams was also a big architect
• 26:05
  in that.
• 26:06
  John Adams could have written the Declaration of
• 26:08
  Independence himself, but Thomas Jefferson was a much
• 26:10
  better writer, so he was asked to draft
• 26:12
  it.
• 26:14
  Uh, but all three of them were thick
• 26:16
  as thieves during that time period.
• 26:18
  So you could have followed that approach, the
• 26:19
  Thomas Jefferson or John Adams or or James
• 26:21
  Madison approach.
• 26:24
  The other approach being Thomas Paine.
• 26:26
  Well, we had our revolution, the French helped
• 26:27
  us with it, the French had their revolution,
• 26:29
  we did not help them, and they had
• 26:31
  to make a decision which way they were
• 26:33
  going to go.
• 26:35
  And there were two camps.
• 26:36
  You had the radicals who were more inspired
• 26:39
  by Thomas Paine, and then you had Lafayette,
• 26:41
  who was more inspired by Thomas Jefferson.
• 26:44
  And they had decided, are we going to
• 26:46
  go the Lafayette way and are we going
• 26:47
  to become a constitutional republic?
• 26:50
  I've speculated that if France had become a
• 26:52
  constitutional republic, at some point it may have
• 26:54
  made sense for them to join our republic.
• 26:56
  Imagine France is the 51st state as a
• 26:58
  constitutional republic of France, ally of the United
• 27:00
  States during the Revolutionary War.
• 27:03
  Now, whether or not that ever would have
• 27:05
  happened, I don't know.
• 27:06
  But if they'd followed Lafayette, world history would
• 27:09
  have gone in a very different direction.
• 27:11
  But they didn't.
• 27:12
  They followed what became known as the Jacobids,
• 27:14
  a political party that I forget exactly how
• 27:16
  we got the name Jacobids, but that's what
• 27:17
  they went by.
• 27:19
  And the first government under the revolution, the
• 27:22
  government of the revolution, was called the Directorate,
• 27:24
  run by uh somebody named Robus Pierre.
• 27:27
  And we all know what happened.
• 27:28
  They chopped off a lot of heads, they
• 27:30
  started by killing the royalty, then they killed
• 27:32
  anybody who knew the royalty, then they killed
• 27:34
  off a lot of their middle class, and
• 27:36
  and and then it began eating their own.
• 27:38
  Thomas Paine was actually in prison for a
• 27:40
  while under the directorate once it began consuming
• 27:42
  its own membership.
• 27:44
  So that's uh that's scary stuff, but that's
• 27:47
  what happened in France.
• 27:49
  That's they they followed the directorate instead of
• 27:51
  following, they followed the Thomas Payne model instead
• 27:53
  of following the uh instead of following the
• 27:56
  Thomas Jefferson model, and that's what we're seeing
• 27:58
  in America today.
• 28:00
  Today.
• 28:00
  Everybody says that the political left has gone
• 28:00
  Everybody says that the political left has gone
• 28:03
  communist and that the political left is drawing
• 28:03
  communist and that the political left is drawing
• 28:05
  its inspiration from Karl Marx, but in fact,
• 28:05
  its inspiration from Karl Marx, but in fact,
• 28:07
  Karl Marx drew much of his inspiration from
• 28:07
  Karl Marx drew much of his inspiration from
• 28:09
  Thomas Paine.
• 28:09
  Thomas Pain.
• 28:11
  Now, Thomas Paine was a radical individualist, so
• 28:11
  Now, Thomas Paine was a radical individualist, so
• 28:13
  he was not all into this communist, you
• 28:13
  he was not all into this communist, you
• 28:15
  know.
• 28:15
  know.
• 28:16
  He Marx brought the collectivist, the communist aspect
• 28:16
  He Marx brought the collectivist, the communist aspect
• 28:18
  to it.
• 28:18
  to it.
• 28:20
  But all of the revolutionary rhetoric, all of
• 28:20
  But all of the revolutionary rhetoric, all of
• 28:22
  the all of that comes from Thomas Paine,
• 28:22
  the all of that comes from Thomas Paine.
• 28:24
  and I'm writing an article about that now,
• 28:25
  And I'm writing an article about that now,
• 28:27
  so we'll talk more about that next week.
• 28:27
  so we'll talk more about that next week.
• 28:29
  The point of that this week is that
• 28:32
  all of this super hyper abortion stuff, you
• 28:35
  know, the radicalization of it, the the making
• 28:39
  hero of people who have an abortion.
• 28:42
  All of that comes out of this this
• 28:44
  new left model, this new left uh model
• 28:47
  that comes looks like the French Revolution.
• 28:49
  Uh what they're trying to do is they're
• 28:51
  trying to rebuild our culture.
• 28:52
  They're trying to build morality without tying it
• 28:54
  to religion, they're trying to do it in
• 28:56
  a purely rational basis.
• 28:58
  And uh, once you remove God from morality,
• 29:00
  you can have any morality you want.
• 29:02
  So what we're seeing is, and I've of
• 29:04
  course talked about this before.
• 29:07
  We're seeing a movement to make the tolerance
• 29:10
  of immorality the only true moral virtue.
• 29:13
  And I would say that if you make
• 29:15
  the tolerance of immorality your own moral virtue,
• 29:18
  well, moral relativism is effectively the same as
• 29:20
  having no societal morality at all.
• 29:23
  And if you have no societal morality, then
• 29:24
  you can you can you can make uh
• 29:26
  you can champion abortions.
• 29:28
  You can say that having an abortion is
• 29:30
  a good thing, and that you're not fully
• 29:32
  a woman until you have had one.
• 29:34
  You can wear a t-shirt that says I
• 29:36
  have had 25 abortions and all of these
• 29:38
  crazy horrific things that you see around us.
• 29:41
  It doesn't make sense until you understand the
• 29:43
  mindset of the people that are taking those
• 29:46
  positions, and then suddenly it starts to make
• 29:48
  sense.
• 29:51
  Now, just like that, it is time for
• 29:54
  a word from our sponsors.
• 29:56
  You can reach our sponsors directly by going
• 29:58
  to America Outloud.news slash shop or by clicking
• 30:00
  the shop button at the top of the
• 30:02
  website.
• 30:04
  Don't go anywhere, we still have a lot
• 30:06
  to go over on the other side of
• 30:07
  the break, and we will be right back.
• 30:09
  Successful weight loss is about changing the gut
• 30:11
  brain relationship with food.
• 30:13
  I'm Dr.
• 30:14
  Kelly Victory with the wellness company.
• 30:16
  If you don't like needles, you'll love oral
• 30:18
  dissolving terzepitide RX.
• 30:20
  Works by targeting the GLP1 and GIP receptors
• 30:23
  that influence appetite and metabolism.
• 30:27
  And unlike injections, these are fast absorbing sublingual
• 30:29
  tablets placed under the tongue, paired with an
• 30:32
  energy boost of B6 and B12.
• 30:35
  Visit TwC.health slash outloud and use code out
• 30:38
  loud for an exclusive discount.
• 30:41
  Oral hygiene hasn't changed in 50 years, but
• 30:44
  our diet and the way we eat has.
• 30:47
  Creating an environment in your mouth for bacteria
• 30:49
  to wreck havoc on your teeth and gums.
• 30:52
  For better oral health, get spray dental defense,
• 30:54
  an oral care line designed to combat acid-creating
• 30:56
  bacteria.
• 30:59
  The toothpaste, mouthwash, mints, and gum all contain
• 31:02
  xylitol, and natural ingredients shown to dramatically improve
• 31:04
  oral health.
• 31:07
  Sprite can be found online and at all
• 31:09
  fine natural retailers.
• 31:11
  During COVID, we got educated on the power
• 31:14
  of natural virus protection and immune boosting using
• 31:17
  vitamins A, C, D, Zinc, and Quircetin.
• 31:21
  The problem?
• 31:21
  Getting them at the right dosage from truly
• 31:23
  natural sources that doesn't cost an arm and
• 31:25
  a leg.
• 31:27
  Enter the Daily V Stack.
• 31:29
  Using breakthrough cellular absorption technology, we put those
• 31:32
  vitamins together and supercharge them with a complete
• 31:34
  multi-mineral complex.
• 31:37
  The Daily V Stack is basically an oral
• 31:39
  IV of six products all in one at
• 31:41
  an affordable price.
• 31:44
  Go to ChemicalFreeBody.com forward slash out loud today.
• 31:48
  Get the Daily V Stack, protect yourself, boost
• 31:50
  your immune system, and save 20% on your
• 31:53
  first order.
• 31:55
  Are you looking for a healthy snacks?
• 31:58
  But you've had enough of all the sweet,
• 32:01
  sugary energy bars.
• 32:04
  Good news.
• 32:05
  There's new bars to try.
• 32:07
  That savory, crunchy, and pack with goodness.
• 32:10
  Bear bars are based just on six simple
• 32:13
  natural ingredients.
• 32:16
  A certified organic veggie, nut and seed bar.
• 32:20
  That's low temp dried, never baked or fried.
• 32:24
  Bear bars are plant-based, gluten-free, and loaded with
• 32:27
  nutrients and protein.
• 32:30
  Head over to Bearbar.com slash outloud and get
• 32:33
  the exclusive discount just for America Out Loud
• 32:36
  listeners.
• 32:40
  That's B-E-A-R.
• 32:42
  B A Rod slash Outloud.
• 32:47
  I'm Doug Evans, author of the Sprout Book.
• 32:50
  And I'm also a father with a three-year-old
• 32:51
  daughter.
• 32:53
  And that's why we grow sprouts.
• 32:56
  Did you know that you could take seeds,
• 32:59
  add water, and get fresh organic vegetables in
• 33:02
  three to five days without soil, sunshine, or
• 33:06
  fertilizer for under a dollar a serving?
• 33:09
  That's the miracle of sprouting, and I want
• 33:11
  to share that with you.
• 33:13
  Go to the Spouting Company.com slash out loud
• 33:16
  and use the code Out Loud for a
• 33:19
  special offer.
• 33:24
  Well, did you see Google quietly updated its
• 33:27
  AI principles, removing its pledge not to use
• 33:30
  AI for weapons or surveillance?
• 33:33
  A promise they agreed to in 2018.
• 33:36
  Well, the American people have seen Google's track
• 33:37
  record.
• 33:39
  Prompt in the question is Google an untrustworthy
• 33:42
  player in the AI race.
• 33:49
  Now is our time, my fellows.
• 33:52
  America Outloud News.
• 33:55
  Liberty and justice for all.
• 34:17
  And we are talking about abortion.
• 34:20
  We also moved a little bit into Jacobins
• 34:22
  and all of that.
• 34:24
  And uh, you know.
• 34:29
  My thing is, pro-abortion activists like to portray
• 34:33
  pro-life activists as being anti-woman or seeking to
• 34:37
  control women, and uh I reject that notion
• 34:40
  that is anti-woman to be pro-child.
• 34:44
  Pro-abortion activists also like to suggest that someone
• 34:47
  cannot be pro-life without also wanting the government
• 34:50
  to pay to support all children.
• 34:53
  Uh, but this argument conflates the moral question
• 34:56
  of whether or not abortion, excuse me, is
• 34:59
  ever justifiable with the separate question of who
• 35:00
  With the separate question of who bears the
• 35:02
  bears the economic responsibility for raising children.
• 35:02
  economic responsibility for raising children, and that creates
• 35:05
  the ridiculous claim that you cannot be pro-life
• 35:06
  And that creates the ridiculous claim that you
• 35:08
  without also being pro-socialism.
• 35:08
  cannot be pro-life without also being pro-socialism.
• 35:11
  So if you're not a socialist, they're saying
• 35:11
  So if you're not a socialist, they're saying
• 35:13
  who is willing to cover all of the
• 35:13
  who is willing to cover all of the
• 35:15
  basic needs of all people, uh, then you
• 35:15
  basic needs of all people, uh, then you
• 35:16
  can't be pro-life.
• 35:16
  can't be pro-life.
• 35:18
  You're not pro-life if you're not a socialist,
• 35:18
  You're not pro-life if you're not a socialist,
• 35:20
  is that argument.
• 35:20
  is that argument.
• 35:22
  And uh, no, I gotta tell you, if
• 35:22
  And uh, no, I gotta tell you, if
• 35:23
  your argument is to change the subject, which
• 35:24
  your argument is to change the subject, which
• 35:25
  is what that does, that's a pretty good
• 35:26
  is what that does, that's a pretty good
• 35:27
  indication that you're arguing.
• 35:29
  indication that your argument is kind of weak.
• 35:32
  One can also argue against my framework by
• 35:34
  saying that a fetus does not have personhood,
• 35:36
  and thus killing does not homicide.
• 35:39
  But the legal definition of personhood is secondary
• 35:42
  to the biological definition of what a what
• 35:45
  a human is.
• 35:48
  And even beyond that, denying a fetus the
• 35:50
  definition of a person, that's just an attempt
• 35:53
  to justify killing it, which returns us once
• 35:56
  again to the question of justifiable homicide.
• 35:59
  Pro-abortion activists also like to argue that bodily
• 36:02
  autonomy supersedes any claim that a fetus might
• 36:05
  have, or that dependency changes the relative moral
• 36:08
  statuses of the mother of the unborn child.
• 36:11
  But those arguments, too.
• 36:13
  Those are just justifications for killing unborn babies,
• 36:16
  which returns us right back to the question
• 36:18
  of justifiable homicide.
• 36:22
  If there is an argument for abortions that
• 36:24
  cannot be boxed back into the framework of
• 36:26
  justifiable homicide, not saying it is justifiable homicide,
• 36:28
  but the question of whether or not it
• 36:30
  is justifiable homicide, I have yet to hear
• 36:32
  it.
• 36:34
  And my experience is that arguing in favor
• 36:36
  of abortion when framed as justifiable homicide is
• 36:39
  kind of a fruitless argument to make.
• 36:42
  As soon as you throw the word homicide
• 36:43
  in there, it's a very, very different argument,
• 36:45
  ladies and gentlemen.
• 36:46
  It just is.
• 36:47
  If you want to use the word abortion,
• 36:49
  well, that's a word.
• 36:51
  That's a word that for some has a
• 36:54
  negative connotation, and for some today has a
• 36:57
  positive justification or connotation.
• 37:01
  But the word homicide is a negative connotation
• 37:02
  with everybody.
• 37:04
  And uh when you think about what abortion
• 37:07
  is, shouldn't it have a negative connotation?
• 37:11
  That's the thing.
• 37:12
  If if if you can, if you can,
• 37:15
  if you can force them into that framework,
• 37:17
  what happens is they have to use nuance
• 37:20
  then in order to come up with viable
• 37:23
  counterarguments to it.
• 37:25
  Now they can try to reject the framework
• 37:27
  altogether.
• 37:28
  They can try to frame it as, well,
• 37:30
  it's not justifiable homicide, and I just refuse
• 37:31
  to talk about it.
• 37:33
  Uh but other than walking away, this framework
• 37:35
  is far too honest and far too clean
• 37:37
  for rejecting it outright to stick.
• 37:39
  It is homicide, and therefore the debate over
• 37:42
  whether or not a woman should be able
• 37:44
  to have an abortion is also debate over
• 37:47
  whether or not that homicide is justifiable.
• 37:51
  Forcing people into nuance over the question of
• 37:53
  abortion or really just about anything, that's also
• 37:56
  kind of forcing them into retreat, framing abortion
• 37:58
  as an immoral act that may only sometimes
• 38:01
  be justified.
• 38:04
  And uh, the real issue at this point
• 38:06
  is that we're not really just talking about
• 38:08
  abortion.
• 38:10
  We're talking about morality in a much larger
• 38:12
  context.
• 38:14
  And there are different moral systems, as I've
• 38:17
  talked about and written about many times.
• 38:19
  You know, Islam has a moral system called
• 38:20
  Sharia.
• 38:22
  If you follow Sharia according to Islam, you
• 38:24
  are a moral person because you are submitting
• 38:26
  to Allah and Allah's law.
• 38:28
  If you don't follow Sharia, then you are
• 38:31
  not submitting to Islam and Islam's law or
• 38:33
  Allah's law, you're not submitting to Allah, and
• 38:35
  you are definite you're by definition in Islam
• 38:37
  a bad person.
• 38:40
  Well, Sharia doesn't fit very well with Western
• 38:43
  societies, because in Islam, the concept of individual
• 38:46
  rights, well, individual rights allow you not to
• 38:49
  have to follow Sharia, basically, and and that
• 38:51
  for Islam is pretty evil.
• 38:55
  So they have a moral system that conflicts
• 38:56
  with our moral system.
• 38:58
  Doesn't mean all Muslims follow it, but they
• 39:00
  have a moral system that conflicts with ours.
• 39:02
  So too do these new Democrats, these Jacob
• 39:03
  and Democrats.
• 39:05
  Robert Reich, just the other day, wrote a
• 39:07
  piece in which he suggested he he's got
• 39:09
  to know he's on very, very flimsy legal
• 39:11
  ground here, so we framed it as a
• 39:14
  fantasy.
• 39:16
  Uh but he basically said is that if
• 39:18
  all of the Democrats in the country can
• 39:20
  work together to want to undermine Trump on
• 39:22
  the Iran war, if you can support Iran,
• 39:24
  you know, he thinks apparently that would be
• 39:26
  great because we don't want, he does not
• 39:28
  want Iran to lose.
• 39:30
  He wants that to be a sticky point.
• 39:32
  And then the other thing he said is
• 39:34
  that if the Democrats can work together, at
• 39:36
  particularly the local and state level, but whatever
• 39:38
  they can do at the federal level too,
• 39:39
  what they need to do is they need
• 39:41
  to harm the American people as badly as
• 39:43
  they can.
• 39:45
  He wants to inflict as much pain and
• 39:47
  suffering on the American people as humanly possible
• 39:49
  while trying to prevent us from winning the
• 39:51
  war with Iran, and then blame it all
• 39:52
  on Trump.
• 39:55
  That's his idea.
• 39:56
  His idea is commit treason in the war
• 39:58
  in Iran, if you can to make it
• 40:00
  so we lose, and then at the same
• 40:02
  time to do everything humanly possible to harm
• 40:04
  as many people as possible, all while saying
• 40:07
  it's Trump's fault.
• 40:09
  And uh he says that if the Democrats
• 40:11
  do that, he thinks that whether or not
• 40:14
  they win the midterms, he thinks that there's
• 40:16
  probably about a 30% chance that they can
• 40:18
  put so much pressure or pressure on the
• 40:21
  Republicans uh that the Republicans in the Trump
• 40:23
  administration will invoke the 25th Amendment.
• 40:26
  He gives that about a 30% chance if
• 40:28
  his fantasy, and again, he's framed it as
• 40:30
  a fantasy, uh, which I think he's that
• 40:32
  I think that's a legal way to say
• 40:34
  I'm not actually inciting anything.
• 40:36
  Uh but he says that, yeah, what the
• 40:39
  Democrats should do is they should do everything
• 40:41
  they can to cause as much damage in
• 40:43
  America and to America and to the American
• 40:45
  people as possible, in the hopes that that
• 40:47
  will turn people against Trump by blaming Trump
• 40:49
  for the harm.
• 40:52
  So, for example, if you're the governor of
• 40:53
  a state and you want to throw an
• 40:55
  extra dollar tax on the price of gasoline,
• 40:56
  then you can say, look at how expensive
• 40:58
  gas is.
• 40:59
  That's gotta be Trump's fault.
• 41:01
  Whatever you can do, basically to harm the
• 41:04
  American people, you just say that's Trump's fault,
• 41:06
  and then and then that's that's that's Robert
• 41:08
  Reich's plan.
• 41:11
  His plan is basically commit treason against the
• 41:13
  United States and harm Americans.
• 41:14
  So that's that how do you justify that?
• 41:18
  Well, you justify that by having a different
• 41:20
  sense of morality than I do, and I
• 41:23
  think most of the listeners here have.
• 41:25
  I think most of us would say that
• 41:28
  Robert Reich is uh, excuse my French, but
• 41:31
  a shitty human being, to even suggest that
• 41:33
  that would be at all appropriate.
• 41:36
  But again, we're dealing with people that have
• 41:37
  a different moral code than the one we
• 41:39
  have.
• 41:41
  These people don't consider us as they don't
• 41:42
  care what we think.
• 41:44
  They don't consider us as being worthy of
• 41:46
  even conversing with.
• 41:47
  They believe that they are a moral and
• 41:49
  intellectually enlightened people, that they have the right
• 41:51
  to redefine morality for all of us, that
• 41:53
  tradition doesn't matter, that every generation should be
• 41:56
  able to redefine governance the way it not
• 41:58
  only should, needs to redefine governance the way
• 42:00
  To find governance the way it wants, completely
• 42:00
  it wants, completely ignoring anything that came in
• 42:02
  ignoring anything that came in the past, that
• 42:02
  the past, that all structures that were created
• 42:04
  all structures that were created by previous generations
• 42:04
  by previous generations are null and avoid by
• 42:06
  are null and devoid by default.
• 42:06
  default.
• 42:09
  Constitution doesn't apply because it was 250 years
• 42:09
  Constitution doesn't apply because it was 250 years
• 42:10
  ago.
• 42:10
  ago.
• 42:12
  We've had many generations since.
• 42:12
  We've had many generations since.
• 42:14
  And uh, and as I said, they believe
• 42:14
  And uh, and as I said, they believe
• 42:16
  they can rewrite the entire moral code from
• 42:16
  they can rewrite the entire moral code from
• 42:18
  the ground up.
• 42:18
  the ground up.
• 42:19
  What justification do you have to say women
• 42:19
  What justification do you have to say women
• 42:21
  can't have an abortion?
• 42:21
  can't have an abortion?
• 42:22
  That's their question to us.
• 42:22
  That's their question to us.
• 42:24
  We say, well, let's justify it.
• 42:24
  We say, well, it's justify we say it's
• 42:25
  homicide.
• 42:25
  We say it's homicide.
• 42:26
  Well, uh one, they don't have to take
• 42:26
  Well, one, they don't have to take our
• 42:28
  our frame on words.
• 42:28
  framing on words because they can reinvent words
• 42:30
  as they see fit.
• 42:32
  This is all, no, this is all very
• 42:33
  Jacobin.
• 42:34
  This is all very French Revolution.
• 42:38
  It's all straight out of the directorate.
• 42:40
  It's all straight out of, you know, the
• 42:43
  revolutionary period that just completely went the wrong
• 42:45
  way.
• 42:48
  And uh, if they get power, it's going
• 42:50
  to go the wrong way here as well
• 42:53
  because uh it's it's it's it's it's not
• 42:55
  a functional system, it's not a functional society.
• 42:57
  Everything is fluid to them.
• 42:58
  Morality is fluid, history fluid.
• 43:00
  What it means, the definition of words, fluid.
• 43:03
  Science to them is fluid.
• 43:05
  I've talked before about uh about how uh
• 43:07
  what what people often use as quote, science
• 43:10
  today is is purely subjective gobbly gook and
• 43:13
  that in some of the softer sciences in
• 43:16
  particular, you get brownie points for being more
• 43:19
  radical than the last person who was radical.
• 43:22
  1619, there's not a serious historian alive that
• 43:24
  believes the 1619 project is legitimate, and yet
• 43:26
  there it is.
• 43:28
  So we're dealing with people who don't think
• 43:30
  that we're dealing with people who think that
• 43:32
  it is okay to lie because they don't
• 43:34
  believe in universal truth.
• 43:36
  You know, Alexandria Casio Cortez, she says that
• 43:39
  Republicans are too focused on being factually correct
• 43:42
  and not focused anywhere near enough on being
• 43:44
  morally correct.
• 43:47
  Well, how do you know whether or not
• 43:49
  you're morally correct if you're not factually correct?
• 43:52
  Talked about the Pope last week is supportive
• 43:54
  socialism and the fact that socialism, if we
• 43:56
  were to do what the Pope wants us
• 43:59
  to, we have reduced since 1980, we have
• 44:01
  reduced global poverty, the kind of extreme poverty
• 44:03
  that the United Nations says is basically starvation
• 44:05
  poverty.
• 44:08
  We reduced that from about from down to
• 44:10
  about 9% of the human population from about
• 44:13
  45% of the human population since 1980.
• 44:16
  That is a ridiculously good thing that has
• 44:17
  happened.
• 44:19
  And it's all from free markets, it's not
• 44:20
  from socialism.
• 44:22
  Socialism would bring us right back to the
• 44:25
  kinds of crushing of crushing poverty, global poverty,
• 44:28
  extreme poverty, uh, that so many billions of
• 44:30
  people have only recently escaped from, or their
• 44:33
  families have recently escaped from.
• 44:36
  Well, if we follow Pope Fran uh Pope
• 44:38
  Leo, we would be putting those people right
• 44:40
  back into that kind of crushing poverty and
• 44:43
  potential starvation.
• 44:45
  Now, it's his idea, but he's not the
• 44:47
  one who's going to take food out of
• 44:48
  somebody's mouth.
• 44:50
  But if we follow him, does he not
• 44:52
  have does he not have any accountability for
• 44:54
  that?
• 44:55
  Do you not have any accountability for the
• 44:57
  impact of the things that you do?
• 44:59
  You look at homelessness in California, everything that
• 45:01
  Gavin Newsom has done, spending money on homelessness
• 45:03
  in California.
• 45:05
  Gavin Newsom has gone so far as to
• 45:08
  say that California should get federal tax dollars
• 45:11
  because it is subsidizing the rest of the
• 45:14
  country by taking care of our homelessness problem
• 45:17
  for us.
• 45:20
  That the reason there are so many homeless
• 45:22
  in California is because California actually cares into
• 45:24
  something about it, and all of you idiots
• 45:26
  and other states that are not spending billions
• 45:28
  and billions and billions on homelessness.
• 45:30
  Your homeless came here.
• 45:32
  That's his argument.
• 45:33
  I took your homelessness, you owe me money.
• 45:35
  That's his argument.
• 45:35
  You got Zoran Mamdanny.
• 45:38
  Everybody in New York is congratulating him on
• 45:40
  eliminating a 12 billion dollar deficit, two-year deficit,
• 45:43
  so six billion a year.
• 45:46
  How do you do it?
• 45:47
  You went to the governor of New York,
• 45:49
  and he talked her into giving him $4
• 45:50
  billion a year, so that's $8 billion of
• 45:52
  it.
• 45:54
  And then he says that it's not to
• 45:56
  be paid for by the poor working classes.
• 45:58
  It's not paid for by normal people.
• 45:59
  It's going to be paid for by taxing
• 46:00
  the rich.
• 46:01
  He didn't tax the rich.
• 46:03
  They didn't tax anybody.
• 46:04
  They had the governor give him most of
• 46:06
  the money, and the rest of the money
• 46:07
  he got by avoid by by saying basically
• 46:09
  we're not going to pay pensions.
• 46:11
  We're not going to pay into pension programs
• 46:13
  in New York City for five years.
• 46:15
  So he took one of his biggest line
• 46:16
  items and just erased it.
• 46:17
  Now they're not paying into their pension system.
• 46:19
  So he's making the pensions in New York
• 46:21
  City, you know, they're they're they're going to
• 46:22
  default.
• 46:24
  They're not going to have money going into
• 46:25
  them for five years in order to cover
• 46:27
  future future funds.
• 46:29
  So, you know, future need.
• 46:31
  So that's what he did.
• 46:32
  He got he got the rest of New
• 46:34
  York, the rest of the state of New
• 46:37
  York to pay his bills, and uh he
• 46:39
  screwed over city workers who someday will retire
• 46:41
  and now may not have the retirement pensions
• 46:43
  that they're expecting because he's not going to
• 46:45
  pay that for five years.
• 46:47
  It's a long time, by the way, for
• 46:49
  a pension program, five years.
• 46:51
  What is that buy him?
• 46:52
  That buys him two years of balanced budget.
• 46:54
  That's all it gives him.
• 46:55
  It gives him two years of balanced budget.
• 46:57
  After that, he's going to have to go
• 46:58
  back to the governor of New York and
• 47:00
  ask for more money to balance it again
• 47:01
  in two years.
• 47:03
  Matter of fact, said to next year, next
• 47:05
  year, some accounts say that he's going to
• 47:07
  have a $7 billion deficit next year because
• 47:09
  he's he's he's counting on money that is
• 47:11
  not going to come in.
• 47:14
  The thing about New York is that the
• 47:17
  state and the city both are very highly
• 47:19
  their tax money comes primarily from the financial
• 47:22
  industry.
• 47:25
  It comes from a very small number of
• 47:27
  people and a very small number of companies.
• 47:28
  They get a tremendous amount of tax dollars,
• 47:30
  more so than any other state in the
• 47:31
  country, by the way.
• 47:33
  They get a tremendous amount of tax uh
• 47:34
  of tax dollars from a very, very small
• 47:36
  number of people in a very, very small
• 47:38
  number of companies.
• 47:40
  And uh when you look at those banks,
• 47:42
  a lot of them are talking about leaving,
• 47:44
  some of them already have.
• 47:46
  So Zoran Mandani is absolutely crushing New York.
• 47:52
  Right now he's being congratulated.
• 47:54
  Look at how well socialism works.
• 47:55
  He just wiped out a 12 billion dollar
• 47:57
  deficit in a hundred days.
• 47:59
  Well, what he's what he's done is he's
• 48:00
  gotten the rest of New York State to
• 48:02
  pay his bills.
• 48:03
  So if you live in Syracuse or Rochester,
• 48:06
  New York or any other town in New
• 48:08
  York, you just you're now paying New York's
• 48:11
  bills in addition to paying your own.
• 48:13
  You have to pay for your trash pickup,
• 48:15
  you have to pay for their trash pickup.
• 48:17
  In addition to that, he wants to spend
• 48:18
  more money.
• 48:19
  He's continuing to have all of these projects.
• 48:22
  City-run grocery stores.
• 48:23
  The city is going to pay for the
• 48:24
  grocery stores and is going to subsidize the
• 48:26
  grocery stores.
• 48:27
  You're going to have uh free free child
• 48:29
  care for everybody.
• 48:31
  I forget what the age cutoff is, but
• 48:33
  for young children, it's going to be free
• 48:35
  child care for everybody in New York City.
• 48:37
  All of these promises.
• 48:38
  Free busing.
• 48:40
  All of these promises.
• 48:41
  Everything's going to be free.
• 48:42
  We're going to take care of everybody.
• 48:43
  It's going to be great.
• 48:44
  Everybody's free.
• 48:45
  We're going to tax the rich until they
• 48:46
  leave.
• 48:48
  Well, if the rich leave and you can't
• 48:49
  tax them, now who do you tax?
• 48:52
  Bam Donnie seems to think it's going to
• 48:54
  be the rest of the state of New
• 48:55
  York.
• 48:56
  Well, that's the Illinois model.
• 48:58
  That's the Chicago model.
• 48:59
  Chicago went bankrupt, and now it's bankrupting Illinois
• 49:00
  Bankrupt, and now it's bankrupting Illinois very, very
• 49:01
  very, very rapidly.
• 49:01
  rapidly.
• 49:03
  Well, what happens when Illinois's bankrupt?
• 49:03
  Well, what happens when Illinois's bankrupt?
• 49:05
  They're going to go to the federal government
• 49:05
  They're going to go to the federal government
• 49:06
  and say you've got to give us money.
• 49:06
  and say you've got to give us money.
• 49:07
  We're bankrupt.
• 49:07
  We're bankrupt.
• 49:08
  And the federal government's going to be expected
• 49:08
  And the federal government's going to be expected
• 49:10
  to step in and take and pay the
• 49:10
  to step in and take and pay the
• 49:11
  bills of Illinois.
• 49:11
  bills of Illinois.
• 49:13
  Well, if we go in and bail out
• 49:13
  Well, if we go in and bail out
• 49:15
  Illinois, that tells other states.
• 49:15
  Illinois, that tells other states.
• 49:17
  The federal government will bail you out if
• 49:17
  The federal government will bail you out if
• 49:18
  you go bankrupt.
• 49:18
  you go bankrupt.
• 49:19
  So you don't have to be fiscally responsible.
• 49:19
  So you don't have to be fiscally responsible.
• 49:21
  Go ahead and just spend all the money
• 49:21
  Go ahead and just spend all the money
• 49:23
  you want to and and just give everybody
• 49:23
  you want to and and just give everybody
• 49:25
  free things in order to get elected.
• 49:26
  free things in order to get elected, and
• 49:27
  And the federal government will foot.
• 49:28
  uh the federal government will foot the bill.
• 49:30
  Well, what's the federal government going to foot
• 49:31
  the bill with?
• 49:33
  They're gonna print money.
• 49:34
  That of course causes inflation.
• 49:36
  This is what happened to the Weimar Republic.
• 49:38
  This is how they got hyperinflation.
• 49:39
  They just started printing money in order to
• 49:40
  pay their bills.
• 49:42
  Nobody cared about fiscal restraint.
• 49:44
  Everybody thought everybody could have everything, and then
• 49:46
  the and the wheels came off the bus.
• 49:49
  Zerod Mandani is taking New York City down
• 49:51
  that road.
• 49:53
  Uh he's gonna take New York State down
• 49:55
  that road if he gets the ability because
• 49:57
  New York City can sink the entire state.
• 49:59
  And if the federal government bails New York,
• 50:01
  Illinois, California, these other states out, the entire
• 50:04
  country is going to implode.
• 50:06
  There's Ron Mandani going to take any accountability
• 50:08
  for that.
• 50:10
  Is Gavin Newsom going to take any accountability
• 50:12
  for that?
• 50:13
  He doesn't take accountability for anything.
• 50:15
  The only thing he takes accountability for is
• 50:16
  his hair gel.
• 50:18
  He's got great hair.
• 50:19
  He takes accountability for his hair.
• 50:21
  That's the only thing he takes accountability for.
• 50:23
  Gretchen Whitmer, does she take accountability for all
• 50:25
  of the elderly people that died in nursing
• 50:27
  homes because she sent COVID patients back to
• 50:29
  the nursing homes?
• 50:31
  No, nobody takes accountability for anything on the
• 50:33
  political left.
• 50:34
  Pete Buttigieg, when he was the mayor of
• 50:36
  uh South Bend.
• 50:38
  His nickname was Pothole Pete.
• 50:41
  Pothole Pete, then, instead of taking accountability for
• 50:43
  not being able to fix the roads, for
• 50:45
  the roads getting so much worse in South
• 50:47
  Bend after he ran on fixing them.
• 50:50
  Then he's the Secretary of Transportation.
• 50:52
  What does he do as the Secretary of
• 50:53
  Transportation?
• 50:55
  He takes vacations whenever there are emergencies.
• 50:58
  Really does nothing as a secretary of transportation.
• 51:01
  He was an absolute failure at that.
• 51:03
  So now he is the third guy in
• 51:05
  the polls for the Democrats to nominate.
• 51:08
  After AOC, she's number one.
• 51:10
  I think Gavin Newsom is number two.
• 51:12
  Then it's Pete But and Shig.
• 51:13
  I think I'm not I'm not reading this,
• 51:15
  I'm going off memory.
• 51:16
  And then I believe it's Kamala Harris.
• 51:19
  So no accountability.
• 51:21
  All of these people are abject failures, no
• 51:22
  accountability.
• 51:24
  Ilian Omar, does she have any accountability for
• 51:26
  the fact that her husband wrote off 30
• 51:29
  million dollars of wealth in uh in a
• 51:31
  winery that did that apparently didn't actually exist?
• 51:33
  Oh, we said it was worth 30 million
• 51:34
  dollars.
• 51:35
  I guess it's really not worth anything.
• 51:38
  Well, where's that 30 million dollars?
• 51:40
  Is there is there actually 30 million dollars
• 51:42
  somewhere that they were trying to be able
• 51:44
  to use?
• 51:46
  Is it possible that she was getting kickbacks
• 51:48
  from all of these fraud schemes in the
• 51:50
  Somali community in Minneapolis?
• 51:52
  Yeah, it's possible.
• 51:54
  The best she can say is that she
• 51:55
  didn't want to do anything about the fraud
• 51:57
  in Minneapolis.
• 51:59
  She can't say she didn't know about it.
• 52:01
  She's in TV commercials with some of the
• 52:02
  people who are committing it.
• 52:04
  So she can't say she knew nothing.
• 52:06
  What she can say if the smart probably
• 52:07
  the smartest thing for her to say, she
• 52:09
  won't say anything, but the smartest thing for
• 52:11
  her to say if she were actually called
• 52:13
  out would probably something along the lines of
• 52:15
  I didn't know how bad the fraud was.
• 52:17
  I'd heard some rumblings, didn't know.
• 52:19
  Uh if she were honest, what she would
• 52:21
  say is at the very very least, the
• 52:23
  people that were committing that fraud were also
• 52:25
  supporting your campaign.
• 52:26
  And so she had no incentive to do
• 52:28
  anything about it.
• 52:29
  It's not her money.
• 52:30
  It's if you're in Minneapolis, if if you're
• 52:32
  a Minnesota, really a lot of that money
• 52:34
  was federal money, so it was our money.
• 52:36
  Same thing in California.
• 52:38
  The waste in California was way, way, way,
• 52:40
  way worse than the waste in uh in
• 52:42
  Minnesota.
• 52:44
  What did California do?
• 52:46
  Gavin Newsom and the legislature took Nick Shirley's
• 52:50
  style of investigative journalism and made it illegal.
• 52:53
  You can no longer go to a health
• 52:56
  care facility unless you are seeking health care.
• 52:59
  You can no longer go there and see
• 53:00
  whether or not it's actually in operation, whether
• 53:02
  or not it's an actual business.
• 53:04
  They are banning that kind of journalism.
• 53:06
  So their solution to somebody finding fraud is
• 53:08
  to make it illegal to look.
• 53:10
  Is that how you run a country?
• 53:12
  Apparently that's how you run a lot of
• 53:13
  states.
• 53:14
  Ohio, a red Republican state.
• 53:17
  They've got fraud.
• 53:18
  We're gonna find that there is rampant fraud
• 53:20
  in every state in the country in Medicare
• 53:22
  and other things.
• 53:24
  Some of the numbers for Medicare, if you
• 53:26
  include improper billing and things like that, billing
• 53:28
  for things that didn't occur, things that don't
• 53:30
  necessarily get counted as fraud, but they're still
• 53:32
  misallocations of funds.
• 53:34
  Some estimates say that half a trillion dollars
• 53:38
  of that kind of waste, fraud, and abuse
• 53:41
  is in Medicare alone every single year.
• 53:45
  Does anybody get any accountability for that?
• 53:47
  No, we live in a society that has
• 53:49
  no morality, that does not believe in morality.
• 53:52
  We have we have decided as a society
• 53:53
  when I say we, I don't mean you
• 53:54
  and me.
• 53:55
  I mean many people in the country, many
• 53:57
  of the people that want to run the
• 54:00
  country have decided that tolerance for immorality will
• 54:02
  be the highest moral virtue, the only moral
• 54:04
  virtue, and as a consequence, we allow people
• 54:06
  to do immoral things.
• 54:08
  As long as they're on board with the
• 54:10
  left.
• 54:11
  If you're not on board with the left,
• 54:12
  all of a sudden they throw our morality
• 54:14
  in our face.
• 54:15
  Donald Trump cheated on his wife.
• 54:16
  Oh, he's an horrific person.
• 54:18
  He must be a Nazi.
• 54:19
  You voted for Trump, well, you're just as
• 54:20
  bad as he is.
• 54:21
  You're an evil person, you're a Nazi, we're
• 54:23
  gonna tear you down.
• 54:25
  Uh some people are saying that they'll go
• 54:27
  to door to door when they take power
• 54:29
  again and arrest or worse, uh Trump supporters
• 54:32
  as revenge for the horrors of a Trump
• 54:34
  presidency.
• 54:37
  There's no morality here at all.
• 54:38
  These people have no morals at all.
• 54:40
  They believe they're moral because they have a
• 54:42
  tolerance for immorality, and because we have less
• 54:44
  of a tolerance for immorality, they say that
• 54:46
  we're horrific people that that need to be
• 54:48
  taken care of.
• 54:50
  This is where we are.
• 54:51
  So it's understand abortion was the topic today,
• 54:54
  but this is not really just about abortion.
• 54:57
  This is about whether or not the United
• 55:00
  States of America is going to be a
• 55:02
  moral society, or whether or not the United
• 55:05
  States of America is going to continue to
• 55:08
  plunge into becoming something like Sodom and Gomorrah.
• 55:11
  And and you know, many people believe that
• 55:12
  God will punish us if we become Sodom
• 55:14
  and Gomorrah.
• 55:15
  I don't know if God's gonna punish the
• 55:17
  United States directly.
• 55:18
  I do know that Europe, Canada, uh, other
• 55:20
  countries in the in the with the Western
• 55:23
  society are much further down this road uh
• 55:25
  than we are, and it is incumbent upon
• 55:28
  the United States to stay firm, to stay
• 55:30
  strong and to stay moral and to stay
• 55:33
  free so that at some point we can
• 55:36
  re-export Western values back to Europe and back
• 55:38
  to the rest of the Western world.
• 55:41
  Because at some point that's gonna be necessary.
• 55:43
  If we fall, there is no backstop.
• 55:46
  The United States simply has to stay strong.
• 55:49
  So abortion is homicide.
• 55:52
  We should call it homicide.
• 55:54
  When people say that that they want to
• 55:56
  justify abortion, we should make them justify it
• 55:58
  as homicide.
• 56:00
  Homicide.
• 56:00
  It's not my body, my choice.
• 56:00
  It's not my body, my choice.
• 56:02
  It's why do you want to kill that
• 56:02
  It's why do you want to kill that
• 56:04
  unborn child?
• 56:04
  unborn child?
• 56:06
  That is the way that needs to be
• 56:06
  That is the way that needs to be
• 56:06
  framed.
• 56:06
  framed.
• 56:07
  And it's not just abortion.
• 56:07
  And it's not just abortion, we need to
• 56:09
  We need to reclaim morality for the entire
• 56:10
  reclaim morality for the entire country.
• 56:11
  country.
• 56:12
  Just like that, ladies and gentlemen, we are
• 56:12
  Just like that, ladies and gentlemen, we are
• 56:14
  out of time, but we got through everything.
• 56:15
  out of time, but we got through everything,
• 56:16
  Talked about Jacobins, the French Revolution, abortion, morality.
• 56:17
  talked about Jacobins, the French Revolution, abortion, morality.
• 56:20
  I got to rip on Robert Reich a
• 56:20
  I got to rip on Robert Reich a
• 56:21
  little bit.
• 56:21
  little bit.
• 56:22
  That's always fun.
• 56:22
  That's always fun.
• 56:23
  So I got through everything I wanted to
• 56:23
  So I got through everything I wanted to
• 56:24
  cover.
• 56:24
  cover.
• 56:25
  As always, thank you for tuning in.
• 56:25
  As always, thank you for tuning in.
• 56:27
  Please tell others who might be interested in
• 56:27
  Please tell others who might be interested in
• 56:28
  cutting through.
• 56:29
  cutting through the chaos to listen in either
• 56:31
  on Saturday and Sunday at 9 a.m.
• 56:33
  Eastern Standard Time or on podcast whenever they
• 56:35
  have the time.
• 56:37
  And we will see you next week at
• 56:39
  the same time and place where we once
• 56:41
  again be time to get involved and to
• 56:43
  get loud on America Out Loud.
• 56:45
  And ladies and gentlemen, you know, write in,
• 56:46
  let us know how you think we're doing.
• 56:48
  Any changes you'd like to see in the
• 56:49
  show format, whatever.
• 56:51
  Write in, let us know how you think
• 56:52
  we're doing.
• 56:53
  We will see you next week.