The War on Reality: Why the Left has set out to redefine Life, Gender, and Marriage
00:41 "... they did it on purpose the war on Realty ..."

Matt Walsh delivers a speech titled: "The War on Reality: Why the Left has set out to redefine Life, Gender, and Marriage" at the University of Maryland.thanks for being everybody first of all little housekeeping note if anyone coughs they're going to be escorted out by security and then burned alive so got a little dark sir about that also I understand there's been a bit of a commotion about my speech here tonight from some people some Flyers calling me a bigot and a fascist one saying that my speech puts lives at risks and in fact ice they were handing out these verse did you guys get a brochure you did yeah Matt wasp of the Dahle wire it's devastating stuff that's and some of these spelling mistakes I'm not sure if they did it on purpose the war on Realty I don't know if it's hard for me I wish I could say it's a college campus so hopefully that wouldn't be attention or letter and I just have to say just I mean briefly they're they're going down my list of sins you know opinions that I have that are terrible Matt Walsh staunchly endorses stripping people of their vote of the right to vote if he considers them to be ignorant or non-contributing well of course I mean then we all agree on that that's only wants people to vote if they can pay taxes or have passed an eighth grade civics exam I mean that's that seems pretty logical to me now one quick note about this thing where you you know you call people bigots and fascist and everything to try to shut them down I want to answer these charges of fascism and bigotry briefly before we get into everything and I'll do it by way of analogy okay now let's say that you bought a bottle of rat poison because you have a rat problem in your house right would you then go once you have the rat poison would you then go and label every single container in your house rat poison just to be cautious well no you wouldn't do that of course right because then your other people in your home like your your your your mom or your dad your brother your sister your spouse your kids they're not gonna be sure what the real rat poison is okay and the result is they're going to ignore the labels after a while because you're calling everything rat poison so it doesn't mean anything anymore and they're just gonna go about their day and open containers and not worry about it the problem though is that there's actually still rat poison in one of those can right and now you've just increased the likelihood that they're going to come in contact with it or ingest it because you've negated the effectiveness and the meaning of the label in a similar way when you go around reflexively labeling every opinion you don't like bigotry or fascism you've made it so those labels mean nothing whatsoever to anybody nobody can take them seriously anymore that's why everybody just laughs about it and then and then what do you do when there's actual fascism or bigotry to fight you've got no words left to describe it because you've wasted those words on every single opinion you just happen to not like so when you say hey look there's a bigot there's a fascist well you can because everyone's just gonna yawn and say yeah well you said that about the last 19,000 people you came across so here's the thing even if I am a bigot or a fascist I don't think I am but even if I was you calling me that has no effect whatsoever no meaning it has no substance because that's what you say about everyone I guess that's just a really long way of retelling the boy who cried wolf terrible I could have just put it that way I suppose but all right let's get into this now we're in the midst of I believe no less than a war on reality itself I believe that this war is waged through three primary avenues in this culture life marriage and gender by redefining these three things these three foundations of human civilization the left seeks to and has in many ways succeeded in undermining reality and truth but I want to challenge I'm not just gonna make assertions tonight what I want to do instead is go through these three issues life marriage and gender and explain why the less arguments fail in all of these areas so we'll go through these at one at a time let's start with life and we'll begin by sort of setting the stage it's a bloody stage indeed it's a stage that has seen the slaughter of 60 million human children since roe v-- wade 60 million humans have been killed since for every way why do some of us find this slaughter to be an unthinkable injustice well because every single one of those 60 million were innocent and defenseless human beings and it is always wrong to kill innocent and defenseless human beings the pro-life position is as simple as that it's straightforward is that doesn't get any more doesn't it's not any more complicated than that you're killing an innocent and defenseless human being and we believe that is always wrong to do intentionally now the pro-abortion person will respond here with a couple moves the first thing they'll try to do is of course dehumanize the unborn he will claim that the unborn child is not a human person and thus does not have the same moral standing and could not make the same moral claims for itself that a real person can make now of course the idea that a human child is not human which is something you still hear from Pro boards is such a silly absurd anti scientific notion I don't think we need to spend a lot of time on it it is simply a scientific fact that the being in the womb is indeed a being and it's a member of the human species and so human being that's it that's the end of that discussion all living things must be the member of must be a member of some kind of species so you know if you say well it's not a human being it's a fetus fetus is not a species it's a stage of development within a species and we know that it's of the human species because number one it has human DNA pretty good giveaway and number two it was conceived by two human beings now living well there are only three states of being for the most part that a physical entity can be with a few exceptions like while speaking of the corona virus I think most biologists would say viruses are in sort of a gray area between living and not for the most part though you have three basic options a thing is alive dead or inanimate right well the unborn human is not dead if it was there would be no need for the abortion and it's not inanimate inanimate is like this podium here it doesn't grow it doesn't develop it doesn't move on its own it doesn't consume food it's not going to become anything it will rot away of surely I could break it down and build it into something else but it's always basically going to fundamentally be what it is right here it's not in the gray area okay it's not a virus virus is not a stage of development for a living organism viruses aren't going to grow into something living so it's not that which would seem to leave only one other option living the baby is a living human being we've established that what about person though well this is where it gets a little bit more interesting the pro-abortion individual if he has any sophistication will will probably say that fine it's a human being but it's not a person but he will say that it's not a person because it's still developing and it's entirely dependent on its mother for survival those are the two basic two reasons and this you will say means that it lacks moral standing and that's what he means when he says it's not a person but you see that the problem is this view that personhood is acquired by degree and that it's forfeit if you're entirely dependent on someone else for survival it's very problematic and it clearly implicates more than just the unborn it would seem that the sick the infirm the disabled the elderly would all get caught up in this net the elderly are dependent on others for survival somebody in a nursing home many disabled people also are dependent on other some of them are not fully physically developed that's why they're disabled so by this line of reasoning all of these people at a minimum at least are not quite as much a person as you're me if personhood if personhood is on a spectrum this way if it's contingent then that must have implications outside of the womb so when someone says an unborn baby or fetus is not a person they're not just making a statement about the cortical fetus they're making a statement about the nature of what it means to be a person and what they're saying is that to be a person is to be on a continuum on a spectrum whereas the further along you go in the spectrum the more of a person you are so the only other option aside from personhood being attained by degree contingent upon other factors like self-sufficiency is that personhood and it's attending moral rights and dignities is inherent to all living human beings inherent means existing in something as a permanent essentially characteristic attribute the idea that our human dignity our personhood belongs to our essential nature and cannot be lost or diminished is an idea that lies very much of the foundation of any concept of human rights I'm not aware of any way to justify the idea of human rights if we do not have inherent dignity as human beings if an unborn baby does not have inherent value what that means then is that he doesn't have it inherently and if he doesn't have it inherently then neither do you now that there's anybody in this room nobody in this room is inherently valuable that's what it means to be inherent you either have it or you don't you cannot gain it so this is a very simple formula the way that I try to illustrate it for people as I say you know take yourself in your current form as you sit right there and as you sit right there you would say I have inherent Worth and dignity I have rights I'm a person now you hi you know that means something it's valuable those are all the things you could say about yourself okay well now rewind it you know if I were to hit rewind on a remote control and pointed at you go back let's say to yesterday is that still you you still have inherent value dignity you probably say yes okay let me go back 10 years still you still inherent value still dignity great let's go back to your first birthday still just as much you still all of the same inherent value in human rights let's go back to when you were one day old still you still inherent values still dignity let's go back to the moment you emerged from your mother's birth canal that moment that was you you had inherent value you had dignity now rewind the clock back just 10 more seconds just ten seconds what happened you changed locations but it's still you you see there is an unbroken chain of unis connecting the you of today to the you in the womb it's been you the entire time yes you have grown you've developed you matured but nothing was added and the entire time you were developing and maturing it was you developing and maturing so whatever I can say inherently about you now I must say about you from the very moment you came into existence and you did not come into existence when you emerge from the birth canal you existed before them nobody denies that that is why an unborn child is a human person and that's why killing this human person who is innocent and defenseless is by definition murder but you see the personhood argument is even worse than you think it's so bad that even if it were true it would do almost nothing to prove the pro-abortion case because think about every second the pro-abortion person with this argument is really making two assertions number one he's saying an unborn baby is not a person he's merely a potential person that's the first assertion number two therefore we can kill it now wait a second situ does not flow logically from one I feel like we skipped a few steps here just because something isn't a person doesn't necessarily mean you can kill it and we would all agree with that we can all name non person things or creatures that we would say you can't just gratuitously kill so even if I concede at this point even if I let you make there are two great leaps for the pro-abortion person one is the fetus is not a person potential person that's one huge logical leap the next is we can kill it what I'm saying is I could spot you that first leap I could say go ahead and take that leap I'll give that to you now you're stranded out there on an island because I'm not gonna make I'm not going to give you the next one you got to prove that to me I don't see how you do because even if it's just a potential person well then it's a potential person why wouldn't we treat it as effectively the same as a person anyway why wouldn't we treat it like something with infinite value let me make another analogy kind of a crude analogy but it works on someone what if you won 50 million dollars in the lottery and you had the ticket in your hand you didn't cash it in yet just a ticket it's a potential for 50 million dollars it's not 50 million dollars and you're walking down to the lottery office you're waving it in the air yeah I want 50 million dollars not smart let's say you do that then I run up and I take that 50 million from you and I eat it from how would you react would you react as though you just lost a piece of receipt paper which is all it technically is or would you react as though you just lost fifty million dollars and because we would all react in the lighter way if I try to calm you by saying hey man calm down it's just the potential for 50 million dollars it's not 50 million dollars come on you would say words to the effect of after you punch me in the face you would say basically it's the same thing so why can't we do that with a person why isn't that enough why can't I just say yeah whatever it's whatever it's just it's either way don't kill it but of course the child in this analogy is already from the moment of conception 50 million dollars or more really he's a thing of infinite value not just infinite potential value but what I'm saying is I don't see a difference between infinite potential value and infinite value okay perhaps the pro-abortion person will concede all of that in fact his best move is to concede all of that and say forget just throw all that aside fine and instead we're going to talk about bodily autonomy this is the second most common argument for abortion and the most formidable one though it's still pretty stupid the bodily autonomy argument states that women have the right to control their own bodies regardless of the moral status of the creature inside their womb so it doesn't really matter what that thing is could be a fetus could be a person could be a could be an alien from outer space makes no difference it's my body I'll do what I want this is now I say it's the second most common it's becoming I think the most common pro-abortion argument perhaps the most famous formulation of this argument came from Judith Jarvis Thompson decades ago and this is supposed to be the best pro-abortion argument that anyone has ever put forward this is the way it's touted anyway so let's take a look at it if you've never heard it she says you wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist a famous unconscious violinist he's been found to have a fatal kidney ailment and the Society of music lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help they've therefore kidnapped you and last night the violinist circulatory system was plugged into yours so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own to unplug you would be to kill him but never mind it's only for nine months by then he will have recovered from his ailment and can safely be unplugged from you this is how the pro-abortion side sees pregnancy I'm gonna address the bodily autonomy argument by focusing on this analogy because I think it frames it in a way that's helpful so but notice the the subtle adjustments that are made with this analogy and these are the adjustments that are always made when somebody argues for abortion on the grounds of bodily autonomy they make little changes that we have to notice because if we don't then then then they might get away with it and seemingly win the argument first of all the person hooked up to you is who just some guy you don't know just a violinist from across town you have no idea some stranger and you could even play a cool instrument you had to play the violin you know why is he hooked up to you well because he got sick somehow randomly you don't know you had nothing to do with it wait a second in order to make this analogy actually analogous shouldn't the violinist be your own child and considering that in every instance except for rape a child's conceived because of an intentional act by the parents shouldn't he be in that state because of something you did made it was an act that you didn't intend to harm him by doing but you'd still perform the act on purpose maybe you were driving maybe you were backing up in your driver you accidentally ran over him I mean that happens you were driving on purpose I mean it was still you who did that to him can't deny that okay now we're closer to home you wake up hooked up to your own child who's deathly ill because of something you did to him on purpose or by mistake doesn't matter but hold on again still doesn't work because abortion is not just the detaching of wires of course in the case of you being hooked up to the violinist you could say sorry bud detach yourself and walk out of there if you want to you would be perfectly morally justified in doing that obviously but the mother is not just withdrawing support from the child she's not just unplugging herself that is not how an abortion works that would be how childbirth works when they literally cut the cord the umbilical cord that's childbirth that's not abortion abortion is the intentional direct killing of a human life it is a purposeful action taken with the intent of directly destroying the life depending on what stage the abortion happens in it can involve dismembering the child while he's still alive and this happens thousand thousands of cases every single year the child is ripped apart in the womb while he's still alive oftentimes starting with his feet and his arms and finally getting to his torso in his head then his skull is crushed that's how it happens so the real analogy is this you're hooked up to your own child who is sick in the hospital because of something you did he needs your bodily support in order to survive but you don't feel like being hassled by it so instead you put a pillow over his faith face and smother him to death that's abortion suddenly when you frame it the right way doesn't exactly work in the pro-abortion person's favor would any person would any person say that a parent is justified in acting that way towards their child as for the other arguments I didn't cover perhaps they can all be dismissed on the basis that there are exactly the kinds of arguments that people throughout history have always made while trying to justify the dehumanization of other people I don't know if you've noticed this throughout history there are always groups of people trying to deprive other groups of people of their status as people this is always happening all throughout history and the people doing it are always wrong every single time if you find yourself in a situation where you're arguing that another group of people are not people you are in that category of the worst scumbags in history that should trouble you in fact let's let's look at this I mean every single pro bortion argument has a corollary with a pro-slavery talking point every single one let's go through it quickly argument from ownership this slave / baby is my property / body you can't tell me what to do with it argument from privacy no one is forcing you to have slaves / abortions mind your own business argument from superseding rights my property / body rights come before the rights of a slave / fetus argument from inevitability slavery / abortion has been around for thousands of years it's never going away we might as well have a safe and legal system in place for it argument from pseudoscience slaves / fetuses aren't really people they aren't like guests look at them they're physically different therefore we are human and they are not argument from socio economics if slavery / abortion ends most of these slaves / babies will end up on the street without a job argument from the courts slavery / abortion was vindicated by the Supreme Court it's already been decided there's no point arguing it argument from faux compassion slavery / abortions in the best interests of African / babies the world can be a cruel place it's best to protect them from it by keeping them enslaved / killing them argument from the assumed hip-pocket hypocrisy of the other side you say you want to end slavery / abortion but you don't want to live with free blacks slash adopt unwanted babies yourself so all that's left now is to tell me that I'm a man so my opinion doesn't really matter the only problem with that argument aside from the general stupidity of it is that as we shall see in a moment the people who make it are the same people who have no idea what a man even is now before we get to that what about marriage we're told that we have marriage equality in this country that gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage but and and you know we're at the point now where we're even conservative most of them have completely abandoned this issue and it's done they said we've lost it and maybe we have culturally but we weren't wrong and I think that matters see equality means sameness if two things are equal they're the same that's what it means if we're using the word equal and we don't mean saying we should be using a different word because that's what equal means so our same sex marriage is the same as equal to heterosexual marriages I say clearly not and that has nothing to do with value judgments so you don't have to think that the homosexual act is a sin to admit that the partnership of two men is different in kind from the partnership of a man and one different that's all you know we don't even need get to the moral part I'm I'm just getting you two different it's just different not the same different and different in a profoundly significant way the union of a man and woman has in principle the potential to create life of itself it's not that they can go out adopt I mean they can do that too but they have the potential to create life the union of two people of the same gender does not ever ever have this potential and never will now again even if you think that the two unions are morally equal you cannot say that they are equal in every respect because they are certainly not equal in this respect and this is an important difference I would say it's significant you have on one hand a thing that can make people that is the union of man and woman that thing it's a it's a it's a people making machine on the other you have a thing that cannot say what you want about those two things but you cannot say that they're equal let's look at it this way let's say that uh we were starting a world over from scratch we had no memory of anything we wake up we're building society and we look around and we see people pairing up couples and everything and we see this one type of pairing that has this has this funny habit of creating people and then we see all these other pairings that don't do that wouldn't we probably think of a word for that other pairing that that differentiates it from the others differentiates it in a way that will signify its power and importance I mean it seems reasonable to do that now this potential the heterosexual Union to create people is largely why marriage exists and why cite society has cherished and protected the institution for millennia because it was understood that a union which might create a person should be stable should be permanent should be protected should be faithful should be monogamous every study has shown that children fare much better and stable two-parent households than not so marriage exists as if as the foundation of the family unit the family unit exists as a foundation of human society if marriages are strong the family is strong the families are strong society is strong so we see that historically one of the most crucial and elemental functions of marriage was to create the basis upon which and the context within which children are created and born and raised and this is also why society had a vested interest in marriage and why the state had a vested interest in it because bad marriages or non-married procreative unions hurt everybody they create poverty they feed the prison system they lead to drug abuse crime suicide and so on the union between two men cannot of itself create anything therefore the state has no interest in it society has no real interest in it it is said that two men should be able to love each other indeed they should I don't think we should try to step in and stop anyone from loving anybody else we can't anyway be impossible to do but you don't need to be married to love somebody that's actually not what marriage is for you don't need to be married to partner with them to live with them or whatever else marriage is a particular thing it serves a particular purpose it has a particular function and the whole reason why some of us said that marriage should not be opened up to same-sex unions is that same-sex unions cannot perform the function for which marriage largely though not solely exists there's another element of this debate to consider people don't like the so called slippery slope argument pertaining to gay marriage they mock it and laugh at it and say it's a dumb argument in fact there are people online who think that slippery slope arguments are are fundamentally fallacious every single time which of course they're not it's ridiculous the point is that up until recently we knew what marriage was and and what its function and purpose was you may have disagreed with that answer but there was an answer at least if somebody said what's marriage you can give an answer here's what it is then the gay rights crowd said no marriage is not that anymore but did you know something they never told us what it is now they never told us we still don't know what is it okay it's not that then what is it so you can't do that you can't just say I don't agree with that definition why don't you agree with it I just don't what's your definition don't have then what basis do you disagree with this definition the most they could do is say that marriage is when two people love each other well what the hell does that mean and why do you need to be married to love each other I asked again what if them what if a man and woman are married and they go through a season where they don't feel like they love each other should they just get divorced is marriage now pointless and if love is the one prerequisite here then on what basis do you limit it to two people or two adults or whatever I mean we could scoff at that question but how about answer it I've never heard anyone even try marriage was for people who can in principle creep in principle create new people okay that was easy enough those were the boundaries what are the new boundaries and why there and not somewhere else I'm not saying that people are now going to run off and marry their dogs although with the way people feel about their dogs these days you never know but the point is that marriage went from a coherent thing with a certain purpose and function in society to this vague and ambiguous thing defined only by love which also nobody can define nor can they explain why love should necessitate marriage in the first place so that's why I oppose gay marriages still do finally gender up until about say 10 years ago you probably noticed everyone in the world basically agreed that men have penises and XY chromosomes and women have vaginas and XX chromosomes we agreed that this is just a biological fact like our species it's not ideological it's not political it just is man's a man just like he's a human and that's all there is to it it's all it needs to be said about it we can move on but over the last few years a certain madness has gripped hold of an increasingly large number of people what was one simple and straightforward suddenly became a subject for debate and one side of that debate decided that in fact even if a man has a penis and XY chromosomes and a male bone structure and a male reproductive system any possesses any of any of the the hundreds of other biological features unique to men he may still be a woman somehow no scientific explanation was ever offered for this ever there was no discovery there was no study that was done where someone said Eureka people with penises can be women never happened it was decided on ideological and philosophical grounds alone sex went from a biological fact to a political fact now at first this happened through a process of kind of this artificial bifurcation an arbitrary distinction was drawn between sex and gender and it was said that a man may be sexually male but have the gender of a woman sidebar on that it makes no sense of course gender really is supposed to be a grammatical construct it's not for people the idea that a person has a gender actually makes no sense it's words have genders not people and why was that well because we have sex we don't need gender it's redundant but at first anyway this is this was the way the argument went they said well sex and gender okay two different things more recently however this distinction has been again erased now we're told that a quote trans woman is actually really biologically fundamentally a woman trans women are women that's what they say period a trans activist said on Twitter a little while ago that a trans woman's penis is a biologically female penis this of course is lunacy and it removes all meaning from the word biologically saying that a man is biologically females like saying that a square is geometrically circular it's a nonsensical statement it has no meaning whatsoever but I could be convinced otherwise it would be rather simple and should be really easy to prove that sex doesn't exist and gender is a spectrum or they're both spectrums or however the left is phrasing it today if gender is not a simple binary system then all the left would have to do in order to prove this point is locate one human being in the world in the history of the world who has the reproductive capacities of both sexes just one see they would just need to present one example of a person who has the natural ability to impregnate and be pregnant see if sex is not binary if there really is a liquidy spectrum of hundreds of thousands of different genders then there should be a Venn diagram you know circle then this circle can get pregnant and the other circle can get others pregnant and in the middle area and there should be like a lot of people in that middle area both that's all spectrum works but there isn't there is no one in that middle circle never has been never will be never can be every human belongs to the male circle or the female circle nobody has ever crossed from one to the other sounds like we have a binary system here folks by definition now obviously there are people who possess neither capabilities sterility and fertility certainly exists but these are the results of illness deformity or old age they don't disprove the principle in principle men can get women pregnant and women can get pregnant by men a malfunctioning reproductive system does not undermine that rule or provide evidence for a spectrum for a spectrum to be proven we would need evidence of people who truly exist between these two categories see I know that color is on a spectrum because of the existence o

Matt Walsh delivers a speech titled: "The War on Reality: Why the Left has set out to redefine Life, Gender, and Marriage" at the University of Maryland.thanks for being everybody first of all little housekeeping note if anyone coughs they're going to be escorted out by security and then burned alive so got a little dark sir about that also I understand there's been a bit of a commotion about my speech here tonight from some people some Flyers calling me a bigot and a fascist one saying that my speech puts lives at risks and in fact ice they were handing out these verse did you guys get a brochure you did yeah Matt wasp of the Dahle wire it's devastating stuff that's and some of these spelling mistakes I'm not sure if they did it on purpose the war on Realty I don't know if it's hard for me I wish I could say it's a college campus so hopefully that wouldn't be attention or letter and I just have to say just I mean briefly they're they're going down my list of sins you know opinions that I have that are terrible Matt Walsh staunchly endorses stripping people of their vote of the right to vote if he considers them to be ignorant or non-contributing well of course I mean then we all agree on that that's only wants people to vote if they can pay taxes or have passed an eighth grade civics exam I mean that's that seems pretty logical to me now one quick note about this thing where you you know you call people bigots and fascist and everything to try to shut them down I want to answer these charges of fascism and bigotry briefly before we get into everything and I'll do it by way of analogy okay now let's say that you bought a bottle of rat poison because you have a rat problem in your house right would you then go once you have the rat poison would you then go and label every single container in your house rat poison just to be cautious well no you wouldn't do that of course right because then your other people in your home like your your your your mom or your dad your brother your sister your spouse your kids they're not gonna be sure what the real rat poison is okay and the result is they're going to ignore the labels after a while because you're calling everything rat poison so it doesn't mean anything anymore and they're just gonna go about their day and open containers and not worry about it the problem though is that there's actually still rat poison in one of those can right and now you've just increased the likelihood that they're going to come in contact with it or ingest it because you've negated the effectiveness and the meaning of the label in a similar way when you go around reflexively labeling every opinion you don't like bigotry or fascism you've made it so those labels mean nothing whatsoever to anybody nobody can take them seriously anymore that's why everybody just laughs about it and then and then what do you do when there's actual fascism or bigotry to fight you've got no words left to describe it because you've wasted those words on every single opinion you just happen to not like so when you say hey look there's a bigot there's a fascist well you can because everyone's just gonna yawn and say yeah well you said that about the last 19,000 people you came across so here's the thing even if I am a bigot or a fascist I don't think I am but even if I was you calling me that has no effect whatsoever no meaning it has no substance because that's what you say about everyone I guess that's just a really long way of retelling the boy who cried wolf terrible I could have just put it that way I suppose but all right let's get into this now we're in the midst of I believe no less than a war on reality itself I believe that this war is waged through three primary avenues in this culture life marriage and gender by redefining these three things these three foundations of human civilization the left seeks to and has in many ways succeeded in undermining reality and truth but I want to challenge I'm not just gonna make assertions tonight what I want to do instead is go through these three issues life marriage and gender and explain why the less arguments fail in all of these areas so we'll go through these at one at a time let's start with life and we'll begin by sort of setting the stage it's a bloody stage indeed it's a stage that has seen the slaughter of 60 million human children since roe v-- wade 60 million humans have been killed since for every way why do some of us find this slaughter to be an unthinkable injustice well because every single one of those 60 million were innocent and defenseless human beings and it is always wrong to kill innocent and defenseless human beings the pro-life position is as simple as that it's straightforward is that doesn't get any more doesn't it's not any more complicated than that you're killing an innocent and defenseless human being and we believe that is always wrong to do intentionally now the pro-abortion person will respond here with a couple moves the first thing they'll try to do is of course dehumanize the unborn he will claim that the unborn child is not a human person and thus does not have the same moral standing and could not make the same moral claims for itself that a real person can make now of course the idea that a human child is not human which is something you still hear from Pro boards is such a silly absurd anti scientific notion I don't think we need to spend a lot of time on it it is simply a scientific fact that the being in the womb is indeed a being and it's a member of the human species and so human being that's it that's the end of that discussion all living things must be the member of must be a member of some kind of species so you know if you say well it's not a human being it's a fetus fetus is not a species it's a stage of development within a species and we know that it's of the human species because number one it has human DNA pretty good giveaway and number two it was conceived by two human beings now living well there are only three states of being for the most part that a physical entity can be with a few exceptions like while speaking of the corona virus I think most biologists would say viruses are in sort of a gray area between living and not for the most part though you have three basic options a thing is alive dead or inanimate right well the unborn human is not dead if it was there would be no need for the abortion and it's not inanimate inanimate is like this podium here it doesn't grow it doesn't develop it doesn't move on its own it doesn't consume food it's not going to become anything it will rot away of surely I could break it down and build it into something else but it's always basically going to fundamentally be what it is right here it's not in the gray area okay it's not a virus virus is not a stage of development for a living organism viruses aren't going to grow into something living so it's not that which would seem to leave only one other option living the baby is a living human being we've established that what about person though well this is where it gets a little bit more interesting the pro-abortion individual if he has any sophistication will will probably say that fine it's a human being but it's not a person but he will say that it's not a person because it's still developing and it's entirely dependent on its mother for survival those are the two basic two reasons and this you will say means that it lacks moral standing and that's what he means when he says it's not a person but you see that the problem is this view that personhood is acquired by degree and that it's forfeit if you're entirely dependent on someone else for survival it's very problematic and it clearly implicates more than just the unborn it would seem that the sick the infirm the disabled the elderly would all get caught up in this net the elderly are dependent on others for survival somebody in a nursing home many disabled people also are dependent on other some of them are not fully physically developed that's why they're disabled so by this line of reasoning all of these people at a minimum at least are not quite as much a person as you're me if personhood if personhood is on a spectrum this way if it's contingent then that must have implications outside of the womb so when someone says an unborn baby or fetus is not a person they're not just making a statement about the cortical fetus they're making a statement about the nature of what it means to be a person and what they're saying is that to be a person is to be on a continuum on a spectrum whereas the further along you go in the spectrum the more of a person you are so the only other option aside from personhood being attained by degree contingent upon other factors like self-sufficiency is that personhood and it's attending moral rights and dignities is inherent to all living human beings inherent means existing in something as a permanent essentially characteristic attribute the idea that our human dignity our personhood belongs to our essential nature and cannot be lost or diminished is an idea that lies very much of the foundation of any concept of human rights I'm not aware of any way to justify the idea of human rights if we do not have inherent dignity as human beings if an unborn baby does not have inherent value what that means then is that he doesn't have it inherently and if he doesn't have it inherently then neither do you now that there's anybody in this room nobody in this room is inherently valuable that's what it means to be inherent you either have it or you don't you cannot gain it so this is a very simple formula the way that I try to illustrate it for people as I say you know take yourself in your current form as you sit right there and as you sit right there you would say I have inherent Worth and dignity I have rights I'm a person now you hi you know that means something it's valuable those are all the things you could say about yourself okay well now rewind it you know if I were to hit rewind on a remote control and pointed at you go back let's say to yesterday is that still you you still have inherent value dignity you probably say yes okay let me go back 10 years still you still inherent value still dignity great let's go back to your first birthday still just as much you still all of the same inherent value in human rights let's go back to when you were one day old still you still inherent values still dignity let's go back to the moment you emerged from your mother's birth canal that moment that was you you had inherent value you had dignity now rewind the clock back just 10 more seconds just ten seconds what happened you changed locations but it's still you you see there is an unbroken chain of unis connecting the you of today to the you in the womb it's been you the entire time yes you have grown you've developed you matured but nothing was added and the entire time you were developing and maturing it was you developing and maturing so whatever I can say inherently about you now I must say about you from the very moment you came into existence and you did not come into existence when you emerge from the birth canal you existed before them nobody denies that that is why an unborn child is a human person and that's why killing this human person who is innocent and defenseless is by definition murder but you see the personhood argument is even worse than you think it's so bad that even if it were true it would do almost nothing to prove the pro-abortion case because think about every second the pro-abortion person with this argument is really making two assertions number one he's saying an unborn baby is not a person he's merely a potential person that's the first assertion number two therefore we can kill it now wait a second situ does not flow logically from one I feel like we skipped a few steps here just because something isn't a person doesn't necessarily mean you can kill it and we would all agree with that we can all name non person things or creatures that we would say you can't just gratuitously kill so even if I concede at this point even if I let you make there are two great leaps for the pro-abortion person one is the fetus is not a person potential person that's one huge logical leap the next is we can kill it what I'm saying is I could spot you that first leap I could say go ahead and take that leap I'll give that to you now you're stranded out there on an island because I'm not gonna make I'm not going to give you the next one you got to prove that to me I don't see how you do because even if it's just a potential person well then it's a potential person why wouldn't we treat it as effectively the same as a person anyway why wouldn't we treat it like something with infinite value let me make another analogy kind of a crude analogy but it works on someone what if you won 50 million dollars in the lottery and you had the ticket in your hand you didn't cash it in yet just a ticket it's a potential for 50 million dollars it's not 50 million dollars and you're walking down to the lottery office you're waving it in the air yeah I want 50 million dollars not smart let's say you do that then I run up and I take that 50 million from you and I eat it from how would you react would you react as though you just lost a piece of receipt paper which is all it technically is or would you react as though you just lost fifty million dollars and because we would all react in the lighter way if I try to calm you by saying hey man calm down it's just the potential for 50 million dollars it's not 50 million dollars come on you would say words to the effect of after you punch me in the face you would say basically it's the same thing so why can't we do that with a person why isn't that enough why can't I just say yeah whatever it's whatever it's just it's either way don't kill it but of course the child in this analogy is already from the moment of conception 50 million dollars or more really he's a thing of infinite value not just infinite potential value but what I'm saying is I don't see a difference between infinite potential value and infinite value okay perhaps the pro-abortion person will concede all of that in fact his best move is to concede all of that and say forget just throw all that aside fine and instead we're going to talk about bodily autonomy this is the second most common argument for abortion and the most formidable one though it's still pretty stupid the bodily autonomy argument states that women have the right to control their own bodies regardless of the moral status of the creature inside their womb so it doesn't really matter what that thing is could be a fetus could be a person could be a could be an alien from outer space makes no difference it's my body I'll do what I want this is now I say it's the second most common it's becoming I think the most common pro-abortion argument perhaps the most famous formulation of this argument came from Judith Jarvis Thompson decades ago and this is supposed to be the best pro-abortion argument that anyone has ever put forward this is the way it's touted anyway so let's take a look at it if you've never heard it she says you wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist a famous unconscious violinist he's been found to have a fatal kidney ailment and the Society of music lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help they've therefore kidnapped you and last night the violinist circulatory system was plugged into yours so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own to unplug you would be to kill him but never mind it's only for nine months by then he will have recovered from his ailment and can safely be unplugged from you this is how the pro-abortion side sees pregnancy I'm gonna address the bodily autonomy argument by focusing on this analogy because I think it frames it in a way that's helpful so but notice the the subtle adjustments that are made with this analogy and these are the adjustments that are always made when somebody argues for abortion on the grounds of bodily autonomy they make little changes that we have to notice because if we don't then then then they might get away with it and seemingly win the argument first of all the person hooked up to you is who just some guy you don't know just a violinist from across town you have no idea some stranger and you could even play a cool instrument you had to play the violin you know why is he hooked up to you well because he got sick somehow randomly you don't know you had nothing to do with it wait a second in order to make this analogy actually analogous shouldn't the violinist be your own child and considering that in every instance except for rape a child's conceived because of an intentional act by the parents shouldn't he be in that state because of something you did made it was an act that you didn't intend to harm him by doing but you'd still perform the act on purpose maybe you were driving maybe you were backing up in your driver you accidentally ran over him I mean that happens you were driving on purpose I mean it was still you who did that to him can't deny that okay now we're closer to home you wake up hooked up to your own child who's deathly ill because of something you did to him on purpose or by mistake doesn't matter but hold on again still doesn't work because abortion is not just the detaching of wires of course in the case of you being hooked up to the violinist you could say sorry bud detach yourself and walk out of there if you want to you would be perfectly morally justified in doing that obviously but the mother is not just withdrawing support from the child she's not just unplugging herself that is not how an abortion works that would be how childbirth works when they literally cut the cord the umbilical cord that's childbirth that's not abortion abortion is the intentional direct killing of a human life it is a purposeful action taken with the intent of directly destroying the life depending on what stage the abortion happens in it can involve dismembering the child while he's still alive and this happens thousand thousands of cases every single year the child is ripped apart in the womb while he's still alive oftentimes starting with his feet and his arms and finally getting to his torso in his head then his skull is crushed that's how it happens so the real analogy is this you're hooked up to your own child who is sick in the hospital because of something you did he needs your bodily support in order to survive but you don't feel like being hassled by it so instead you put a pillow over his faith face and smother him to death that's abortion suddenly when you frame it the right way doesn't exactly work in the pro-abortion person's favor would any person would any person say that a parent is justified in acting that way towards their child as for the other arguments I didn't cover perhaps they can all be dismissed on the basis that there are exactly the kinds of arguments that people throughout history have always made while trying to justify the dehumanization of other people I don't know if you've noticed this throughout history there are always groups of people trying to deprive other groups of people of their status as people this is always happening all throughout history and the people doing it are always wrong every single time if you find yourself in a situation where you're arguing that another group of people are not people you are in that category of the worst scumbags in history that should trouble you in fact let's let's look at this I mean every single pro bortion argument has a corollary with a pro-slavery talking point every single one let's go through it quickly argument from ownership this slave / baby is my property / body you can't tell me what to do with it argument from privacy no one is forcing you to have slaves / abortions mind your own business argument from superseding rights my property / body rights come before the rights of a slave / fetus argument from inevitability slavery / abortion has been around for thousands of years it's never going away we might as well have a safe and legal system in place for it argument from pseudoscience slaves / fetuses aren't really people they aren't like guests look at them they're physically different therefore we are human and they are not argument from socio economics if slavery / abortion ends most of these slaves / babies will end up on the street without a job argument from the courts slavery / abortion was vindicated by the Supreme Court it's already been decided there's no point arguing it argument from faux compassion slavery / abortions in the best interests of African / babies the world can be a cruel place it's best to protect them from it by keeping them enslaved / killing them argument from the assumed hip-pocket hypocrisy of the other side you say you want to end slavery / abortion but you don't want to live with free blacks slash adopt unwanted babies yourself so all that's left now is to tell me that I'm a man so my opinion doesn't really matter the only problem with that argument aside from the general stupidity of it is that as we shall see in a moment the people who make it are the same people who have no idea what a man even is now before we get to that what about marriage we're told that we have marriage equality in this country that gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage but and and you know we're at the point now where we're even conservative most of them have completely abandoned this issue and it's done they said we've lost it and maybe we have culturally but we weren't wrong and I think that matters see equality means sameness if two things are equal they're the same that's what it means if we're using the word equal and we don't mean saying we should be using a different word because that's what equal means so our same sex marriage is the same as equal to heterosexual marriages I say clearly not and that has nothing to do with value judgments so you don't have to think that the homosexual act is a sin to admit that the partnership of two men is different in kind from the partnership of a man and one different that's all you know we don't even need get to the moral part I'm I'm just getting you two different it's just different not the same different and different in a profoundly significant way the union of a man and woman has in principle the potential to create life of itself it's not that they can go out adopt I mean they can do that too but they have the potential to create life the union of two people of the same gender does not ever ever have this potential and never will now again even if you think that the two unions are morally equal you cannot say that they are equal in every respect because they are certainly not equal in this respect and this is an important difference I would say it's significant you have on one hand a thing that can make people that is the union of man and woman that thing it's a it's a it's a people making machine on the other you have a thing that cannot say what you want about those two things but you cannot say that they're equal let's look at it this way let's say that uh we were starting a world over from scratch we had no memory of anything we wake up we're building society and we look around and we see people pairing up couples and everything and we see this one type of pairing that has this has this funny habit of creating people and then we see all these other pairings that don't do that wouldn't we probably think of a word for that other pairing that that differentiates it from the others differentiates it in a way that will signify its power and importance I mean it seems reasonable to do that now this potential the heterosexual Union to create people is largely why marriage exists and why cite society has cherished and protected the institution for millennia because it was understood that a union which might create a person should be stable should be permanent should be protected should be faithful should be monogamous every study has shown that children fare much better and stable two-parent households than not so marriage exists as if as the foundation of the family unit the family unit exists as a foundation of human society if marriages are strong the family is strong the families are strong society is strong so we see that historically one of the most crucial and elemental functions of marriage was to create the basis upon which and the context within which children are created and born and raised and this is also why society had a vested interest in marriage and why the state had a vested interest in it because bad marriages or non-married procreative unions hurt everybody they create poverty they feed the prison system they lead to drug abuse crime suicide and so on the union between two men cannot of itself create anything therefore the state has no interest in it society has no real interest in it it is said that two men should be able to love each other indeed they should I don't think we should try to step in and stop anyone from loving anybody else we can't anyway be impossible to do but you don't need to be married to love somebody that's actually not what marriage is for you don't need to be married to partner with them to live with them or whatever else marriage is a particular thing it serves a particular purpose it has a particular function and the whole reason why some of us said that marriage should not be opened up to same-sex unions is that same-sex unions cannot perform the function for which marriage largely though not solely exists there's another element of this debate to consider people don't like the so called slippery slope argument pertaining to gay marriage they mock it and laugh at it and say it's a dumb argument in fact there are people online who think that slippery slope arguments are are fundamentally fallacious every single time which of course they're not it's ridiculous the point is that up until recently we knew what marriage was and and what its function and purpose was you may have disagreed with that answer but there was an answer at least if somebody said what's marriage you can give an answer here's what it is then the gay rights crowd said no marriage is not that anymore but did you know something they never told us what it is now they never told us we still don't know what is it okay it's not that then what is it so you can't do that you can't just say I don't agree with that definition why don't you agree with it I just don't what's your definition don't have then what basis do you disagree with this definition the most they could do is say that marriage is when two people love each other well what the hell does that mean and why do you need to be married to love each other I asked again what if them what if a man and woman are married and they go through a season where they don't feel like they love each other should they just get divorced is marriage now pointless and if love is the one prerequisite here then on what basis do you limit it to two people or two adults or whatever I mean we could scoff at that question but how about answer it I've never heard anyone even try marriage was for people who can in principle creep in principle create new people okay that was easy enough those were the boundaries what are the new boundaries and why there and not somewhere else I'm not saying that people are now going to run off and marry their dogs although with the way people feel about their dogs these days you never know but the point is that marriage went from a coherent thing with a certain purpose and function in society to this vague and ambiguous thing defined only by love which also nobody can define nor can they explain why love should necessitate marriage in the first place so that's why I oppose gay marriages still do finally gender up until about say 10 years ago you probably noticed everyone in the world basically agreed that men have penises and XY chromosomes and women have vaginas and XX chromosomes we agreed that this is just a biological fact like our species it's not ideological it's not political it just is man's a man just like he's a human and that's all there is to it it's all it needs to be said about it we can move on but over the last few years a certain madness has gripped hold of an increasingly large number of people what was one simple and straightforward suddenly became a subject for debate and one side of that debate decided that in fact even if a man has a penis and XY chromosomes and a male bone structure and a male reproductive system any possesses any of any of the the hundreds of other biological features unique to men he may still be a woman somehow no scientific explanation was ever offered for this ever there was no discovery there was no study that was done where someone said Eureka people with penises can be women never happened it was decided on ideological and philosophical grounds alone sex went from a biological fact to a political fact now at first this happened through a process of kind of this artificial bifurcation an arbitrary distinction was drawn between sex and gender and it was said that a man may be sexually male but have the gender of a woman sidebar on that it makes no sense of course gender really is supposed to be a grammatical construct it's not for people the idea that a person has a gender actually makes no sense it's words have genders not people and why was that well because we have sex we don't need gender it's redundant but at first anyway this is this was the way the argument went they said well sex and gender okay two different things more recently however this distinction has been again erased now we're told that a quote trans woman is actually really biologically fundamentally a woman trans women are women that's what they say period a trans activist said on Twitter a little while ago that a trans woman's penis is a biologically female penis this of course is lunacy and it removes all meaning from the word biologically saying that a man is biologically females like saying that a square is geometrically circular it's a nonsensical statement it has no meaning whatsoever but I could be convinced otherwise it would be rather simple and should be really easy to prove that sex doesn't exist and gender is a spectrum or they're both spectrums or however the left is phrasing it today if gender is not a simple binary system then all the left would have to do in order to prove this point is locate one human being in the world in the history of the world who has the reproductive capacities of both sexes just one see they would just need to present one example of a person who has the natural ability to impregnate and be pregnant see if sex is not binary if there really is a liquidy spectrum of hundreds of thousands of different genders then there should be a Venn diagram you know circle then this circle can get pregnant and the other circle can get others pregnant and in the middle area and there should be like a lot of people in that middle area both that's all spectrum works but there isn't there is no one in that middle circle never has been never will be never can be every human belongs to the male circle or the female circle nobody has ever crossed from one to the other sounds like we have a binary system here folks by definition now obviously there are people who possess neither capabilities sterility and fertility certainly exists but these are the results of illness deformity or old age they don't disprove the principle in principle men can get women pregnant and women can get pregnant by men a malfunctioning reproductive system does not undermine that rule or provide evidence for a spectrum for a spectrum to be proven we would need evidence of people who truly exist between these two categories see I know that color is on a spectrum because of the existence o

Proper Review
Mar 18th 2020
Full review >>
Like Love Haha Wow Sad Angry