The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 129 - Gosnell Is No Different From Any Other Abortionist

Episode Date: October 23, 2018

You cannot logically oppose the killing of born infants if you do not oppose the killing of unborn infants. As a society, we have to decide where we stand on murder. Either we celebrate it or we condemn it. We can't do both. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Walls show, we'll talk a bit more about the Gossinnell case, and I'll explain why, logically, we should either lock every abortionist in prison alongside Gossnell or else let Gosnell go free. Those are the two choices that we have logically. Also, the Trump administration is in trouble because it claims that sex is binary, and there are only men and women and nobody in between those bigots. Well, that is true, of course, but I will explain the one thing that could prove that sex is not binary. This claim that left us make, that sex is not binary, they could prove it very simply. And I'll explain how all of that is coming up.

For some god-awful reason, my wife, who I still loved dearly, brought this toy home for our kids. Now, this is the sound, this is the sound that this toy makes. And so the first thing that I did when she brought her. this toy home is I threw it in the garbage. But then my kids went on, went and told on me to mommy and mommy rescued it from the garbage. And so I've had to listen to this sound day and night. And you know what's going to happen, right? Because every parent knows what happens. At a certain point in a toy's old age, as its spirit weakens, it becomes possessed by 2,000

demons. And then it starts going off at random points, even when no one's touching it. And so what's going to happen is one night, I'm going to wake up, and I'm going to hear this coming from downstairs, and I'm going to think that a witch is being stabbed to death in the living room, because that's what I always assume when there's a sound at night. But no, it's going to be this toy. And this is one of the many, many reasons why I hate noisy toys. I mean, my son somehow smuggled a toy police car that makes a siren noise. And I thought I had taken the batteries out of all those things, because he has 15 of them. But he smuggled one of them into the car and then set it off as we were driving down the highway.

So I had a nice little moment of panic because of that. Now listen, I believe that marriage is a lifelong monogamous union and that we must remain united as a couple. So I will not blame my wife for buying this. It's possible that she suffered a momentary bout of insanity. It's possible that aliens hijacked her brain. I try to see the best in my wife. And so that's what I'm going to do here.

But I'll say this, when I am dictator of the world, which I promise you I will be soon enough. I'm going to shut down every toy company that has ever produced a noisy toy for children and every store that has ever sold one and then I'm going to confiscate all those noisy toys and I'm going to burn them in a massive fire and I will invite all of the world's parents

except my wife to come and dance joyously around the flames. And as we dance and dance and dance, this is the sound that they're going to make as they burn. and we will laugh together. Amen. All right. Now, I want to follow up on, so don't buy noisy toys for your kids is what I'm trying to say. Or especially, what I mean to say is, as we head into the holiday season, don't buy noisy toys for someone else's kids, especially, because that is, well, it's frankly sinful, I believe. Now, I want to follow up on something from yesterday.

we talked about the Gossnell film and how it's being hijacked or I should say how it's being blackballed by the media and the movie theaters and it's being ignored by the left and I said that the left is terrified of Gosnell terrified of Gossinel the person and Gossel the movie and all of events

surrounding Gosnell that they're terrified of that story in general because of the implications because they realize that if you actually investigate this case, and if you think about it, if you pause for even a moment to think about it, you'll begin to see that there is no basis upon which to oppose Gaznell unless you oppose all abortion. And that's a problem because, I mean, almost any thinking person, any person with a soul, when you read about the Gossinel case, you can't help but be horrified and say this man

deserves to rot in prison or worse. But then if you think just one more moment, you begin to ask yourself, well, what really is the difference between what Gosnell did and what a normal abortionist does? Yes, he killed babies moments after they were born. Most abortionists kill them moments before. But so what? Murder is murder. Dead is

dead. The child is just as dead either way. It is an act of violence either way. It's the same act of violence against the same person. What does it matter? You know, where they are located, whether inside the womb or outside of it, win that act of violence and murder occurs.

So, just to elaborate on that, I would like to propose one of two things, okay? And I know that neither of these things will actually happen, but I'm just trying to make a point here. I propose that, and here's my preference, okay, here's one option. One option is that all abortionists are locked in a cage, that they're all sent to prison. I think that's the best option. Second option is that Gazznell is allowed to go free because I think they all should be treated the same. As a matter of honesty, really, as a matter of justice and honesty and forcing us as a society to confront what we're actually permitting and tolerating, we should treat all these people the same. Because they are all the same. They are the same.

when it comes to abortion, there are only two intellectually honest positions that you can have. One is, and this is the intellectually honest and also morally correct position, and that is you can be totally opposed to abortion in every situation, no matter the circumstances, period. That's one option. That's intellectually consistent and also morally correct. The second option is you can be totally in favor of abortion through all stages up to birth and even then at least maybe two years beyond birth. That is intellectually consistent. It's morally depraved, but it's intellectually consistent. I think that Peter Singer has the right idea here. Peter Singer is a prominent atheist philosopher,

and he said that he has said multiple times that he thinks, abortion should extend beyond birth. And he gives a very logical reason. He says that there is really no substantive difference between a newborn and a quote-unquote fetus. So whatever argument justifies the killing of a quote-unquote fetus can also be applied to newborn children. I mean, think about it. There are only two arguments that can really be used to justify pre-birth abortion. They're both bad arguments, but there are only two arguments.

One is that a mother shouldn't be forced to carry a child. And second, the second argument is that an unborn child is not the same as a born child. Well, on the first point, a newborn child is just as dependent physically on his mother as he was in the womb. He needs constant attention. He needs constant physical contact. newborn children, it's not just like they, you know, the child emerges from the womb and then he's a self-sustaining human that can take care of. No, he needs constant attention. He needs physical contact. If a newborn child does not have physical contact with his mother or with someone, he could die. So, and in fact, a newborn child makes around, makes, round-the-clock demands on his mother. He is quite a bit more demanding outside of the womb than he was inside it.

And anyone who has ever had a newborn child knows this. Where the child makes a constant demand on your body, on your time, on your money, on your attention, on everything. Your entire life now revolves around this child. As it stands, we require a mother. by law to care for her child or else make arrangements for someone else to do it. But if she can't find someone else and she's struggling to care for her child, we absolutely do not allow her to kill her child. Now, this to me seems completely inconsistent with the bodily autonomy arguments that we use

to justify pre-birth abortion. If we're saying, if we are saying to a mother with a newborn, child, that your supposed bodily autonomy rights, while you may have them, they do not give you the right to kill a person. And, and even though you have those rights, you all, because you are the mother of the child, you have a legal, you have a moral and legal obligation to care for that child or else find someone who will. You cannot kill the child. Not only do you have a legal and more obligation to your child, but you have a legal and moral obligation that nobody else in the world does. You have a unique, aside from the father, if he's in the picture,

which he should be. So as a parent, you have a unique obligation legally to that child. That's what we say to the mother immediately after birth. That's what we say to the mother. If we're going to say it to her immediately after birth, then there's no reason at all why we shouldn't say it to her before birth as well. So if we're going to say before birth that you can exercise this autonomy even up to the point of murdering your child, then there's really actually no reason and there's no logical basis upon which we can penalize mothers who kill their born children. So, you know, by that, that logic applies to both. Now, the second point, we say, well, the unborn baby is not the same as a born one. Well, in what way is that true? In terms of physical development, if that's what you're hinging this on, well, then the most you could possibly support is first trimester abortions.

If you support abortion based on physical development, then the most you could possibly get away with is first trimester abortions. because a baby midway through the second trimester can survive outside the womb. He has all of his organs, his limbs, his heart, his brain, his eyes, everything. He has all the same parts as a born baby. And if you can abort him anyway, then why can't you abort a born baby? And in fact, even babies in the first trimester, yes, they don't have all of the physical development yet, but babies who are born also aren't fully physically developed either. They can't walk, they can't talk, they don't have hardly any fine motor skills at all,

and so on. So in matter how you look at it, this applies to both the born and the unborn. And then there's the other measure, you know, consciousness. And this is what Peter Singer points to. He says that unborn babies do not have moral standing as people because they have no self-awareness. They have no concept of themselves. They don't know what's going on. Of course, there's no way for us to really be sure of that.

We only assume it because we have no memories from the womb. And so we assume that if you aren't forming and collecting memories, then you must not really be conscious. So Singer, he takes that standard, and it's a horrific standard, a terrible standard, but he applies it equally. And he says that, well, a newborn infant also isn't very conscious, probably has less consciousness than a monkey or a pig. Same for people in a coma.

Same for people who are very old and very sick in nursing homes. Same for some who are mentally disabled. People in all of these categories, also, we could argue, some of them, don't have much consciousness, although we don't know how much they actually do have. So Peter Singer says, well, abort all of them. You know, they could all be killed. Now, again, that's horrific. That's morally deranged.

But it's logically consistent. What you can't do logically is apply that standard or any of these standards arbitrarily to the unborn as if they're unique in all of these ways because they aren't. the unborn children belong to a certain category of existence, and it is a rather crowded category. That is, the category is defenseless, wholly dependent, limited in mental and physical capacity humans. That's the category they belong to. And it is on that basis that they are defenseless, wholly dependent, limited in mental and physical capacity. that's the basis upon which we justify abortion. Well, except that, as I said, that is a category that includes a lot of other people aside from just the unborn.

So it is morally abominable to advocate for killing all of the people in this category, but it's morally abominable and logically inconsistent to advocate for killing only one of the subgroups within that larger group. So the point is, Gossnell expanded his reach a little bit. He took the abortion philosophy, he took the abortion rationale, and he simply applied it to newborn kids. So morally, he's not any different than any other abortionists.

And morally, what he did is not any different from abortion. It's just a form of abortion, that's all. Intellectually, he's actually more honest and more consistent than your average abortion or your average abortionist or your average pro-abortion person. So we have to decide, okay, are we going to be the kind of society that punishes those who kill the helpless and the innocent? are we going to be that kind of society or not but I think we have to choose

I don't think we should have it both ways if we are going to be the kind of society that will tolerate and even celebrate and certainly defend the systematic slaughter of unborn children if we're going to be this kind of society that can look at 60 million

murdered unborn children, and we're going to look at that and we're just going to yawn at it and shrug our shoulders and say, who cares? If that's going to be the kind of society that we are, then we don't deserve to put Kermit-Gosnell in prison. I mean, where do we get off putting someone like Gosnell in prison? All of the bloodshed and murder and violence that we tolerate and celebrate and justify. And we think we have the right to be, to be what, morally indignant because a guy killed babies a few seconds after they were born? Starting a business can seem like a daunting task, unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your

business. From designing a website, to marketing, to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz, and all birds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into... Sign up for your $1 per month trial at Shopify.com slash special offer. No, we have no right to that. Just like we have no right to... You know, you hear these horrible cases of mothers that give birth to babies,

throw them in dumpsters, throw them in a toilet. You hear about... I mean, a thing about Andrea Yates, she drowned five, whatever, five or six of her kids in bathtubs. we really have as a society we have no moral right actually to judge any of those people if we're going to justify the murder of 60 million kids and say that all of that's perfectly fine well then who are we to say oh well except for that murder well that's wrong no we need to decide

I think we should have to confront either we're the kind of either murder is illegal or it isn't you know what that's what it is Either we're going to say that murder is illegal or not. We've got to choose. Which is it? And if we're saying that murder isn't illegal, well then fine, just open up the floodgates. I guess it should be the purge. Murder's not, you know, human life is not sacred.

Because that's what you're saying, really, when it comes down to it, if abortion is legal and fine and morally acceptable, that human life is not sacred. Human life is not, it doesn't mean anything. So let Gossanel out of prison, let them all out of prison. Let all the murderers out. Or put them all in. Let's choose. What kind of society do we want to be? You know, I think that people who support abortion,

they know at some level that their position is morally atrocious. at some level they must know if they have a soul if they have any kind of human conscience left within them which maybe which some of them maybe don't but but those who do they know at some level that abortion is a horrible atrocity um but they try to convince themselves that they still have moral standards by by you know although they they tolerate they accept this kind of murder well then they'll turn around and condemn other forms of murder as a way of kind of hiding from themselves, hiding from their own position, trying to convince themselves that they have moral standards. Well, you know, I just, I don't think we should allow them to do that.

I mean, have the courage of your convictions. If you're pro-murder, then just be pro-murder. All right, one other point I want to hit on here. Switching gears, there were protests yesterday. Yes, protests, if you can believe. it. I mean, it had been probably six or seven hours since the last one, so we needed a good protest. But these protests were aimed at Donald Trump because news broke that the Trump administration is considering defining gender as based on your biological sex at birth.

The horror. What a horrible thing, right? And the point of making this completely reasonable and necessary change is for Title IX purposes and when assessing discrimination complaints and so on and so forth. So what the administration wants to say is, well, you're male or female, those are the two categories, and that's determined anatomically, biologically. That's the change that the Trump administration wants to make. But the left, which has descended completely and irretrievably into anti-scientific madness, insists that sex has nothing to do with biology at all. So they're very upset about this. In fact, the New York Times, the New York Times science Twitter page tweeted out an article

today with this headline. This is the headline. It says, the idea that a person's sex is determined by their anatomy at birth is not true. And we've known that it's not true for decades. and then the article gets into this whole scientific explanation as to why biological sex essentially doesn't exist. Now, look at what they're doing here. There's always a slippery slope with these people. And you should really pay attention to this, because they used to say that sex is biological, but gender is a spectrum, which was crazy enough. Now they say that both of them are a spectrum. Have you noticed that change?

It's a very important change. And it may have been kind of subtle. You may not have noticed. But for a long time, it was, well, you know, there's a difference between sex and gender. That's what they used to say. They invented this concept of gender as distinct from sex so as to introduce the idea of spectrums into the conversation. And now they're reverting back to sex and gender being interchangeable. concepts and both of them now are our spectrums. Gender, by the way, it was originally a grammatical

term. Gender denotes that a word is masculine or feminine, which doesn't come up much in modern English, but in other languages it does. So leftists, they took that grammatical concept and they applied it to humans. They turned it into an actual state of being, pretending that a person has both a sex and a gender as two distinct things. But now, which was crazy and makes no sense, but now they're merging the two again, it seems. So this is what I want to say, okay? I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it, but this is what I'll say. To those many millions, of confused and deluded people who insist that sex is a spectrum, who insist that it isn't binary. Well, you know what? I could be convinced. Right now, I think you're crazy. I think what you're

saying is anti-science madness, and I think you're totally and completely wrong, and you lack even a first-grader's understanding of basic science. That's what I think now. But you could convince me that I'm wrong. You could convince me that sex is not by. this way. It's very simple. This is all you have to do to convince me. And I think this is how you could convince a lot of people. All you have to do is find one example, just one, in all of human history, just one example of a person who could get pregnant and also impregnate others. Okay, find me someone, just one person out of the 7 billion in the world or the billions more who have existed throughout human history, find me just one person who has the ability to conceive and fertilize. In other words, find me someone with the functioning reproductive organs of both sexes.

if sex is not binary, you should be able to find me a person like that. In fact, you should be able to find me a lot of people like that. But you can't find one, can you? Out of the 10 billion whatever people who have existed on the planet earth, you cannot find me one person like that, can you? Do you know why? Because there are only two categories of people when it comes to sex. There aren't three, there aren't 10, there aren't an infinite number.

there are only two categories. And those categories are, very simply, those who get pregnant and those who impregnate. Those are the two categories. That's all. Those are the only categories. When it comes to sex, that's it.

That's all you got. And they are not interchangeable. There is no spectrum between them. Those are, every person who has ever existed on earth is in this category or that one, that's it. Now, you can call those categories anything you want. You don't have to call them men or women and men.

You don't have to do that. You can call them, you call them blottyblas and yada yas, whatever you want to call them. Doesn't matter. But there are only two categories, okay? And that's all there is to it. if it is impossible, if it is absolutely impossible for a person with functioning male sex organs to also have functioning female sex organs, then it is impossible for a man to be a woman. Period. End of story. That's all. I'm sorry. I'm sorry if you don't like it. I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings. I'm sorry if you feel differently, but you're simply wrong because facts are facts.

Now, yes, of course, I know what people are going to say, you know, well, what about infertile people? What about people who are sterile? What about people who can't do either of those things? There are people who can't get pregnant or impregnate. Well, yes, those people exist, but they don't change the principle, okay? Such people are suffering from illness or deformity. That doesn't change the principle. In principle, men impregnate and women get pregnant. That's the principle.

And sickness, old age, and deformity, they don't change that. In fact, if a young woman can't get pregnant, we know that something is wrong, that there's been an aberration of some kind. How do we know that something is wrong? Because we know that all women are supposed to be able to get pregnant. So if there's a woman who can't, that's how we know that something is wrong. which by the way, if sex is really a spectrum, if it's not binary, then there's no reason to assume that there's anything physically wrong with a woman who can't get pregnant. But we know that there is something wrong because in principle, this is a capacity that women have.

In the same way, if a man is born with one arm, that doesn't mean that he's a new type of human being. he hasn't proven that there's a whole new fundamental category of people who are one-armed. No, we know that if a man is born with one arm, we know that something is wrong. He is from the two-arm category because that's the only category that exists for people, but something went wrong, and so now there's no arm where the arm ought to be. but the existence of one-armed people and two-arm people that does not change the fact that in principle human beings possess two arms

if you were to tell your child to draw a picture of a person and they draw a creature that has five arms or no arms you're going to say no that's not you know people have two arms with the exception of sickness, deformity, mutation, people have two arms. In principle. Just as in principle, women get pregnant, men and pregnant. If sex is a spectrum, if it's not binary, if it's possible to change your sex, you should be able to find me one person, just one, with the reproductive capacities of both sex.

but you can't. And you never will. You know, with the exception of in the future, if science finds a way to create Frankenstein monsters where they could take a uterus out of a woman and put it into a man, which who knows, maybe one day they'll be able to do that. But that's not going to change the principle.

Now you're just going to have a Frankenstein. You're going to have a monster now. That's all you have. You're not going to have a man with the natural capacity to conceive. children. So that's all. You know, I can't believe that we have to have this conversation, but we do. And that right there, that's the end of the discussion. You cannot, unless you can find me that person who can get themselves pregnant, essentially, unless you can find me that person,

you simply cannot ever say that sex is non-binary. Because I have just explained to you what the binary system is. And in order to prove that it's non-binary, you'd have to find me someone who exist in, you know, you'd have to prove that this is kind of like a Venn diagram and that there are people who exist in that middle circle who have both capacities, but you can't. So sex is binary. That's all. Glad we could establish that. Thanks for watching, everybody. Thanks for listening. Godspeed.