The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 236 - White Woman Commits Racist Crime Of Opening Chinese Food Restaurant

Episode Date: April 10, 2019

Today on the show, good news for Bernie Sanders: he’s a millionaire. But is that bad news for his campaign? Also, a white woman is viciously attacked for opening a Chinese restrauant. Finally, a woman writes in to Slate wondering why she can’t find any good men for one night stands? We'll try to get to the bottom of that mystery today. Date: 04-10-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, good news for Bernie Sanders. He's a millionaire, it turns out, but is that bad news for his campaign? Also, a white woman is being viciously attacked for committing the sin of opening a Chinese food restaurant. We'll talk about that. And a woman rode into Slate wondering why it is that she can't find any good men for one-night stands. Now, we'll try to get to the bottom of that mystery today as well on the Matt Wall Show. Well, it was a good time at Baylor last night, great turnout, a respectful audience, no outbursts or anything of that sort, a peaceful, peaceful event. That could be because the university, from what I was told, they counterprogrammed the event.

They were holding something called a, I think it was a love dinner or a love feast or something like that. and which again from what I was told was advertised as an alternative to my speech. So I think the idea was to try to siphon people away from what I was doing, but we still packed the house and it was great. The only little strange thing was that it was, you know, it's pretty hot down here in Waco, right? And so you can imagine if you'd pack hundreds of people into a little room, it gets even hotter. Well, the AC wasn't running during my talk. We were all just sweating, pouring sweat. And then strangely enough, as soon as the talk ended, the AC kicked on.

And so kind of weird. I mean, maybe just a coincidence. I don't know, but a little strange. I want to get into conspiracy theories, but who knows? Anyway, my next stop will be the Standing Up for Faith and Freedom Conference at Yaff headquarters in Reston, Virginia. and then I'll be at Embry-Riddle University in Daytona Beach on April 16th. So I hope to see you there. Now, hopefully there'll be some AC crank in there in Daytona Beach, though.

Now, some bunch of things to talk about. Let's start with this. Some news from Bernie Sanders, very, very exciting news from him. The Lifetime avowed Socialist announced yesterday that he is a millionaire. So congratulations to Bernie Sanders on that. Congrats on being pretty exciting stuff. he's planning to finally release his taxes. You know how much grief he gave Donald Trump over never releasing his taxes.

Well, Sanders has yet to release his own. But he says he's going to do that in the next few days, but just to sort of pave the way and let us know ahead of time. He said that he is a millionaire. He's not a billionaire, though. He said he doesn't have investments in Saudi Arabia. He's not a billionaire, but he is a millionaire. This was his exact quote. He said, I wrote a best.

If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too. That sounds like the title of a, if you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire too. Well, what a change in messaging that is, right, for Bernie Sanders, from ranting about the evil millionaires and billionaires to now saying, you can be a millionaire too. That's, it's very different. It's very different. It's very very It's quite a change from millionaires of billionaires are evil to now he's giving tips. He's giving financial tips on how to become one. But of course, the whole point here is that his preferred policies, if his preferred policies were in place, if his socialist policies were in place, if we were a socialist nation, then you could not become a millionaire by writing a best-selling book. You wouldn't have that option.

So this is something that he was able to do because we live in a capitalist country. He capitalized on the fact that we are a capitalist nation and seemed to have no problem doing that. Yet he still claims to be a socialist. So it's just like AOC saying, hey, airplanes, commercial air travels, destroying the world, and we're all going to be dead in 12 years. Yet she has no problem, getting on planes and. and jet setting around the country. Now, I don't personally begrudge anyone going on an airplane or becoming a millionaire.

I think it's great that people are able to do that in this country. I think it's great that people are able to become millionaires. I think it's great that you're able to become a millionaire, not just by writing a book, but by writing a bad book, like the one that Bernie Sanders wrote. I think it's amazing that it's that easy. Like, you don't even have to be good at anything. You can still become a millionaire.

What exactly, like Bernie Sanders, what exactly is his, what is he good at? What's his, what's his thing? What is his skill? What's his talent? I'm not sure that he has one. But he was still able to become a millionaire because of our free market system. I think that's great, you know, as a capitalist myself, but Bernie Sanders is not a capitalist. So I would think that this would have to destroy his campaign, right?

I mean, I don't see how he survives it. And it's pretty sad when the fact that you're financially successful is some sort of scandal that can harm you politically. But it shouldn't be that way. And for most politicians, it wouldn't be. But that's the situation that he's set up for himself. He's the one who's been going around decrying wealth. and he's going to have to face the music. Someone said to me yesterday, I made this point,

and someone said, well, you know, how can you criticize Bernie Sanders for being a millionaire when Donald Trump is a billionaire and you're not critical of that? Yeah, except that Donald Trump wasn't going around and saying that there's anything wrong with being wealthy, quite the opposite, actually.

So if you're a capitalist and you're open and proud of it, then fine, be as rich as you want. But if you're a socialist, you can't go getting rich on us, can you? So I think this is going to hurt him. But at least Bernie can go home and console himself by rolling around in a huge pile of money. Okay, let's take a look at this real quick. Our friend Ilhan Omar was speaking to a Muslim rights group and she characterized 9-11 in kind of a bizarre way and a troubling way. Watch this. Care was founded after 9-11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.

Some people did something. That's how she categorizes 9-11. Some people did something. That's pretty incredible. This woman is just so consistently vile. it's almost impressive and I'll tell you this if I were a Muslim

I would not be a fan of Ilhan Omar at all because she seems determined to fulfill every negative Muslim stereotype she possibly can't she's constantly complaining about Jews now she's downplaying 9-11 I mean every stereotype she can think of

she tries to affirm this is really incredible this is a this is not just some cable news punded or something. This is a sitting member of Congress who says of 9-11, some people did something. That is horrifying. All right, a woman by the name of Ariel Haspel, Haspel, we'll just say Haspel, is under fire today. She's under fire because she committed the sin. Get ready for this, because she did something. pretty horrifying. Here's what she did, this woman. She opened a Chinese restaurant. And the restaurant

is called Lucky Lees. And this is a sin because, as I'm sure you've guessed it, Ariel is white. Gasp. And she sinned further by endeavoring to make clean and healthy Chinese food. She said in a post online that a lot of American Chinese food is unhealthy, according to her. And she said it makes you feel, quote, bloated and icky. And so she wanted to make food that doesn't have that effect. Now, as someone who has, you know, myself, eaten probably eight or nine tons of Chinese food in my life, or even just in the past, say, two months, I can confirm that, yes, bloated and Icky is probably a pretty accurate description of how you often feel after indulging in some General So's chicken or Kung Pao from your local Chinese place. That doesn't stop me. Of course,

I still eat it. But I think that this is sort of undeniable that American Chinese food has that effect. I can't speak to authentic Chinese food in China. I've never had it. But that's the case with American Chinese food. Yet it's all, it is very racist, apparently, for this person to say that. And the fact that she's white in opening this Chinese restaurant in the first place is racist. The name of the establishment, Lucky Lee's is racist. The fact that she accused other Chinese food of being unhealthy is racist. All of that is racist. So a bunch of leftists decided to get together and, of course, destroy this woman's business. Because, hey, why not? Let's just try to tear down this woman and her business and she's been working for, you know, to open your own business.

takes a lot of time and effort and capital. I'm sure this is a dream she's had for a long time, and she finally gets the place open. She's so excited. But these people are saying, you know, let's just, let's just tear it apart. We'll just destroy it because, hey, we got nothing better to do. Ruin her livelihood, you know, because we're vile, ridiculous idiots. So the backlash seems to have started with, let me see if I could pull up. There were a couple of tweets that seemed to have started this whole thing. One from Lanya Olmsted, who tweeted a picture of Ariel and said, wow, wow, wow, this white woman pictured just opened a clean Chinese food restaurant in NYC called Lucky Lees. Not only is she using Chinese food stereotypes slash naming, she is shaming traditional

Chinese food cooking with MSG, grease, and starch. And then one of the other early tweets came from someone named McKenzie says, oh, I cannot with Lucky Lee's. This new clean Chinese restaurant that some white wellness blogger just opened in New York, her blog talks about how Chinese food is usually doused in brown sauces and makes your eyes puffy.

Lady, what? And just a lot of stuff like that. A lot of people who simply cannot. They just cannot. Well, you know what? If you cannot, then leave the woman alone.

You don't have to go to the restaurant if you don't like it. right and again is she wrong about what she's saying American Chinese food is doused and brown sauces it is I mean I don't know if it makes my eyes puffy but what are we now pretending that it's that it's healthy or something like that and then from there a bunch of morons flooded her Yelp page posted negative reviews of her restaurant even though these people had of course never actually been to the restaurant so they were just lying And then other websites jumped on the dog pile, the site eater.com, a food site, posted an article with a headline, claiming in the headline, that the restaurant is drawing, quote, swift backlash for, quote, racist language that it used.

That was in the headline. It wasn't, it wasn't, didn't say alleged racist language or some people claimed, no, racist language. Well, what racist language? Where is the racist language? You're telling me that if you describe Chinese food in a negative way, that that's racist, racist to the food? Who are you being racist against? Accusing a certain kind of fast food of being unhealthy is not racist. Is it racist if I say that Taco Bell oftentimes causes diarrhea? Well, it does.

We all know that. You have to pretend now that Taco Bell, so it says anti-Hispanic, if we don't, you know, if we point out the some of the side effects of eating Taco Bell. This is just so excessively stupid. And not just stupid, but so callous and cruel and capricious, arbitrarily trying to ruin this woman's life for no reason. She didn't do anything wrong. She just opened a restaurant, and that's all she did.

And by the way, people are complaining that the name Lucky Lee's racist because Lee is a typical Chinese name. Well, the woman's husband, who is also the chef, his name is Lee. So I guess his parents are racist for calling him Lee. Oh, man. This kind of thing. It makes me so angry because you're going after some random person. It's not like you're attacking a public figure, okay? It's not like you're for the nine millionth time taking Donald Trump out of context and accusing him of racism. Well, he's the president. He can take it. But it's just a person who's excited to open a chance. This wasn't any conspiracy to try to, you know, to try to be racist against Chinese people. She just wanted to open a restaurant, that's all.

And for all the talk that we hear from liberals about, hey, you know, live and let live and let people live their own lives. Well, as we've seen time and time again, they certainly will not take their own advice on that score. And you know what? There is, of course, a huge double standard here because we all know that if Ariel was herself, let's say, an Asian woman opening a pizza restaurant and the pizza restaurant's name was Lucky Luz or something like that,

well, nobody would criticize. be getting, would an Asian person who opened a pizza restaurant get in trouble for appropriating Italian culture? No, that would never happen. What, uh, what's, you know, an Indian person opening a burger joint, get in trouble for, you know, appropriating Americana or whatever? No. Opening a barbecue joint? No. That would never, ever happen. You would never see that happening. So if you are anything, if you're anything but white, you can open any kind of restaurant you want, any kind of food you want. And people will, and in fact, if you're, you know, if you, if you are non-white opening an Italian restaurant, people would be thrilled. They would say, oh, this is great. It's a,

you know, diversity and everything. But if you're white, no, you're not allowed to, you're not allowed to open restaurants of, you know, typically ethnic food. It's, it's simply absurd. And food is one of those things that cultures share and it changes and people have. And it changes. And people have their own take on it and everything. You're great at protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity theft. I thought it was safe. If that happens, LifeLock gives you a U.S.-based restoration agent

who will stick by your side from start to finish. Phone calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims, your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident restoration is guaranteed, pour your money back. Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side? Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com. I just got to move on from that.

But if you, by the way, if you happen to be in New York, why don't you go by Lucky Lees and give them your support? I hope that this woman makes, you know, $10 million this year, just out of spite for these idiots. All right, let's check in with Slate. Slate always has intellectually engaging content, of course. And yesterday in Slate's advice column section, a woman. wrote in with an interesting question, and I'm going to, let me see if I can pull this up here. I'm going to read the question that she wrote to Slate. I just think this is a very, it's a very revealing kind of question, and the answer is too. So this is the question to Slate. It says,

I'm a single woman in her early 30s. I'm attractive and have never had issues attracting a partner, but after a series of disappointing relationships each around a year, I'm just not in the mood to engage emotionally with men right now. The thing is, I have a high sex drive, and I can't fully satisfy myself on my own. The cliche is that this should be an easy problem to fix. Plenty of men want to have sex with a woman with no strings, right? Well, here are my limitations. In the past, when I've had hookup buddies, I like them, but it never really is just sex. We inevitably get to know each other better, and then I end up getting entangled with him, whether I want to or not. I'm not really into sex parties or the poly scene.

So I'm not really sure how to proceed. I've identified a few bars in my town that are good for this sort of thing, but that is hit or miss for finding an attractive guy. When I tell my gay friends about this, they talk about how easy it is to find what they want on Grindr and the like, and I'm honestly jealous. Tinder and similar apps for straight people are full of creeps who have no game, and I'm afraid if I'm upfront about what I want,

I'll attract even more of that type. What's a straight girl who just wants good unattached sex to do? So this is a woman who wants to find a good guy, a non-creep, that's what she's looking for. She wants a non-creep, a good guy, decent guy, who has game to, whatever that means, but she just for sex. So she's looking for a good guy who will just use her for sex. And then comes the response from Slate. It says, it's true, even when both parties are completely uninterested in anything serious or romantic, you can still eventually end up in the bath products aisle together debating whether your connection means anything

and having moments of odd, sticky feelings towards each other. In your case, it sounds like at least some of the entanglement is coming from your end. So put reminders in your phone. Make the guys have names like Chris, nothing serious Johnson, or Joe, this is just sex beady. whatever will underscore the boundaries you've set and need to respect for yourself, in addition to expecting the other guys to adhere to. Hopefully that'll make it easier to keep a good casual connection going without tipping into what you don't want.

And then it goes on from there. Okay, so a couple of observations here. Number one, you know, if you're looking for good guys, for non-creeps, well, the problem here is going to be that good guys aren't looking to use women for sex. It is precisely the creeps who you're going to be able to pick up at bars who have no emotional attachment, or not interested in anything like that. They're just looking for sex and then they're going to be gone.

So it could be that if you want a good man, then maybe you need to be a better person yourself. See, this is the advice that I would give if she had asked me. It could be that you yourself are not a very good person, it seems like. And so that's why you attract creeps. You see, you're attracting creeps because you're a creep. Have you ever thought about that? You know, I know that when we talk about people being creeps,

we always refer to men that way. It's men are the only creeps. Well, there are a lot of men who are creeps, but then there are women who are creeps too. And based on that question, you're a creep. That's just weird and gross and creepy. So you're getting exactly the kind of guy you deserve. Number two, what you find in the question and then in the answer was this is so much effort, right, to get around the emotional attachments that you naturally feel towards someone who you're in a sexual relationship. with. And so the answer that this person is given is, well, here are some tips on how to, you know,

get around those emotional attachments. Well, did it ever occur to you, perhaps, that those natural, that those emotional attachments are natural, because we're human beings, we're not animals? And, you know, maybe if you discover that you can't help. but feel some sort of emotional attachment to the people that you have sexual relationships with, maybe that should tell you something about the nature of a sexual act. That, you know, it's not just like shaking somebody's hand. It's not just like playing video games with somebody, right? It's more than a recreational activity because you could shake someone's hand and feel no emotional attachment.

You can play video games with them, right? You could watch a movie with them, and you could do all those things and feel no emotional attachment. but with the sexual act, maybe there's something about it that's different than that. Maybe it is a naturally intimate and serious personal thing. And so maybe that should tell you

that the context, you know, there is an appropriate context for the sexual act, and that context is not just finding someone at a bar for one night. I think that could be the source of your problem. And I will say only as a follow-up,

and I'm not looking to rub this into the faces of people who are still single, but when I read stuff like this, I continue to be so happy that I'm married. I'm so happy that I'm not on the dating scene dealing with stuff like this and people like that. It really is so much better being married. And again, if you want to get married and you're trying to, and you haven't been able to yet, I'm not trying to make you feel bad, because it'll happen.

You know, if you're looking for marriage and you're serious about it, you're serious about a relationship, eventually it will happen. That's the good news. And it is something to look at. It's just so much better than this. It's so much more secure, so much happier, you know, as a married person, I have to, whatever the hell she's talking about there, I don't have to worry about that. All of these things, you don't have to worry about creeps or anything like that, because you've got somebody, you're in a secure relationship, and, you know, there are challenges in a marriage, but it's, I'm telling you, it is so, so, so much better than that. It's so much better. I highly recommend. I couldn't recommend it enough. All right. Let's go check out some emails.

Matt Wallshow at gmail.com. Matt wallshow at gmail.com. This is from Simon, says, Hey, Matt, what are your opinions on ghosts? Do you think they exist? Does having people people's, do having people's souls stick around on earth after death and often become malicious makes sense, theologically, are what people take for ghosts just demons? From a religious standpoint, I've been on both sides of the issue throughout my life. What do you think? Well, Simon, no, I don't think, I don't believe in ghosts. It doesn't make sense theoretically at all that you would have people who die and just hang around on earth. Certainly from a biblical standpoint, There's no precedent for that.

You die and you're going somewhere, but you're not going to be wandering around on Earth. I do think that sometimes you could have demonic activity that's confused for ghostly activity, however. All right, this is from, who is this from? Helen says, hi, I'm at. I've been reading your work since you were a humble alpaca groomer. It's okay. Thanks. Here's my question.

Would you consider aborted babies to be born? I've always thought of them as being born in the technical sense because their bodies leave the bodies of their mothers. Obvious, no? However, it seems like I hear both pro-life and pro-choice people talking about aborted babies as though they were never born. For example, pro-choicers often accuse us of being merely pro-birth and pro-lifers often lament that these babies are never born, etc.

Could you please offer some clarification on these semantics? I'm curious to hear your thoughts because I believe the language we use in regard to this topic is incredibly important, especially when our offspring are so tiny that people seem to have no trouble convincing themselves that they do not exist. Well, no, I don't think we can say that they're born. I think born implies that the child is alive. So I don't think born is true.

But I agree that the language is important. and I agree that oftentimes pro-abortion people will want to talk about these babies like they never existed at all, right? And that's one of the lies that the abortion clinic tells pregnant mothers, that, well, you could just get rid of this pregnancy and be a mother some other time in the future. Now is not a good time to be a mother. You don't have to be a mother now. You can be a mother in the future.

Well, no, because a woman who gets an abortion well, a woman who is pregnant is a mother. The moment you become pregnant, you're a mother. So she's a mother now. There's no putting that genie back in the bottle. And if she gets an abortion, she's not going to go back to being just a childless woman. She will now be the mother of a dead child.

So in that sense, you're right, I think. In a certain sense, there is a kind of birth that occurs, really upon conception, where upon conception, you have three lives that are created. You have the life of the child. But then you have the mother who kind of turns in, transforms now into a, you have a, from a woman into a mother. So then you have the man who goes for being a man to a father. And that's a very real transformation that happens. upon conception in that moment.

And if you get an abortion, the terrible tragic fact is that, no, you're not reversing the clock, you're not undoing anything. You're now the parents of a dead child. And that, of course, is not the message that they're going to hear from the abortion clinics. All right, this is from James says, Hi, Matt. My wife and I have three kids, ages three, two, and three months old. We also have a dog. The kids love to go and walks around our neighborhood, but with the newborn, it requires one of us to push a stroller and hold a toddler's hand, while the other holds the dog's leash with the other hand. This would be very dangerous and nearly impossible without kid leashes. Ours are more like handcuffs than leashes, though. One padded cuff goes on the patient, the parent's wrist, the other on the child, separated by three feet of plastic coated, coils. steel wire. We don't drag our kids behind us on the leashes. They're more of a backup for when they let go of your hand or try to make a run for the street. I've got some strange looks with

them, but I think it gives my toddlers a sense of independence and adventure that they wouldn't have otherwise if they were strapped into a double stroller. Stroller, love the show. Yeah, you know, this is why we talked about child leashes briefly on the show yesterday. And I don't use them myself. I admit that as a non-parent, I used to be very judgmental of the people who use child leashes, but now that I have kids, I understand it. Makes sense. It's a practical thing. And you're right. I mean, if there's nothing wrong with strapping a kid into a stroller and carting them around, then what's wrong with, you know, having them tethered that way? I don't really see much of a difference, honestly.

Let's see. This is from Grayson says, I listened to your episode recently on body positivity, and I think that one of the biggest things wrong with the movement is that they do not think all bodies should be positive. I'm a college kid who's in love with fitness, and I've said that I'm so body positive. I don't let myself get unhealthy and overweight, and I got excoriated in a college class for body shaming. People need to understand that health is a definite range, and the vast majority of people are sedentary and fat. Harsh but true, probably. However, true body positivity is not accepting gluttony and eating themselves to an early grave, but rather taking care. of yourself by eating well and exercising regularly. On another note, the BMI calculator is a very

poor way to judge body fatness in athletes, young adults, and the elderly, because muscles are denser than fat and someone like you who has more muscle than average is seen as overweight in the scale when in reality you're perfectly healthy. I am a six-foot male at about 180 pounds, and my BMI is still registered as overweight. That's because my body fat percentage is about 11%, which means I carry lots of muscle mass with little fat mass. there by skewing the scale. Well, yeah, and of course I agree that it's not body shaming to encourage people to be healthy and to eat healthy. That, of course, is absurd. I do think it's also true, and we need to acknowledge that there are different body types, and there are some people who

just from birth are kind of destined to struggle more with their weight. who are going to have a much harder time getting into shape. Certainly you're going to have a much harder time because of their body type or their body shape. Going to have a harder time looking like they're in shape. And I also recognize that for me, I've always had a very high metabolism, and so I can't take credit for the fact that I'm not, if I had maybe a normal metabolism,

I may very well be obese right now because I don't have a very healthy diet. and I basically eat whatever I want. And so I can't, you know, I have to recognize that it's a little bit, some of us have advantages in that area that are not, that are just biological. We didn't, we didn't do anything to earn them. It's just, that's just how it is. And there are also people who, you know, are going to struggle all the more because of,

maybe they're of injury, and so they're not able to exercise as much. And then also women, once they start having babies, that is going to be an extra challenge. And so all of these things, all these things need to be acknowledged. And we can't expect everyone to be a bodybuilder. I'm not a bodybuilder, right? We can't expect that of everyone. Not everyone's supposed to be a bodybuilder or a fitness guru or a runway model. All of that is true.

However, you know, we could acknowledge that without concluding that it's perfectly fine and acceptable and beautiful and wonderful and wonderful. to be morbidly obese. So as you point out, there's a, there's a spectrum. There's a scale of what is, you know, considered healthy and normal. And maybe it's a, it's a wider scale than people thought for a long time. But definitely morbid obesity is not, you know, is, is way on the unhealthy end of that spectrum. And so we should be able to say that, um, without being accused of body shame. All right, finally, this is from Heidi, says, Hey, Matt, I have a scenario for you, and it's one that really happened. My sister-in-law's sister is a social worker at a high school. She was working with a girl who found out she was pregnant. A few months down the road, this girl also found out that she had brain cancer. Doctors told her that she needed to undergo chemo and radiation to kill the cancerous tumor,

but in doing that, it would also kill her baby. Her parents, who are very religious, decided not to give their daughter the chemo. Their daughter eventually passed away a few months down the road. The baby survived. When I heard this story, I struggled with it. I struggled with it because I'm pro-life, but I was trying to put myself in the shoes of those parents, and I can't imagine denying my daughter cancer treatment,

knowing that if she didn't get it, it would kill her. I should note that at the time when the daughter would have had to start the treatment, she was too early in her pregnancy to deliver. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Well, that's just a terrible case across the board. But as I've really terrible case, But as I've said before, you know, these are the sorts of cases that pro-abortion people will often use to prove, supposedly, that sometimes abortion is medically necessary. But that is not the case.

These sorts of cases, as horrible as they are, are irrelevant to the abortion discussion. Because if a woman is pregnant and finds out that she has an aggressive form of cancer and needs to get chemo, it would not be abortion for her to get the chemotherapy, even if it's known that the baby's probably going to die. That is not abortion. Abortion is the direct, intentional, purposeful killing of the unborn child, where you take an action for the sake of killing the child. That's abortion.

Now, doing something to save the mother that you know will probably have the effect, unfortunately, tragically, of killing the baby, that is not abortion. That's the principle of double effect, and it could be a perfectly ethical thing to do, where you are doing something, you're doing a good thing with good intentions, even though it may have also a very terrible negative side effect. And again, that can be a perfectly ethical action. So it is not the case that pro-lifers say, at least I certainly wouldn't say, that a woman who finds out she has cancer, while she's pregnant, is required to just die of cancer and not get it treated. I don't think that at all.

And, you know, it's impossible to know what you would do in these situations until you're in them, but I can tell you personally, if that was my wife, I would be urging her strongly to get the chemo. And if that was my child, if that was my daughter, you better believe she's getting the chemo. Does that mean that I'm not pro-life? Does that mean that I'm denying the personhood of the child? No, not at all. This is just a very, this really is just a difficult choice that you have to make in order to save somebody's life.

And it does not involve denying the personhood of the child at all. It's a, it's a, you mourn the fact that the child may not survive the treatment. So the way that people talk about abortion, they say, oh, it's a difficult choice you have to make. Usually, no, it's not. With abortion, you're directly killing an innocent child. And no, that's not a difficult choice. That's just the wrong choice. This kind of situation you're talking about here, this really is a difficult choice,

where abortion has nothing to do with it doesn't factor in. So, you know, this is kind of similar to these hypotheticals that I've talked about before that, you know, somebody will say, well, what if you're in a building and it's on fire and there's a two-year-old child there, but then there's also a bunch of frozen embryos, and you can only save one. I mean, who are you going to save? Are you going to save the embryos?

Are you going to save the child? And, of course, everybody would save the two-year-old child, right? And so that's supposed to prove that we don't really consider those embryos to be human, but that's not the case at all. You're just in a situation where you have to make that kind of horrible choice. It's like if it was my wife in the burning building and some other woman who's not my wife,

I would save my wife in a heartbeat. Does that mean I'm denying the personhood of the other woman? Does that mean that I want her to die? No. Does that mean I'm killing the other woman? No. It just means that I'm in a situation where I can only save one. And so I have to make that choice.

And the fact that the other one dies is not my fault. I didn't kill them. It's not me. I didn't do it. It's not murder, right? That's what abortion is murder. So we could go all day with these kind of hypotheticals. You have two people hanging off a cliff.

You've got your child and someone else's job. You can only save one. Who are you going to save your child, right? So those are the hypotheticals. This is a more real-world situation. And look, I can't judge. I don't know the situation. I don't know the particulars of it.

So I'm not going to make any judgments or anything like that. I'm just saying, based on what you've told me, if it were me, my daughter's getting the chemo for sure there. And I wouldn't have to compromise my pro-life beliefs at all in making that choice. All right, we'll leave it there. Thanks for watching, everybody. Thanks for listening. God's speech.

I'm Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles Show. After years and years of vilifying millionaires, socialist Gadfly Bernie Sanders prepares finally to release his tax returns. And guess what? He's a millionaire. Now, we will analyze why socialists always seem so interested in accumulating wealth. Check it out at DailyWire.com.