00:04:41.400no matter how much propaganda people have been force-fed by the corporate press and no matter
00:04:51.880how much reprogramming they've undergone at a university this kind of video cuts through all of
00:04:58.060it, which is why it has millions of views. At a primal level, unless you're completely
00:05:03.340broken as a human, this footage is tragic, enraging, intolerable. Your first reaction
00:05:12.540is that you want to find that child and rescue him from these psychopaths and return him0.97
00:05:18.820to his mother. It's not simply that these two men clearly aren't interested in properly
00:05:23.880taking care of this child or treating him as a human being instead of a social media prop.
00:05:29.000The issue is that these two men, as a matter of basic human biology, are incapable of properly
00:05:36.280taking care of the child. They're not able to give the child what he actually needs,
00:05:42.340which is a mother and a father. A child needs his mother. This should not be a controversial
00:05:48.180statement. It's something all human beings have understood for thousands of years up until
00:05:53.760five seconds ago. Children need their mothers. Anyone who's ever had a child in a healthy home
00:06:03.000knows children need their mothers. Neither one of these men are his mother and neither one of them0.99
00:06:12.220can properly take the place of the mother. That's what makes the moment so profound and so
00:06:18.660unbearably sad when the baby asks for mama. And some commenters have defended McAnally and his
00:06:26.340fake husband by saying that the baby is just babbling. In fact, one of them has, I think
00:06:32.340Shane himself has said this, well, he doesn't know what mama means. Now he's too young to speak
00:06:38.100using words. And so he's saying, mama, he doesn't actually know what that means. And that's true,
00:06:44.300but it does not make this moment any less horrifying. In fact, it makes it worse
00:06:49.140because babies say mama before they even know what the word means because mama is an easy0.54
00:06:56.060sound to make for a child. This is how the word mama came to be. It's why, you know, it's why we
00:07:02.720call our mothers mama, which we usually shorten to mom as we get older. This is where it comes
00:07:07.840from. And it's why almost every culture on earth uses the word mama or mom or some slight variation.
00:07:15.160So we are born saying the word mama before we know what it means.
00:07:20.360And in a normal, healthy situation, the adults in the baby's life, especially his mama, his mother, will respond enthusiastically when he makes that sound.
00:07:31.060Now, he is just babbling at first, but if his mother is there, which she should be, and he says that word, the mother will respond in a way.
00:07:41.520And that's how he'll learn to attach the sound that's the easiest for him to make
00:07:47.080to the most important person in his life, which is his mother.
00:07:50.900He'll make the sound. His mother will light up and smile.
00:07:54.660And he'll learn that the sound applies to his mother.
00:07:57.860This is the natural way of things. It's beautiful.
00:08:01.640The process works beautifully. It's ingrained in us from birth.
00:10:10.400And this is supposed to be hilarious0.66
00:10:13.020because you see the baby is acting0.84
00:10:15.380like one of those backwards right-wing bigots0.59
00:10:17.720who think that children actually need a mother.
00:10:19.640So he posts the image of his child on Instagram, not his child, of the child on his Instagram, and uses the child as a punchline, which is just a totally natural, normal, paternalistic thing to do, isn't it?
00:10:38.540And then when the online backlash began, McAnally insisted that the outrage was overblown, and that he's actually, quote, quite conservative politically.
00:10:48.420Now, just to be clear about this, if you believe that two men should raise children together, you are not a conservative.
00:10:55.740You are destroying the most critical fundamental bond that a child can have.0.77
00:11:00.940You're permanently altering the trajectory of your child's life for the worse.
00:11:07.980Anybody with a rudimentary understanding of human nature doesn't need to have this explained to them.
00:11:12.520Okay, if you don't believe in conserving the fundamental building block of human civilization, which is the family, which is marriage, actually, which is the bedrock of the bedrock, which is the family, then you are not a conservative by any meaningful definition.
00:11:32.460I mean, we hear a lot about the conservative civil war these days.
00:11:36.840Conservatives are always fighting over this and that issue.
00:11:39.780If we're going to have a civil war among conservatives, it should actually be over this, right?
00:11:44.020The people who want to conserve and protect marriage and the family and human life,
00:11:52.180especially unborn human life, on one side versus the alleged conservatives who are either opposed or indifferent to that.
00:11:59.700If there's going to be a dividing line
00:12:28.560Really? You think that's more important than this?1.00
00:12:35.300And yet, you know, you'll hear it endlessly claimed that science somehow proves that children don't actually need a mother.
00:12:42.680You know, they'll cite all kinds of studies which supposedly show that children raised in gay households don't suffer any negative developmental consequences.
00:12:52.760Now, the thing is, a few years ago, a woman named Katie Faust, who founded the organization Them Before Us, looked into these claims, as others have, and she found, unsurprisingly, that these studies are, without exception, unscientific nonsense.
00:13:07.900Many of them, and we've talked about this in the past on the show, many of them recruit their survey participants directly from websites devoted to gay activism, which immediately invalidates the entire study.
00:13:22.460and additionally she found that several years after the Obergefell ruling that legalized gay
00:13:28.880marriage only 0.02 percent of all households in the united states consisted of same-sex couples
00:13:34.040raising children which is extremely small number of households which makes it very difficult to
00:13:38.920find a sample size for any kind of usable data set now you run into the same problem with all
00:13:44.100the the studies purporting to show that gender affirmation surgery quote-unquote benefits
00:13:48.860children. All of those studies are absolute bunk because of the methodology used to conduct them,
00:13:55.780just like the studies extolling the virtues of gay parenting. These are almost always not blind1.00
00:14:01.640studies. So the participants know what the study is trying to prove, and they are recruited for
00:14:08.800that purpose. So you're a gay couple. You know you're in a study to find out whether gay parenting
00:14:16.400is good or not. Huh, are we going to get any usable, honest data out of that? I mean, you're
00:14:24.120often relying on self-reported data from people who know what the thing, what they're trying to
00:14:28.860prove. And the sample sizes are so small that no reliable conclusions can be drawn from them
00:14:35.100anyway. You know, you'll find this with any major society altering change the left is trying to
00:14:41.300voiced on us. They make the change, right? And then 10 seconds later, they claim to have volumes
00:14:47.880of long-term scientifically conclusive studies proving that the change is good. But it wouldn't
00:14:55.520even be possible for them to have that kind of data. If they have the data, it's because they
00:15:00.300engineered it. They rigged it to achieve the desired outcome. That's inevitably what's required
00:15:05.160if you want to study to somehow prove that it's a good idea to chemically castrate a child or that0.70
00:15:09.640a child is better off being raised by two men rather than his own mother and his own
00:16:52.480in a nice neighborhood of Loganville, Georgia.
00:16:55.600They posted pics online that were smiling, happy,
00:16:58.900basically looking like they were the picture-perfect family.
00:17:01.700They even have a photo wearing shirts that say,
00:17:04.400love my family with the rainbow flag in support of pride now you notice i mean the whole story is
00:17:13.160unspeakable you notice the line about how these children were adopted through a christian special
00:17:21.080needs program and this is a recurring theme sadly um just sort of as an aside it should be mentioned
00:17:28.140when it comes to the worst most civilization destroying ideas known to man for pretty much
00:17:33.980every single one of them, you'll find a fake quote-unquote Christian charity funding or0.58
00:17:39.360enabling it in some way. Christian charities, not all of them, this is why you need to be careful,
00:17:45.820but Christian charities resettle more foreign invaders in the United States than anybody else.0.96
00:17:51.540They support all the climate change scams and racial justice programs and so on, and now at0.98
00:17:57.100least one of them is helping gay men find children to rape and abuse, a crime that even in Georgia0.98
00:18:01.640apparently doesn't qualify these two men for the death penalty. So you have to wonder why we even0.99
00:18:06.560have a death penalty at this point, if this is not going to qualify. But as heinous as this crime is,
00:18:12.020it's not exactly uncommon. Here's another recent case from Britain. Quote, a man has appeared in
00:18:17.580court accused of sexually assaulting and murdering a 13-month-old boy he was seeking to adopt. High
00:18:22.020school teacher Jamie Varley is also accused of repeated accounts of assault, cruelty, and indecent
00:18:26.900images. All the charges relate to Preston Davey, who was pronounced dead shortly after he was
00:18:31.620He was taken to Blackpool Victoria Hospital in July of 2023.
00:18:35.240Mr. Varley, 36, and his 31-year-old co-accused, John McGowan, were in the process of adopting Preston.
00:18:43.560Lancashire police were alerted on July 27, 2023 after an unresponsive baby boy was brought into the hospital.
00:18:49.040Mr. McGowan is accused of allowing the death of a child, sexually assaulting a child, and two counts of child cruelty.
00:18:57.120Now, what you have to keep in mind here is that simply from a statistical perspective,
00:19:02.100We have absolutely no way of knowing how often this kind of abuse takes place.0.88
00:19:07.680Unless these abusers are dumb enough to brag about what they're doing or manage to murder their child in the process, something along those lines, then the abuse is nearly impossible to detect.0.95
00:19:18.840And in many cases, there's not even a way to screen parents who are obviously a threat to their children.0.99
00:19:23.300And there was a recent study that shows that gay parents, or rather male same-sex couples, adopt boys about 80% of the time, whereas heterosexual couples adopt boys about 50% of the time.0.86
00:21:35.940Now, when they aren't assaulting you, the normal response to the left at this point is to claim that, in fact, the data supports their position.
00:21:45.660They'll accuse you of cherry picking one or two bad outcomes.
00:21:48.120So to be clear, we're not talking about one or two extreme cases here.
00:21:52.120As a general matter, children raised in same-sex households have much worse life outcomes.
00:21:56.340This is from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which you can see there.
00:22:02.560the green bar is children raised by a man and a woman, while the yellow bar is children raised
00:22:08.780by same-sex couples, the same-sex parents produce worse results in virtually every category.0.71
00:22:15.440Children raised by same-sex couples are far more likely to be obese as adults, far more likely to0.79
00:22:19.740be distant from their parents, more likely to have suicidal ideation as an adult, far more likely to
00:22:25.280be depressed as an adult. Then there's the findings from the National Health Interview Study, which
00:22:30.840looked at 1.6 million cases and found 512 same-sex parent families. And you can see the
00:22:38.580results. It's the same story. Children raised in same-sex households were more likely to have
00:22:43.140emotional problems across the board. Donald Paul Sullins, a professor of sociology at Catholic
00:22:48.940University, summarized the findings this way, quote, biological relationship, it appears,
00:22:53.080is both necessary and sufficient to explain the higher risk of emotional problems faced
00:22:57.040by children with same-sex parents, the primary benefit of marriage for children, therefore,
00:23:02.400may not be that it tends to present them with improved parents, more stable, financially
00:23:06.920affluent, although it does this, but that it presents them with their own parents.
00:23:13.480Now, we talked about the problems with trying to do studies on a subject like this and how often
00:23:19.340the results are rigged in a certain direction. And even in spite of all that, you still have
00:23:24.840you as a result. I mean, you have to dig to find these studies because this is not exactly the kind
00:23:28.960of research that's likely to be funded these days or reported on, but it's all out there.
00:23:35.680And even if it wasn't, even if there wasn't a single study showing that children in same-sex0.70
00:23:40.980households have worse outcomes, which there are, we would still know that it's a horrible idea0.96
00:23:47.880to let gay couples adopt or use surrogacy. We wouldn't know that because it's a matter of basic
00:23:53.960logic and common sense that by far the optimal situation for every child is to be raised by a
00:24:00.380mother and a father. Every child has a mother and a father. This is the natural setup.
00:24:07.740You know, when I say that two men are not meant to become parents, I'm not making a moral claim,0.99
00:24:12.360although I do think gay adoption and surrogacy are immoral. I'm making an observation about1.00
00:24:17.660physical reality. Two men are not meant to become parents. And we know that because two men cannot
00:24:24.880become parents in principle. You know, it's not like, well, you could have a straight couple that0.91
00:24:30.360has infertility, which is a, which is a, you know, a defect. It's an illness. It's something has gone
00:24:37.080wrong, right? With the setup. We're not talking about that. This in principle, by their very
00:24:42.500nature, two men are forever and always, in all situations, in all cases, through all of time,
00:24:50.500past, present, and future, excluded from the act of procreation.
00:24:57.360Now, none of the arguments I'm making are new. It's not a revelation.
00:25:01.480If you go back to the Obergefell decision in 2015 and pull up John Roberts' dissent,
00:25:05.640you'll see that he makes all the same points. Now, I'm obviously not a fan of John Roberts,
00:25:10.180But this dissent has aged extremely well. Roberts argued that if the court forced the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage simply because a bunch of activists demanded it, then those same activists would soon be able to insist on all kinds of other legal protections without any basis in the Constitution.0.75
00:25:26.380Roberts wrote that the Supreme Court was ordering, quote, the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese and the Carthaginians and the Aztecs.
00:25:40.620Roberts pointed out that, quote, for millennia across all civilizations, marriage referred to only one relationship, the union of a man and a woman.
00:25:48.900Roberts noted that, quote, when sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child's prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways.
00:25:56.920Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.
00:26:05.960And from a Democratic perspective, Roberts observed that only 11 states had voted to legalize gay marriage, while five states had legalized the practice through court decisions.0.73
00:26:16.420The country was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the institution of marriage intact.
00:26:21.600Now, how did the Supreme Court majority, led by Justice Kennedy, respond to all those points?
00:28:24.520there's no argument in defense of allowing gay men to acquire babies. There's actually no argument1.00
00:28:32.240for it. The best that advocates can do is argue that, well, maybe allowing gay men to purchase1.00
00:28:38.840babies might not be that harmful to the baby. Well, that's wrong, of course. It is harmful,0.90
00:28:44.560but it's also not an argument for why this is a positive good that should be embraced,
00:28:50.620because it isn't. Gay surrogacy and gay adoption are predicated on the idea that gay men
00:28:57.440and women have a right to become parents. That's not only morally insane, it's also0.97
00:29:05.280logically incoherent. It's like jumping off a building and claiming that you have the right
00:29:09.560to fly. Nobody has the right to defy the laws of nature. Where would such a right even originate?
00:29:17.740But as long as leftists can invent rights out of thin air, which is what they did in Obergefell,
00:29:22.760then they're not going to stop until somebody forces them to stop.
00:29:28.080So let's have that conversation. Let's state as plainly as we possibly can.
00:29:32.540The two men cannot be parents. It's impossible.
00:29:35.660It doesn't matter how they feel or what they want. It cannot be.
00:29:39.000The only right at issue here, and the one that's being ignored completely, is the right of the child.
00:29:44.940The child has a right to be raised by a mother and a father, not two men masquerading as mother and father.
00:29:51.400The child not only has that right, but it is indeed one of the first and most fundamental rights.
00:29:57.180I mean, the whole idea of a right is that it is a thing that you rightfully possess by nature.
00:30:04.460All of our legal rights in this country are based on the philosophical idea that some things belong to us by our nature.
00:30:12.580Those are our unalienable rights, as it says in the Declaration of Independence.
00:30:16.640Every child has a mother and a father by nature.
00:30:21.340A child's mother and father belong to him, belong to him, and he to them.
00:30:28.500This is literally what a human right is.
00:30:32.120Now, some children will be deprived of one or both parents by death or some other misfortune.
00:30:36.880If that happens, then obviously it can't be said the child's rights are being willfully infringed
00:30:41.320in the same way that, you know, we wouldn't say a person's property rights are infringed when a
00:30:45.300tornado hits the house. But when a conscious choice is made to uproot a child out and away
00:30:53.680from his natural family, rip him away from his mother and place him into some kind of constructed
00:30:58.440artificial scenario where he'll be raised according to the impossible fiction that he has two dads or
00:31:03.860two moms, then in that case, his rights have been violated. They've been violated at the deepest
00:31:09.920level that it's possible for a right to be violated. A gay couple that's not allowed to1.00
00:31:15.900adopt or use surrogacy is not experiencing any infringement of their rights because they have0.94
00:31:20.460no right to possess a child that they did not and cannot conceive themselves. But a child,
00:31:26.600on the other hand, does have a right to his own mother because she is his mother.
00:31:31.540This should not be a difficult concept to understand.
00:31:34.580And until we stop pretending that we don't understand the concept, children will continue to be abused in ways that we can't possibly fathom or detect.
00:31:47.040And the solution is clear. Ban adoption by gay couples. Ban human trafficking under the guise of surrogacy for everybody in all cases.1.00
00:31:55.160Do it at the federal level. And ultimately, yes, we have to overturn Obergefell. And we should not be shy about saying that.
00:32:04.580which, next to Roe, is the most farcical and ridiculous Supreme Court decision of all time.
00:32:11.160I've said repeatedly that conservatives haven't done much with their time in Washington,
00:32:14.640but if they can pass these bans, then they'll have made a major stride towards conserving
00:32:19.080one of the most important institutions in this country, which is the nuclear family.
00:32:23.300The left has made the nuclear family their primary target precisely because they understand
00:32:27.320how important the institution is to Western civilization.
00:32:29.540And before any more children are tortured, before any more lives are destroyed, we need to defend it.
00:32:45.500A lot of Americans are paying more attention to their health and looking for simple ways to support their daily routine.
00:32:51.320And for a lot of people, the appeal is pretty straightforward.
00:32:53.560They want something easy to stick with, made with ingredients they recognize and not a huge disruption to their day.
00:32:58.980That's why so many people are turning to Dose for Cholesterol.
00:33:02.600It's a clinically-backed supplement designed to support overall cholesterol health with ingredients like ginger, pomegranate, amela, and turmeric.
00:33:11.380Dose fits into a routine without complicating life.
00:33:14.200It comes as a daily two-ounce liquid shot, so there are no capsules and no powders to remember, and it's delivered right to your door, which makes it easier to stay consistent.
00:33:23.060We have a lot of people around the Daily Wire who like to keep things simple and practical, and Dose is one of those products that fits that mindset.
00:33:29.720People want options that feel practical, familiar, and easy to keep up with.
00:33:33.840That's why our team is really excited about Dose Daily.
00:33:36.780New customers can save 35% on your first month of subscription by going to dosedaily.co.walsh or entering Walsh to check out.
00:33:43.600That's D-O-S-E-D-A-I-L-Y.co.walsh for 35% off your first month subscription.
00:34:47.660All right, this is one of my favorite Trump headlines in a while from CNN.
00:34:52.300Trump accelerates research on psychedelic treatments and asks, can I have some?
00:34:58.240Reading on it says, President Donald Trump on Saturday signed an executive order aimed at encouraging expanded research into psychedelic drugs, part of a broader push to explore emerging mental health treatments.
00:35:08.160Trump said during the event, in many cases, the experimental treatments have shown life changing potential for those suffering from severe mental illness and depression, including our cherished veterans.
00:35:16.340The president also announced the federal government is making a $50 million investment for further research into the psychedelic drug Ibogaine.
00:35:25.840Trump, ahead of signing the order, pointed to initial research that demonstrates the drug's potential and quipped that he wanted some himself.
00:35:34.380Okay, now, I will say that I really have no opinion about psychedelics and their potential value to treat mental health issues.
00:35:43.580uh i have no no interest in ever taking psychedelics i wouldn't recommend it i haven't
00:35:50.880looked into it or researched it at all and i don't plan to so yeah i don't know but this this um
00:35:58.400he he also makes this comment he says after he asked for some psychedelics
00:36:05.560jokingly we assume he says uh i don't have time to be depressed you know if you stay busy enough
00:36:12.220Maybe that works, too. That's what I do. And, you know, this that comment about depression, which was said sort of as an aside, got some attention, some negative attention.
00:36:21.880Some people were upset by it. Trump says he doesn't have time to be depressed because he's too busy.
00:36:27.880And a lot of people don't like these kinds of comments because they contradict the idea that depression is a disease in the same way that, you know, cancer is a disease.
00:36:35.880And you would never say that somebody can get rid of cancer by staying busy. Right.
00:36:40.020I mean, somebody has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer or something.
00:36:44.820You're not going to say, oh, just stay busy and you'll be fine.
00:36:48.820And, you know, depression is a physical disease like cancer, we're told.
00:36:52.860And so when you say things like, oh, stay busy, it flies in the face of that.
00:36:58.680But it's actually not true that depression is a disease in the way that cancer is a disease.
00:37:08.000And it is true that actually staying busy is a good way to treat depression.
00:37:14.080Provided you're staying busy with meaningful work.
00:37:18.160Also like going for a walk, getting exercise.
00:37:21.320All of these things will work much better in most cases than any pill ever will.
00:37:27.360Because depression is a pattern of thought.
00:41:50.240The reason why exercise and staying busy and going for a walk actually do treat depression, not the symptom but the thing itself, is in part because these things are goal-oriented.
00:42:02.180They're healthy. They actually give you meaning. Not all the meaning you need in life, but they do have some meaning in them.
00:47:52.840Like depression and anxiety are functions of consciousness.
00:47:55.160You can't be depressed and anxious if you're not conscious.
00:47:58.800So that's what it is. It's a conscious state. I mean, it's the most basic way to define what it
00:48:04.880is. Depression is a certain conscious state. And the medical industry tells us that it originates
00:48:11.580from physical mechanisms in the brain, but we don't actually know how the mechanisms in the
00:48:16.720brain translate into conscious thoughts in the first place. And yet the medicines aim to fix
00:48:23.840some problem related to how the physical mechanisms create these uncomfortable conscious
00:48:30.460thoughts. Except that nobody who's prescribing the medicines or making them actually has any
00:48:36.760idea how any of that works. So if somebody's experiencing anxiety, that's a conscious
00:48:45.120experience, right? So then they take an anti-anxiety medication. If the medication works and now
00:48:52.600they're consciously experiencing less anxiety and they go back to the doctor and they say,
00:48:56.280hey doc, it worked. The doctor will say, hey, it's great. Excellent news. But keep taking your
00:49:02.680pills. You want some more? But if the person follows up and says, hey, how did it work exactly?
00:49:08.680Like how did the medicine alter my state of consciousness so that I'm experiencing less
00:49:13.620anxiety? I mean, anxiety is not, it's not like a hallucination. I mean, if somebody's anxious,
00:49:19.260anxiety is a thought process. You're thinking certain things. And how did the medicine change
00:49:27.480what I'm thinking? The doctor, if he's honest, will have to say to the patient,
00:49:33.720I don't know. I don't know. I have no clue, actually. I really don't know at all.
00:49:42.960Which means that if it doesn't work, the doctor also doesn't know why it didn't work.
00:49:46.960And if there are downstream psychological side effects or injuries, he also is not going to know why that's happening or how to make it stop happening or if it will ever stop happening.
00:55:34.580This is why the Supreme Court needs to overturn birthright citizenship.
00:55:39.520Okay, so this is a case study that, keep in mind, the New York Times has presented this as something that exemplifies the birthright citizenship issue.
00:55:51.700So they're saying we need birthright citizenship for people like this, that the person profiled here.
00:59:41.860no escape attempts or tail flipping were recorded.
00:59:45.220And so anyway, now they're calling for a ban across the world, I guess, of boiling lobsters.
00:59:54.400Boiling is already illegal in Austria, several Australian states, Norway, and New Zealand.
01:00:01.820First of all, there's kind of a morbid comedy in the idea of scientists being so concerned about the suffering of lobsters that they do experiments where they electrocute lobsters.
01:00:12.020what kind of mad scientist scene were they setting up here you've just got lobsters strapped you got
01:00:21.680dozens of lobsters in this dungeon strapped they have no idea what's going on strapped down and
01:00:30.520being electrocuted by these people in lab coats and the people lab coats are saying this is for
01:00:35.760your own good. I know it hurts. You're never going to convince me that they actually were
01:00:45.160motivated by any kind of humane concern. You just wanted to electrocute something. That's all that
01:00:49.060was. That's all these scientists were doing. They saw a lobster and said, wouldn't it be,
01:00:54.120what would happen if we electrocuted one? And they came up with a whole study just to justify it.
01:00:59.760And second, for the record, the study doesn't actually establish that lobsters experience
01:01:04.240pain. It doesn't establish anything at all. This is why, I mean, to go back to the beginning about
01:01:10.180we talk about studies very often are totally bunk. You can find studies that are worthwhile,
01:01:18.720but you got to really check the methodology. A lot of times studies are just like this.
01:01:23.260It's just scientists. It's just like making up bulls**t. Oh, if he flips his tail, he's experiencing0.92
01:01:30.520pain. What? Why would you assume that? Because experiencing pain is a question of consciousness.0.99
01:01:40.320A thing can respond to physical torture by convulsing around or recoiling. That doesn't
01:01:44.320establish that it is a conscious experience of pain. In order for that to happen, the animal
01:01:49.620would have to be aware that it exists and that it is experiencing pain. So to actually experience
01:01:57.920pain requires a capacity for conscious experience. And do lobsters have that capacity? I have no
01:02:05.020idea. I doubt that they do. There's no way. You can electrocute a million lobsters. You'll never
01:02:10.540get to the bottom of that. And third, lobsters are the most overrated food on the planet anyway.
01:02:17.640You know, second only to crabs, actually. Neither are worth the effort. You got to sit there and
01:02:22.580crack open a shell, dig out the meat like an animal. Meanwhile, beef in every form tastes
01:02:31.080better and doesn't require me to do any work. So anytime someone's like, you want to have lobster,
01:02:34.640you want to have crab? No, I'll just have a hamburger. It tastes way better and it's much
01:02:42.420easier. And I don't have this alien looking thing that I have to crack it open and it's like guts
01:02:49.960are spilling out and there's weird yellow stuff coming out. So I don't have to, I don't have to
01:03:01.420murder the cow myself by boiling it to death. I mean, I would, if that's what it took to enjoy
01:03:08.720a hamburger, I wouldn't want to. I'm just saying that if that's how cheeseburgers were made,
01:03:15.760then I'm going to do what I got to do. What are you going to do? Not eat a cheeseburger? Let's be
01:03:22.280real. But fourth, most importantly, and the point that everyone is making in response to this
01:03:31.740article, and rightly so, is that the scientific community here is showing more concern for the
01:03:37.880suffering of crustaceans, of these cockroaches of the sea, than they are for actual human babies,
01:03:43.460unborn babies. I mean, this is the connection a lot of people are making, and rightly so.1.00
01:03:48.220We know that unborn children feel pain, and it's much more likely that they are consciously aware1.00
01:03:52.820of that pain to some degree. And whether they feel pain or not, I mean, they do, but regardless,
01:03:59.160they're human. Lobsters are lobsters. And we heard about several countries that already ban
01:04:04.100boiling lobsters. All of those countries, it will not surprise you to learn, have legalized abortion.
01:04:13.460So it is a fact. It's not some kind of right-wing talking point to say that those countries give
01:04:18.880more rights to lobsters than to human babies in the womb. That is a true fact. In New Zealand,
01:04:25.420for example, lobsters are more protected than unborn babies. Lobsters are recognized by the
01:04:36.600law to have more of a moral claim than unborn humans. And I'd bet a lot of money that the
01:04:44.800scientists calling for this boiling ban, these weirdo scientists electrocuting poor lobsters,0.67
01:04:50.500I'd bet all of them are pro-abortion. I have no clue, but I'd put a lot of money on that
01:04:55.800assumption. And this is liberalism in a nutshell. A human baby is a meaningless clump of cells.
01:05:02.900And then on the other hand, you got this hideous, weird, alien-looking ocean bug
01:05:08.840is a beautiful, sacred life worthy of legal protection and moral consideration.
01:05:16.860It is a perfect inversion. Everything flipped on its head once again.