The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 351 - Thousands of Biologists Deliver Devastating Blow To Pro-Abortion Side

00:00:00.160 So Elijah, Elijah Cummings, unfortunately died today. And it's really, I have to say, it's,

00:00:05.580 it's pathetic and sad to see what the media has done with his death. Cummings had a long and

00:00:11.960 storied career. But the media has eulogized him primarily as a Trump critic, or target of Trump

00:00:22.320 criticism, as if that something that only came up, you know, for Elijah Cummings, this, this

00:00:27.420 only the last couple of years of his life had anything to do with Trump at all. And so, but

00:00:32.420 they've decided that's going to define him, as if that's the most significant thing about him. So

00:00:36.740 look at some of these headlines from the Washington Post. Representative Elijah Cummings, Democratic

00:00:41.880 leader and regular Trump target, dies at 68. CNN says, Representative Elijah Cummings, key figure in

00:00:49.220 Trump investigations, dies at 68. The Independent says, Elijah Cummings' death, senior Democrat at

00:00:55.820 center of Trump impeachment probe, dies, age 68. This is what their Trump obsession has wrought.

00:01:02.720 They have, they have minimized him into Trump target, figure in Trump impeachment. It all revolves

00:01:10.680 around Trump for these people. Everything revolves around Trump. Even the, even the, the obituary now

00:01:17.180 of Elijah Cummings, who had been in public life for what, 40 years, his last couple of years

00:01:23.960 going to head to head, head to head with, with Donald Trump. For the media, that's all that

00:01:28.700 matters. It all boils down to that. Pretty, pretty outrageous and sad to see. Okay. So what I want to

00:01:35.140 start with today, on this show today, we're going to take a step away from politics, sort of, and talk

00:01:43.340 about a few things, a few interesting things that obviously have political implications because

00:01:48.940 everything does, but are much deeper and more important, I think. And we're going to start with

00:01:53.260 a fascinating article written by somebody who interviewed over 5,000 biologists and asked them,

00:02:01.600 when does life begin? And there was a 96% consensus, almost unanimous. 96% of the biologists

00:02:11.200 gave an answer. And the 96% agreed. And we're going to look at what their answer is and what they

00:02:19.820 agreed on in just a minute. But first, a word from AncestryDNA. You know, I think it's, it's, it's,

00:02:25.140 it's, it's not just a nice little bit of information or a bit of trivia to know where you're from,

00:02:31.440 what your ancestry is. It is crucial to understanding yourself, understanding your family,

00:02:36.820 where you come from, you know, what you're all about. It's just, that's what AncestryDNA is all

00:02:42.340 about. AncestryDNA gives you so much more than just the places where you're from. Ancestry connects

00:02:48.040 you to the places in the world where your story started using precise geographical details and

00:02:54.300 clear-cut historical insights. So it gives you the whole story. It tells you sort of the story about

00:03:00.620 yourself and about, about your family. You can even trace your ancestors' journeys over,

00:03:05.540 over time, following how and why your family moved from place to place. It really is fascinating to

00:03:12.080 think. Think about all of the things that had to happen throughout history in order for you to come

00:03:20.140 into existence. Think about all, through all that time as your ancestors and your family have been

00:03:25.660 moving from place to place and meeting different people. And, and, um, think about all those

00:03:30.180 different movements and meetings that had to happen. What are the chances that all of that would

00:03:35.740 happen to make you, you know, one in a, one in a trillion probably yet it happened. And to amplify

00:03:41.760 your results, you can start a free trial in Ancestry and build a tree. So your ancestors become more than

00:03:47.560 just a name. They've combined DNA results with over a hundred million family trees and billions of

00:03:52.840 records to give you more insight into your genealogy and origins. I have my Ancestry kit ready to go.

00:03:59.640 I'm going to send it in. Um, doesn't take very long to get the results back. I'm, I'm looking

00:04:04.640 forward to finding out. I'm hoping that I am a Viking. I'm hoping I'm at least 15% Viking. That's

00:04:09.400 what I, fingers crossed. That's what I'm rooting for. Go to Ancestry.com slash Matt today for 20% off

00:04:14.360 your Ancestry DNA kit. That's Ancestry.com slash Matt for 20% off your Ancestry DNA kit. Ancestry.com

00:04:22.300 slash Matt. Okay. So a guy named Steve Jacobs has an article on the site Quillette's hardly a bastion

00:04:31.640 of right-wing propaganda, we should say. And the headline of, of the article is I asked thousands

00:04:36.980 of biologists when life begins, the answer wasn't popular. And in the article, he talks about his,

00:04:42.980 his dissertation, um, for his PhD, which, which involved abortion. And as part of that research,

00:04:50.940 he, he asked this question. He asked over five, there was 5,300 something biologists when life

00:04:56.980 begins. Um, there's more to his paper than that. There's more to the article. You go read the article.

00:05:02.180 It's interesting. It's worth a read, but I want to focus just on this element of it for a moment.

00:05:07.040 This is pretty staggering. Quoting now from Jacobs. He says, I found that 500, uh, 5,337 biologists,

00:05:16.620 96% affirmed that a human's life begins at fertilization with 244% rejecting that view.

00:05:24.360 The majority of the sample identified as liberal, 89%, pro-choice, 85%, and non-religious, 63%.

00:05:31.880 In the case of Americans who express party preference, the majority identified as Democrats, 92%.

00:05:38.280 So 96% of a mostly pro-abortion, non-religious, liberal Democrat biologist sampling say that life

00:05:51.660 begins at fertilization. That is about as powerful of an answer on a question like this that you could

00:05:58.360 possibly hope to expect. Um, because you have people saying life begins at conception,

00:06:04.880 not for any ideological reason. In fact, the ideology cuts against them and their ideology

00:06:09.500 pushes them in the other direction. If they were to follow their ideology, they would say,

00:06:13.820 oh no, life doesn't begin at conception. The only reason they're saying this, the only reason

00:06:19.360 is because of what they know about science. They're biologists and they know that, yeah,

00:06:24.440 life begins at conception. Um, it is, the science is clearly undeniable when you, what occurs there at

00:06:34.640 conception, once conception occurs, you have a distinct living biological entity. Now I'm not a biologist

00:06:45.120 and I appreciate these biologists saying this, um, but I don't think you need to be a biologist

00:06:53.040 to understand this or to know that. In fact, you don't really need to understand anything about biology

00:07:01.240 at all. You could have no understanding of biology and you should, because it's, this is, this is more of a

00:07:07.700 logical conclusion than anything else. We know that just, just logically, we know that at conception

00:07:14.400 you've got something else that has now come into existence. Despite how it's presented by the pro

00:07:21.900 abortion side, this is not an extension of the woman's body. It's not an organ or a limb or a tumor. 1.00

00:07:27.500 It's just not that it is something separate, something distinct. It is an entity of some kind.

00:07:34.600 We know that. It is a biological entity. I don't think anyone would deny that.

00:07:40.900 Okay. Well, now the question is, is it alive? Okay. Well, again, without even getting into the

00:07:47.580 biological specifics, it would seem to me that for any entity that exists, there are only three options.

00:07:56.100 It's either going to be living, inanimate, or dead, right? Those are the only, there's no,

00:08:07.300 there's nothing in between there. Everything that exists, everything that's in this room right now

00:08:12.160 that you can see is either living, inanimate, or dead. Nothing in between. There are no in-between

00:08:20.080 categories. And so we know that this desk that I'm sitting at, this is inanimate. It's a desk.

00:08:26.760 It's only ever going to be this until it decays and rots away. I mean, you could chop it up and

00:08:30.640 build it into something else, but it's never going to grow on its own into something else.

00:08:37.080 It doesn't breathe. It doesn't consume food. It doesn't, it's not, it's not developing or,

00:08:43.520 or maturing into a, you know, it's never going to, it's just, this is all it is.

00:08:51.080 The entity in the womb, is it an inanimate object? No, clearly not. Is it dead? Well, no.

00:09:02.160 And if it were dead, then you wouldn't need the abortion in the first place. And so that leaves

00:09:05.440 only living. So it is a living biological entity. And is it human? Well, we know that because

00:09:11.380 it was created by two human beings and two human beings cannot, uh, mate and create anything but

00:09:19.480 another human being. They can't create a duck or a, or a, or a, you know, spider monkey. It's just,

00:09:24.740 they're going to create another person. So that's how we know it is a living biological human.

00:09:33.260 Um, though it's nice to have the biologists confirm this rather obvious fact. Jacobs then goes on to talk

00:09:40.800 about the backlash from anti-science, uh, from the anti-science abortion enthusiast crowd. That's my

00:09:47.960 term, not his, to be clear. And he shares some of the email he received from these Looney Tunes. Uh,

00:09:53.300 again, my term, not his. Uh, so some of the things he, he, he quotes, um, some of the emails to him.

00:10:00.400 Is this a study funded by Trump and the Ku Klux Klan? Someone else says, sure. Hope you, 0.98

00:10:06.540 you aren't a, an effing Christian. Someone else says, uh, this is some stupid right to life thing.

00:10:13.280 Yuck. I believe in right to choice. These are, these are brilliant people. There's a bunch,

00:10:20.040 a bunch of scholars, a bunch of gentlemen and scholars over there on the pro-abortion side.

00:10:24.740 Um, someone else says the actual purpose of this quote survey became very clear. I will do my best

00:10:30.360 to disseminate this info to make sure that none of my naive colleagues fall into this trap.

00:10:34.420 Somebody else, sorry, this, uh, looks like it's more of a religious survey to be used to

00:10:39.560 misinterpret by radicals to do, to advertise about the beginning of life and not a survey about what

00:10:44.200 faculty know about biology. Your advisor can contact me. Uh, someone else says, I did respond to and fill

00:10:50.640 in the survey, but I'm concerned about the tenor of the questions. It seemed like a thinly disguised

00:10:54.720 effort to make biologists take a stand on the issues that could be used to advocate for or against

00:10:59.340 abortion. Uh, someone else, the relevant biological issues are obvious and have nothing to do with

00:11:04.940 when life begins. This is a nonsense position created by the anti-abortion fanatics. You have

00:11:09.520 accepted the premise of a fanatic group of lunatics. So this is, this, this is interesting. So you've

00:11:13.500 got, obviously you've got a few emails here. This is just a sampling from it, but you've got a few

00:11:18.420 emails from, from semi-literate morons. Um, but then it's clear that some of these messages

00:11:25.120 are from biologists who answered the survey and I'm assuming that they answered, no, life does not

00:11:32.960 begin. And they're kind of revealing why they answered. They're making it clear that for them,

00:11:37.460 it was ideological, that they couldn't overcome their ideological biases. And so they were afraid

00:11:43.740 about, well, I don't, I don't, I don't know how this is going to be used politically. So I'm just

00:11:47.340 going to pretend that life does not begin at conception. So I think what we see here is 96% of

00:11:53.220 biologists said life begins at conception. The other 4%, um, they only said, they only said no

00:11:58.600 because they were afraid of the political consequences of saying yes. So really, really

00:12:04.160 in effect, it's a hundred percent with only with 96, it's more like this. 96% of biologists were

00:12:10.740 willing to admit that life begins at conception. The other 4% weren't willing to admit it for the

00:12:15.600 reasons they made clear here in these emails. Um, as much as people throw around the term anti-science,

00:12:21.580 what you find on the pro-abortion side is this is literal, literally anti-science. They don't like

00:12:29.720 what the science says. So they shout and scream and they stomp their feet and they refuse to

00:12:34.840 acknowledge it or admit it. Life begins at conception. There's no way around it. Scientists

00:12:40.320 know this. It is a, it's really not even a controversial subject. It just is.

00:12:46.400 The only controversy is in the political implications, but that has nothing to do with

00:12:52.460 science. The science says what it says, and there is no mystery here. There really isn't.

00:12:59.540 You're not going to find biologists as this makes it clear. You'll be hard pressed to find

00:13:04.920 biologists who scratch their head and say, gee, I don't know. Um, so then what happens next? Uh,

00:13:12.600 does the bro, does the pro-abortion side, do they, do they throw up their hands and say,

00:13:16.200 oh, we've been beaten? No, if they were honest, they would, but they're not honest. So they don't.

00:13:21.120 So instead, um, either they'll just continue to claim despite all evidence that no life doesn't

00:13:26.780 begin at conception because I don't want it to, or more likely they'll, they'll try for what appears

00:13:32.120 to be, or what, uh, pretends to be a more nuanced and intelligent, you know, uh, uh, distinction

00:13:39.620 where they'll say, okay, yeah, uh, the being in the womb is a human being, no way around that,

00:13:46.000 but it's not a person. And they'll draw this artificial distinction between person and human.

00:13:52.160 I've dealt with that distinction so many times. I'm not going to go into it in great detail here.

00:13:56.140 You can find any of the number of things I've written on the subject to see how I deal with that.

00:14:00.920 Um, what I will just briefly say is this two points. First of all,

00:14:07.900 if there is a distinction between a person and a human being,

00:14:14.520 can you, we put it this way, can you identify if you, if you believe in this distinction,

00:14:24.200 can you identify any other areas where you draw that distinction?

00:14:30.100 So you say that a quote fetus is a human being, not a person. Okay. Um, well, do you do that anywhere

00:14:35.980 else? In other words, is, is this some, is this a distinction you only specifically came up with

00:14:41.680 in order to deal with fetuses? And that's because if that's the case, that's going to make it seem

00:14:48.940 like an ad hoc kind of thing where you just came up with this, um, distinction in order to get around

00:14:58.180 the obvious truth. There is no other area where we would draw this distinction in any other context,

00:15:07.980 right? We would say that the term human being and person is interchangeable. It means exactly the same

00:15:13.980 thing in every other context, except in the womb where magically mystically you try to,

00:15:22.140 um, create this difference where it doesn't actually exist. Now, second point, I say that

00:15:30.760 in any other context, we would admit that a human being is a person. The two are interchangeable.

00:15:36.780 That's true now today. But if we look back through history, that has not always been the case.

00:15:44.900 Think about what we did with slaves in this country for hundreds of years,

00:15:48.540 where it would have to be admitted. Yes, these are humans, but they're not exactly people.

00:15:55.280 They're only partially people or sort of people, not quite as people-y as the rest of us.

00:16:02.540 My point here is that if you look back through history, there have always been groups of people

00:16:09.300 trying to claim that other groups of people are not people. And what we find is that in every

00:16:18.540 case, that effort has led to horrific results. It has always been in the service of some evil

00:16:28.620 institution that people draw this distinction. This effort to delineate between human being and person

00:16:37.220 historically has always, always, always, always, always, always been in defense of evil institutions

00:16:44.860 or evil acts, slavery, uh, uh, genocide, the dehumanization of women on and on.

00:16:57.440 That's a historical fact. So if you're pro-abortion, maybe you look at that trend

00:17:01.960 and you see, Oh gee, wow. You know, it seems like there's a, yeah, every single time in history

00:17:07.460 when our ancestors tried to say human, not person, it was because they were trying to justify some evil,

00:17:14.640 terrible thing. Yet here I am saying human, not person. Maybe I'm justifying an evil, terrible thing

00:17:20.420 too. All right. Speaking of anti-science yesterday, uh, October 16th was, I don't know if you were aware of

00:17:31.600 this. It was a holy day of observation known as pronouns day following in the sacred traditions

00:17:37.840 of our ancestors. Uh, pronouns day provides the LGBT camp with yet another opportunity to lecture the 1.00

00:17:45.300 world about what we're supposed to do and say and think, because the thing is that the LGBT folks, 0.80

00:17:51.760 they don't have enough opportunities to do that, right? They, they, they, they only have,

00:17:56.480 this is why they needed to come up with pronouns day because, um, they wanted to be able to lecture

00:18:02.000 us and, uh, and they didn't get enough of a chance to lecture us on international transgender day of

00:18:07.440 visibility, March 31st, lesbian visibility day, April 26th, international day against homophobia,

00:18:12.360 transphobia, biphobia, May 17th, Harvey milk day, May 22nd, pansexual and panromantic visibility day,

00:18:18.340 May 24th, pride month, June bisexuality day, September 23rd, bisexual awareness week,

00:18:23.280 September 23rd to September 30th, national coming out day, October 11th, national LGBT center

00:18:30.080 awareness day, October 19th, spirit day, October 20th, intersex awareness day, October 26th,

00:18:35.180 asexual awareness week, October 23rd, transgender day of remembrance, November 20th, pansexual slash 0.63

00:18:40.600 panromantic pride day, December 18th, transgender, transsexual tricyclists, tricyclists on trampolines

00:18:47.900 awareness day, December 19th. Um, I only made one of those up. The point is that LGBT folks

00:18:53.860 apparently need a lot of days dedicated to themselves. They need a lot of days to raise

00:19:00.260 awareness about themselves and give themselves a chance to, to lecture us. And that's why they had

00:19:05.120 to do pronouns day. Now at first blush, it may seem odd, right? That we have a day set aside

00:19:11.340 for a grammatical construct. Why not a verb day or, or an adjective day or a preposition day?

00:19:19.960 Well, I'm sure eventually we're headed in that direction as the English language becomes increasingly

00:19:24.000 subjectivized and people are increasingly encouraged to make up their own rules as they go. So maybe

00:19:30.020 eventually we'll have days like that. But, um, right now it's, it's pronouns day and

00:19:36.320 there is one advantage of it is that it might take a whole day for you to learn all of the wild and

00:19:43.740 wacky new pronouns that have been invented out of whole cloth in recent years. It's not just the

00:19:49.300 normal ones. He, she, her, him. We're way beyond that. Okay. You're, you're stuck in the past. If

00:19:55.640 you think that's the, the, the, the, those are all the pronouns or it's, if it's just the traditional

00:20:00.340 ones, no. Um, the ever-growing list of pronouns includes such gobbledygook as Z, her, H-I-R,

00:20:11.040 Zemself with an X, Ver, uh, Xers, K-X-Y-R-S. How do you even pronounce it? Xers, 1.00

00:20:25.260 Per-Self, Fair-Self with an F, but the F is in parentheses and none of the rest of the world

00:20:33.800 word is, uh, Xem, X-E-M, X-Zegs, X-E-X, and Zelf-Self. I made two of those up, but you can't tell

00:20:49.580 which ones. And that's the point. You have no idea because they're all made up. They're all nonsense.

00:20:53.060 Um, none of them have any meaning whatsoever. They are just random letters and sounds

00:20:58.640 blended into a linguistic frappe. Um, we now live in a culture where we now live in a culture where

00:21:08.780 a sentence like this is supposed to mean something. This is a, this is a quote, a real sentence now,

00:21:13.920 supposedly. V went to the store with Per and met Zem and Z got into Zer car and drove home.

00:21:21.100 What does that mean? There's a store, there's a car, there's going home, but who's going where,

00:21:27.900 who's doing what, who's involved. You have no idea. I have no idea. And I'm the one who just came up

00:21:33.820 with a sentence because it's gibberish. It doesn't mean anything. And this is the problem with the whole

00:21:40.800 idea of people claiming their own pronouns. A pronoun, again, is a grammatical construct.

00:21:44.580 It must be deployed according to the laws of grammar, not the individual whims of the person

00:21:49.940 to whom it refers. That's not how grammar works. So if I am, let's say that I got up and I was

00:22:00.020 standing on this desk, could be dangerous. I could hurt my, I could follow my, my head.

00:22:04.960 Um, which maybe if I did fall on my head, then all this stuff would start making sense to me. I don't

00:22:10.400 know. If I got up and I was standing on this desk and you wanted to describe what I'm doing,

00:22:16.740 you would say he is standing on the desk. Now you really have to say that because that accurately,

00:22:25.820 objectively describes what's going on. To say she is standing on the desk would be wrong because that

00:22:33.580 would indicate that a biological female is standing on the desk desk, which is incorrect. If you were

00:22:39.180 to say they are standing on the desk, that's wrong too, because that indicates that more than one

00:22:43.880 person is on the desk when that is not the case. If you were to say, uh, uh, Z is standing on the

00:22:50.040 table, that would be wrong too, because that would make it seem like there's some sort of space alien

00:22:53.780 standing on the, on, on the desk wouldn't know that's not the case at all. So the whole point here

00:22:58.520 is to convey objective reality. When you say something like he is standing on the desk,

00:23:04.720 this is not subjective. You're not, you're not describing my feelings or my emotions.

00:23:11.040 So if I'm standing on the desk while feeling like a woman, whatever that means,

00:23:18.940 then you could say something like he is standing on a man who feels like a woman is standing on a

00:23:26.720 desk or something like that would work. But my own personal feelings doesn't affect how you

00:23:33.680 grammatically convey what's happening. Um, now in a similar way, if I was standing on the desk

00:23:42.540 and I were to tell you that my preferred preposition is off, if I were to tell you,

00:23:49.160 I don't like the preposition on, I prefer off. That's my, that's my personal preposition.

00:23:53.180 Okay, fine. You know, I like the word on, not off, whatever that means. Um,

00:24:00.740 but it still would be nonsensical for you to go and tell someone he's standing off the table

00:24:07.840 because I'm not, I'm on it, not off of it. Um, and that's what this comes down to.

00:24:19.020 So prepositions, nouns, verbs, and pronouns are meant to convey objective facts and reality.

00:24:26.240 If they're not going to perform that function, then they no longer perform any function at all.

00:24:30.720 And meaningful, useful words have been reduced to impotent nonsense.

00:24:35.140 Uh, but shouldn't we just be polite and use somebody's preferred pronoun, uh, just to,

00:24:47.240 you know, make them feel better? Shouldn't we do that? The answer is no. Okay. No, we don't.

00:24:54.780 I'll tell you why. First, because you don't generally call somebody a pronoun when you're

00:24:59.340 speaking to them. So this whole thing about how it's about, it's about being polite and respected.

00:25:05.080 It's, it's irrelevant most of the time anyway, because you're not, if, if, if I'm in the room

00:25:09.380 and you're talking to me, you're not going to say he or him, you're going to, you're going to talk

00:25:14.400 directly to me. You're going to use my name and my name can be whatever I want it to be.

00:25:20.260 So if you, yes, your name is totally subjective. It's arbitrary. Your name can be anything.

00:25:25.140 Okay. So whatever you say your name is, I'll call you that. It's your name. It could be anything.

00:25:31.360 So if you're a man and you say you want your name to be Sally, then I'll call you Sally. If you're, 0.98

00:25:35.240 if you're a woman, you want your name to be Fred. You say your name is Fred. I'll call you Fred. 0.97

00:25:40.840 Whatever you say your name is, you say your name is Higgly Boo. I'll call you Higgly Boo. I mean,

00:25:44.420 it doesn't matter. It's your name. It can be anything, but pronouns are more objective than that.

00:25:51.300 And they're also more distant. So you're usually called by a pronoun when you're not physically

00:25:57.260 present for the discussion. So when someone insists on a preferred pronoun, what he's trying to do is

00:26:03.720 he's trying to prevent you from using proper grammar in relation to him when he's not even in the room

00:26:09.900 with you. So he's essentially saying, whenever you refer to me, even if I'm 10,000 miles away,

00:26:16.640 you must abandon the rules of grammar and parrot whatever nonsensical gibberish I assign to you.

00:26:23.640 That's not only arrogant. It's not only absurd. It's arrogant, arrogant and absurd, absurd and

00:26:29.520 arrogant. That's what it is. How are you, why would you even attempt to control the language 0.58

00:26:35.180 used when you're not even there? How could it possibly affect you?

00:26:40.080 And the second point, of course, is that using an incorrect pronoun is a lie. It's dishonest.

00:26:47.920 You know, if I say she in reference to a man, I am conveying an untruth and I am doing so 0.75

00:26:53.920 deliberately. And so that is a lie. It might be a lie with good intentions. It might be,

00:26:58.580 it might be a lie meant to avoid conflict or whatever, but it's still a lie.

00:27:05.140 And I think it's wrong to lie. But then, okay, but doesn't grammar evolve over time? Maybe this

00:27:11.160 is just the evolution of grammar. Well, yeah, grammar and language does evolve over time,

00:27:16.620 but it evolves according to a coherent set of rules and standards. In fact, that is what evolves,

00:27:23.800 is the rules and standards can evolve. But the point is that they remain rules and standards,

00:27:30.860 which means that they have to remain objective. Not objective in the sense of being immutable and

00:27:38.900 unchangeable, but objective in that they're the same for everybody.

00:27:46.740 And that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about people making up their own

00:27:50.500 rules individually according to their own feelings and desires. That's not evolution. That's devolution.

00:27:58.380 That's collapse. That is the collapse of language. Language is being destroyed here. It's not changing.

00:28:05.080 It's not being modified or evolved. It is being destroyed. Because if we don't have that agreed

00:28:11.760 set of standards and rules that are the same for everybody when it comes to language, then we can't

00:28:17.800 communicate anymore. Besides, and here's really the main thing. We aren't talking merely about changes

00:28:26.660 in language. That's not what we're talking about. Now, if we all decided to start using the word

00:28:34.280 Zem, X-E-M, however it's pronounced. Let's just say Zem. I don't know how it's pronounced.

00:28:39.020 It can be pronounced any way you want, I guess. That's the point.

00:28:42.900 So, this Zem is a made-up pronoun. Well, if we all decided that, you know what, we're going to start 0.99

00:28:51.300 using the word Zem instead of him. Okay, we can do that. I think it's a little weird. It's kind of

00:28:57.460 Dr. Seuss-y, in my opinion. But the word him doesn't always have to be him. If you go somewhere

00:29:04.280 else in the world, they don't have the word him. They have a different word for it.

00:29:09.920 Different languages have their own word for him. And sometimes those words change. Okay, fine.

00:29:15.300 But the LGBT lobby, they aren't asking us to exchange one word for another. Rather,

00:29:21.840 the lobby is demanding, actually, that we pretend to believe in an entire new category of human

00:29:28.460 existence. Zem is not a new word for him. Zem is supposed to be a completely separate sort of 0.66

00:29:34.960 person. Neither a her nor a him. But nobody can even begin to explain what a Zem is exactly and how 0.99

00:29:41.880 it differs from a her or a him. They only say, well, some people identify as Zem. Okay,

00:29:47.500 identify as what? What is that? What does it mean to be a Zem? How did you first discover that you

00:29:52.900 were a Zem? What's the process that you went through to discover that you are a Zem? Describe

00:30:01.700 the experience of discovering that you're a Zem. What does a Zem do differently? What are the biological 1.00

00:30:07.320 markers of a Zem? And how does a Zem differ from a Zer or a Zer or a Sir or a Vim or a Dabba Dabba 0.90

00:30:13.500 Doodle Fim or whatever? How does any distinguish between all these different things? But nobody can.

00:30:22.060 No one can provide any coherent answer for any of this. Just as I have pointed out many, many,

00:30:26.620 many times, and I'll continue to point out, that nobody can even explain or describe what it actually

00:30:33.300 means for a man to identify as a woman. Man says, I identify as a woman. What do you mean?

00:30:39.280 What exactly do you mean by that? Can't explain it. What is a woman? Can't explain it. I've been 0.98

00:30:47.720 asking that question for eight months. No one has offered an answer. Not one person. I mean,

00:30:51.940 not one leftist, I should say. So this is all nonsense. It doesn't mean anything. And yet we are

00:30:58.920 supposed to timidly cooperate as they mutilate our language and make nonsense out of everything.

00:31:06.060 And I'm just not going to do that. I'm not going to cooperate with that. Because why should I?

00:31:13.320 No. No. I'm not. No. That's my answer. No.

00:31:17.840 Okay. One other thing before we get to emails. Heartwarming video to play for you today.

00:31:28.200 Things have been a little too serious. So let's lighten the mood. Those extinction rebellion

00:31:32.980 idiots, the climate activists who have been stopping traffic all over the Western world,

00:31:40.440 they've especially been wreaking havoc over in the UK. And here's a video from, based on the accents,

00:31:47.080 it looks like this is in London. It's extinction rebellion, climate activists, climate alarmists

00:31:55.140 who are standing on the top of a train, preventing a whole group of people from getting to their job

00:32:01.540 so they can feed their family. And here's how that went.

00:32:04.320 And here's how that went.

00:32:06.320 And here's how that went.

00:32:08.240 And here's how they went.

00:32:09.660 And here's how that went.

00:32:11.320 And here's how that went.

00:32:11.560 And here's how grow old.

00:32:14.420 And here's how they've been, with America.

00:32:15.420 I'm done, I'm done, I'm done.

00:32:45.420 I'm done, I'm done.

00:33:15.420 Actually, there's not a however, period, end of the sentence, next sentence.

00:33:21.540 When you prevent an entire crowd of people from getting to their jobs to feed their families,

00:33:27.360 you are going to make them angry, and justifiably so.

00:33:31.820 And so whatever happens next is your fault.

00:33:35.040 So I am going to have zero sympathy for you.

00:33:38.420 Zero.

00:33:39.920 That is 100% your fault.

00:33:42.680 It's all on you, totally.

00:33:45.440 You have no right to be doing that.

00:33:48.260 And it just boggles my mind that these people, these climate alarmists, are allowed to continue doing this.

00:33:55.060 How are the police not showing up immediately with buses and just arresting all of these idiots?

00:34:03.220 You can't do this.

00:34:04.400 You can't just stop traffic.

00:34:06.640 Stop.

00:34:07.140 You have no, that's not First Amendment rights there.

00:34:10.040 You have no right to do that.

00:34:12.300 No right.

00:34:13.040 And if the police aren't going to step in immediately and just arrest everybody doing it, which is what they should be doing,

00:34:20.840 then the crowd might get very angry and might take matters into their own hands.

00:34:25.300 And that's on you.

00:34:26.400 I mean, no sane person is going to feel remotely sorry for you.

00:34:31.960 And by the way, they're taking public transportation, you moron.

00:34:37.480 These are a whole group of people trying to get on the same mode of transportation.

00:34:41.420 Isn't that what you want?

00:34:43.340 Isn't that the whole thing?

00:34:45.220 You want people, isn't that the most environmentally friendly way of traveling and commuting?

00:34:49.960 That's what they're trying to do and you're stopping them.

00:34:55.720 Okay.

00:34:57.700 That was supposed to be a pick-me-up.

00:35:03.000 But it got a little, these people just, the arrogance of it.

00:35:09.780 The arrogance.

00:35:14.700 And it makes it even worse that all of these climate alarmists who are doing these protests, if we can even call it protests,

00:35:23.020 you know none of them have jobs.

00:35:25.320 It's easy for them because they're living off their, they're either living off the government or they're living off of their parents or both.

00:35:32.960 So it's very easy for them to step in and prevent other people from getting to their jobs.

00:35:38.940 And they can say, oh, there's more important things than getting to your job.

00:35:42.300 Well, easy for you to say, you unemployed, non-contributing zero.

00:35:46.560 It's easy for you to say, you're going home to sit on your beanbag chair while your mom makes you Hot Pockets.

00:35:53.380 That's easy for you to say.

00:35:54.800 The rest of us have families that we have to take care of.

00:35:59.560 I know that concept is foreign to you.

00:36:01.820 Okay, let's go to emails.

00:36:06.020 MattWalshow at gmail.com says, this is from Kelly, says,

00:36:10.300 I know how much the left speaks of men and women being the same,

00:36:13.460 and there should never be an excuse for men to try to differentiate between the two.

00:36:17.060 So I ask, should women be able to use PMSing as an excuse for being in a bad mood? 1.00

00:36:22.400 I feel like this is a great argument that clearly women are different than men.

00:36:25.440 I tried to tell my wife this, and she almost strangled me at the dinner table. 1.00

00:36:29.060 You said it at the dinner table.

00:36:31.320 Now, that is bold.

00:36:33.480 Just want to know your thoughts.

00:36:34.880 Thanks for being a great voice of my generation.

00:36:36.760 Keep up the excellent work.

00:36:38.560 Kelly, you call me a great voice of our generation, and then you try to get me killed.

00:36:42.720 So there seems to be a contradiction there.

00:36:45.780 I am not going to fall into that trap.

00:36:48.860 And besides, as we have already been through today, this is the year 2019.

00:36:54.180 There's no reason why a man can't PMS.

00:36:57.120 Okay, so your entire premise is transphobic.

00:37:05.420 This is from Steve says, hi, Matt.

00:37:08.040 Thanks for the great show.

00:37:09.360 Truly appreciate the humor, insight, and intellectual honesty you bring to the table.

00:37:13.740 During your email segment of yesterday's show, I was startled when I heard you mention your daughter's name,

00:37:18.420 your new daughter's name.

00:37:19.240 My wife and I have seven kids, and our only daughter, oh, you have six boys, huh?

00:37:24.300 I don't know how you do it.

00:37:27.720 We got two boys, and honestly, when I hear people that have four, five, six boys, how is your house still standing?

00:37:35.940 Is it?

00:37:37.360 Or at this point, have you just given up, and you're living out, you're just living in the woods somewhere under the open sky?

00:37:43.300 Because I don't, honestly, I don't, how does your house survive?

00:37:47.160 How does anything survive with that many boys running around?

00:37:49.980 God bless you.

00:37:51.900 Anyway, our daughter shares the same name, Emma Grace, although it sounds like you decided to separate the two and go with Emma Grace.

00:37:59.100 So he's got Emma Grace as one word.

00:38:02.140 We had similar discussions and concerns as you and opted for the spelling here.

00:38:05.560 We knew we wanted to be one word and chose to capitalize the G, even though it's in the middle of the name.

00:38:10.040 Otherwise, when looked at, you might try to pronounce it as Immagrasi or something like that.

00:38:16.100 And yes, when we would say her name to someone, we would always follow up by saying capital G, no space.

00:38:21.480 So a little extra work, but never a big issue.

00:38:23.700 We always thought it was a beautiful sounding name and still do to this day.

00:38:26.240 Although in an odd footnote, our daughter, 22 now, has recently dropped the grace part and just goes by Emma.

00:38:32.280 Thanks and best wishes to you and your family.

00:38:34.200 Well, your odd footnote at the end, that's the whole point.

00:38:36.740 That makes my entire point.

00:38:37.780 You go through all of this work for 20 years to explain her name to people.

00:38:42.600 You put in all that blood, sweat, and tears, clarifying her name constantly.

00:38:47.760 And then the moment she gets a chance, she just cuts her name in half and throws out all the work you did.

00:38:54.860 It's a tragedy.

00:38:55.820 And that was one of my concerns with my wife that I raised in an argument that I ended up being right about. 1.00

00:39:01.980 I don't know if you caught that part.

00:39:03.180 I was right.

00:39:04.920 My wife was wrong.

00:39:05.840 I was right.

00:39:08.060 But that was one of my concerns.

00:39:09.460 I figured people are just going to call her Emma anyway.

00:39:12.180 And that's probably what she's going to do for the sake of being just because it's easier.

00:39:20.160 And all of our work will be for nothing.

00:39:22.920 So that's a tragedy.

00:39:24.180 My condolences to you.

00:39:25.820 From Adam says, well, let's see.

00:39:34.880 This is from, we'll do that one tomorrow.

00:39:36.680 This one's from Aaron says, earlier this week, you attempted to place Columbus in historical context in which you live by claiming that by our modern standards, everyone born before 1970 would be morally unacceptable to us.

00:39:47.540 Specifically, the idea is that land conquest through violence and racism are immoral are very modern notions.

00:39:52.920 Even if that's true, how can you claim to believe in the objective truth of Christianity while still maintaining the historical figures aren't responsible for the evils they've committed if those evils were universally accepted back then?

00:40:03.120 Christ revealed the fullness of truth in 33 AD.

00:40:06.040 The Bible canon was complete in the 5th century.

00:40:09.080 So Columbus and all of the European conquerors would have had full access to the gospels before they set sail.

00:40:14.180 They had the same gospel we do.

00:40:16.560 They had no excuse for taking land by force or for treating those with different skin as subhuman.

00:40:21.000 Matt, without even realizing it, by attempting to contextualize their actions, you are becoming an apologist for moral relativism.

00:40:26.940 Okay, a few things here.

00:40:30.040 First of all, you bring up the Bible.

00:40:35.400 The Bible does not explicitly condemn invasion and conquest or racism.

00:40:44.460 In fact, in the Old Testament, well, you can make an argument for racism.

00:40:49.460 There are some lines, especially in epistles.

00:40:52.020 There is no Jew or Greek, man or woman in Christ, you know, that sort of thing. 0.93

00:40:55.920 Which is a condemnation of racism.

00:41:00.280 But here's my point.

00:41:02.560 You take in the Old Testament.

00:41:04.500 In fact, it would seem to explicitly condone invasion and conquest, even command it at various different points.

00:41:13.620 Now, I'm not saying that invasion and conquest is actually consistent with biblical teaching.

00:41:20.440 I'm not saying that slavery and racism is consistent with biblical teaching.

00:41:24.620 I'm just saying that on first reading, it may not have been immediately obvious to people a long time ago that the Bible forbids it.

00:41:32.040 Because it doesn't explicitly forbid it.

00:41:34.040 It doesn't come out at any point and say, in very clear terms, stop doing this stuff.

00:41:40.540 Now, we get to those prohibitions in a more roundabout way.

00:41:45.600 For example, that verse from Paul that I just paraphrased.

00:41:51.100 We today now see that as something that speaks very much to the issues of slavery and racism.

00:41:59.480 And I think it does.

00:42:01.320 But my point is just that for a long time, that's not how people read it.

00:42:06.700 And that's just the reality.

00:42:08.340 So the fact that the Bible canon was complete has, I think, little bearing on this discussion.

00:42:15.300 Considering it just because it doesn't speak very directly to these issues.

00:42:20.240 It took people a while to see it for what I believe it is.

00:42:27.620 Second, moral relativism would be if I said that it actually wasn't wrong for our ancestors to go and enslave and kill and do all that kind of stuff.

00:42:36.580 I specifically did not say that.

00:42:38.500 In fact, I said the opposite.

00:42:40.240 I said that it is objective.

00:42:41.820 I'm pretty sure I said multiple times.

00:42:43.140 It obviously was objectively wrong for them to do those things.

00:42:48.500 Just as wrong then as it is now.

00:42:53.220 The question, though, is not one of the objective moral rightness or wrongness of the act.

00:43:00.140 The question is one of moral culpability.

00:43:03.520 And this distinction between the objective moral rightness or wrongness of an act

00:43:08.860 and the moral culpability of the person who performs the act is very, very important for us to understand.

00:43:15.620 Not just for the context of this discussion, but in any discussion.

00:43:19.620 We need to be able to understand this.

00:43:21.100 And I find that a lot of people, for some reason, this is a distinction that is lost on a lot of people.

00:43:25.800 I'm not sure why.

00:43:28.000 So, for example, if a crazy person murders somebody,

00:43:33.640 obviously murder was wrong.

00:43:36.500 Murder wasn't suddenly okay because a crazy person did it.

00:43:41.040 The act was just as wrong for him as it would be for me.

00:43:44.540 But he was less personally culpable than I would be because of his mental state.

00:43:50.540 You see?

00:43:51.200 And that was my point about slavery.

00:43:52.780 Not that slave owners 500 years ago were crazy,

00:43:55.380 but that they had less moral culpability all that time ago

00:43:59.800 than I would have today if I went and bought a slave. 0.92

00:44:06.500 The act itself is just as wrong in both cases,

00:44:09.520 but our ancestors for thousands of years lived in a world where slavery was an accepted institution

00:44:15.120 everywhere across the planet.

00:44:17.260 It's just what people did.

00:44:19.220 It's how the world works.

00:44:21.960 For the 15th time, that doesn't mean that it was actually right.

00:44:25.240 It just is relevant.

00:44:27.600 And it bears on their personal culpability for doing it.

00:44:33.560 It just really didn't occur to a lot of people for a long time

00:44:38.420 that there was anything in principle wrong with slavery.

00:44:43.360 In the 15th century, there weren't a lot of abolitionists running around.

00:44:47.960 And there especially weren't a lot in the year 500 B.C.

00:44:52.920 And further in time that you go, you're going to find that even less and less.

00:44:58.540 So why didn't it occur to that many people that slavery was wrong?

00:45:02.500 Well, because apparently the wrongness of slavery is not an innate moral insight.

00:45:09.120 It's not something that just comes naturally to people, apparently.

00:45:12.540 It feels innate for us because we were raised in a society that completely condemns it,

00:45:19.420 and rightfully so.

00:45:21.220 But clearly, if you look at this from an anthropological perspective,

00:45:25.900 it's clear that this is not an innate insight.

00:45:30.080 This is more of something that came about through progress, through moral progress.

00:45:35.200 We haven't morally progressed in every area in recent times,

00:45:38.700 but we have morally progressed in some areas, especially where it pertains to slavery,

00:45:43.820 racism, and that kind of thing.

00:45:46.460 Humanity had to, over thousands of years, progress to a point where the wrongness of slavery became clear.

00:45:53.300 And there were philosophical developments that had to happen to make that possible,

00:45:57.620 such as the formulation of the doctrine of universal human rights.

00:46:00.760 Like I said, a long time ago, nobody thought of that.

00:46:04.420 It's just, it's not something that people thought of.

00:46:07.560 It's not a concept that was really available to them.

00:46:13.560 And there was scientific advancement, such as the revelation that we are all one species

00:46:19.420 with only very small biological variances between us.

00:46:23.300 That also was not obvious to people a long time ago.

00:46:29.780 2,000 years ago.

00:46:30.920 The idea that you live in your tribe or in your province, your town, with your people.

00:46:41.640 The idea that people 1,000 miles away are exactly equal to you in every respect.

00:46:49.100 That just, that would have seemed nonsensical to everybody back then.

00:46:59.420 So, again, all this stuff is obvious to us now, thank God, but it wasn't obvious to our ancestors.

00:47:06.260 These are insights, and this is another thing, that our ancestors had to...

00:47:10.100 We didn't earn these insights.

00:47:16.940 We didn't come up with any of this.

00:47:20.700 You know, we're not the abolitionists.

00:47:22.620 We came along after the abolitionists.

00:47:25.040 And we're not the civil rights activists.

00:47:28.000 We came along, most of us watching this came along, I know I did, after all of that.

00:47:32.120 And so, we inherited a society where certain moral truths seemed to us to be self-evident.

00:47:44.480 But that society was built over a long period of time.

00:47:49.560 And a lot went into building that.

00:47:54.500 And there was a lot of literal blood, sweat, and tears that went into it.

00:47:57.380 And I think it is the height of snobbery for us to come along and treat all of this like it's so perfectly obvious.

00:48:10.360 And to look down our nose on all of our ancestors who hadn't quite figured it out when we didn't figure it out either.

00:48:19.820 And so, that's my only point.

00:48:21.280 It is a mitigating circumstance.

00:48:22.680 And so, yes, I would say that something like slavery, always evil, but the people who engaged in it 500 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, they simply do not have the same moral guilt that you and I would.

00:48:45.080 For all the reasons that I've tried to explain.

00:48:47.860 Okay, and last thing I'll say is, like I said when we talked about this, you either have to agree with me on this, or what's the implication of disagreeing with me?

00:49:01.680 The implication, because what's the only other option?

00:49:04.140 Either I'm right about this and the moral guilt is mitigated, or almost everybody who existed throughout history up until very recently, they were all a bunch of utter, complete scumbags with almost no redeeming moral qualities.

00:49:19.620 And that, you talk about a simplistic way of looking at the world, not only that, but a very reductive, insulting way of looking at the world.

00:49:28.400 But that, no, I'm not willing to look at the world like that, or to look at our ancestors like that.

00:49:35.040 And I also think it's just factually incorrect.

00:49:37.600 Okay, we'll leave it there.

00:49:38.880 Thanks, everybody, for watching.

00:49:39.880 Godspeed.

00:49:40.180 We'll see you next time.

00:50:10.180 Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.

00:50:12.820 And our technical producer is Austin Stevens, edited by Donovan Fowler.

00:50:16.840 Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.

00:50:19.160 The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.

00:50:20.860 Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

00:50:22.780 Hey, everybody.

00:50:23.380 It's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.

00:50:25.700 You know, some people are depressed because the American Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon has turned to blood.

00:50:32.060 But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.

00:50:35.080 So come on over to The Andrew Klavan Show and laugh your way through the apocalypse with me, Andrew Klavan.

00:50:40.360 The Andrew Klavan Show.

The Matt Walsh Show - October 17, 2019

Ep. 351 - Thousands of Biologists Deliver Devastating Blow To Pro-Abortion Side

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript