Let me ask you, do you support the right of a woman who
is just seconds away from birthing a healthy child to have an abortion?
>> I think that the question that you're asking does not realistically
reflect abortion care.
>> In that scenario would you support her right to abort that child?
>> I won't entertain theoretical.
>> It's not a theoretical maam.
You're a medical doctor.
>> I am a medical doctor and that has never happened.
>> Never happened in your practice ma'am, but it happens.
How about if a child is halfway out of the birth canal,
is an abortion permissible then?
>> Can you repeat your question?
>> If a child is halfway delivered out of the birth canal,
is it permissible to have an abortion?
Would you support the right to an abortion then?
>> I can't even fathom that.
>> And I'm not asking you if you can fathom it if it occurred,
would you support that abortion or not?
That's unrestricted abortion, right?
>> I can't answer aquestion that I can't imagine,
just like you probably can't imagine what you would do if your daughter was raped.
If it hasn't happened it may be difficult.
>> Okay, you're not gonna answer this question.
>> So look, the right knows that their position on Roe v Wade on
reproductive rights is incredibly unpopular.
They've been losing on this issue for
longer than most of you watching this have been alive.
And along the way they've come up with an ever shifting number of
horrific hypotheticals that don't exist in the real world to delude you,
to bamboozle you into thinking that that is what abortion actually is.
That there are a lot of people, Jessica you may not know this,
you're you're a young woman, maybe you don't have the life experience.
But what a lot of older women will do is that they will become pregnant,
they will then carry the fetus for eight and two thirds months, and then as they're
sitting in the waiting room to give birth, they think, you know what?
No actually, I'm not gonna do that.
That's what actually happens.
So I'm gonna need you to answer for women,
why would you all do these horrible things?
>> That's an easy one, John.
We wouldn't and certainly a doctor would not.
If you're a doctor who's assigned to help someone birth the child, the last
thing you're thinking about is the possible ways to end that infant's life.
I mean, what he's asking about is his infant side.
He's not asking about abortion and
this is exactly why you have people like Jesse Water saying,
don't engage with the other side because they quite literally have no argument.
If they could really argue the fact that abortion should be illegal,
they wouldn't have to make this about killing babies as they're being born or
right after their being born.
>> Yeah so here's the thing, they understand that their position is
horrifying and they don't want to actually defend it.
So they will come up with fantastical, horrifying things.
So the fact that his position is, and many,
many republicans in elected office is that if you are raped,
you should be forced to give birth.
That is horrifying to a lot of people.
If you're raped by your dad, you should be forced to give birth to that?
That is a horrifying thing and not hypothetical.
Now look, a lot of people like to say that those exceptions for rape or
incest don't make up a majority of cases in which someone would have
an abortion and that is true.
But it still actually happens and that gives it a little bit more plausibility
than the idea that five seconds before birth, someone would choose to abort.
So I looked at the numbers and they say they throw around these numbers,
only 1% of abortions are due to rape, 0.5% are due to incest.
Now I take massive issue with those numbers because for
you to believe those numbers, you would have to believe that people
are actually accurately reporting why they're doing this.
So many rapes never go reported whatsoever because a lot of people who get raped
accurately read that society cops all that aren't actually going to believe them or
trust them or do anything about it and that then when you go to then have
an abortion, you would then willingly offer up that.
That's why.
But whatever, let's say that those are the accurate numbers that would work
out to as of the last numbers I saw from 2019, rape-related abortions
in America alone in one year, 3000 incest-related abortions.
That's 9000 horrific instances that that dude you
just saw totally believes they should be forced to have.
But he's not interested, he's interested these hypotheticals that he comes up with
like, okay, I'll throw one at him.
What if we found out that you were about to give birth to satan himself?
Beelzebub was about to be born and you have a few seconds to wipe out
the God of lies, the morning star himself, would you not do it?
You can't conceive of that?
Well, I'm not interested in what you can conceive of.
I said words and now you have to give me your position on it.
No, the situation right now in terms of rape and
incest that exists even with Roe v Wade, that is an actual horrific situation that
will only be made more horrific if men like him get what they want,
which is what's happening thanks to the Scotties.
That is what we should be focusing on, the true horror not the stuff that
he conjures up to get you to be okay with your rights being stripped away.
>> That's exactly it, right?
There are most extreme scenario is something that doesn't happen.
Our most extreme scenario is something that does happen.
And I was gonna say she did the right thing by saying that question is
ridiculous, this doesn't happen.
But I don't know, I think fighting fire with fire and
coming back with even more ridiculous hypotheticals might be the way
to go if you're testifying on the floor of Congress.
>> 100%.
Yeah so that dude and other republicans, in terms of your votes for
military spending for weapons, you're fine with things like cluster munitions,
white phosphorous weapons.
Do you know what those do two bodies when you drop them on an area?
And it turns out that most of those are not capable of in the moment knowing that
the person they're about to explode possibly days or weeks afterward,
when an unexploded cluster munition is found by a civilian or when you
blanket an area with white phosphorous and it burns the skin and flesh burns
to the bone the people there, it can't tell if you're a terrorist or not.
So why I'll say to that,
that dignified representative are you okay with a pregnant person having their
body literally burned off of their bones by white phosphorus weaponry?
Why are you supporting that sort of stuff?
That's not hypothetical, that happens when you use weapons like that.
Why are you okay with that?
Like I understand that they think that this is a winning issue.
And I understand that they know that their base is not going to do even the limited
request for critical thought that I'm asking for right here.
But when you actually think about it, they're in favor of a lot of horror.
>> Yeah.
It's always been about politics for them abortion.
And the issue of being pro life has never been about abortion,
because they're clearly not pro life as you just pointed out.
And this is why they don't want them to engage with the other side.
It's always been about politics because they saw abortion as an issue they
could win elections on.
Republicans and Democrats were voting in equal proportions for and
against abortion until the 70s when Nixon ran and was against abortion.
And they were like, wow,
he got a lot of votes from socially conservative people in Catholics.
We should use this as an electoral strategy and Republicans did.
And they picked up a bunch of seats in Congress because they were getting single
issue voters so they could have the rest of their platform be whatever
they want and keep winning elections based on this issue.
It's always been about politics never about being pro life.
[MUSIC]