Ruslan Brings Trademark "Clarity" to the Texas Abortion Law Controversy

Alright, let's jump right into it today. I hope you had a great long weekend, I definitely did. And I wanted to jump into a video right away because we have a short week. This is conference weekend? Conference week, I should say.

And so we're only going to have two videos this week. But I'm looking forward to meeting everybody that's coming to the Fight, Laugh, Feast conference. If you are coming, feel free to come up and say hello, and we can chat for a little bit.

I'm coming with my wife, so that'll be fun. And yeah, I mean, I don't really know what else to say about that, but I'm doing a presentation. Well, not really a presentation, probably more like a Q &A or like a live episode about woke capitalism.

So that'll be fun. But yeah, looking forward to seeing everybody there. I wanted to do this video on the Texas heartbeat law that all the liberals and Satanists are freaking out about. Did you see that one?

I think it was CNN or MSNBC. It was Yahoo. It was Yahoo. It was basically saying that the Church of Satan was the only hope for abortions to still happen in Texas. And it had, I guess, one of the lead Satanists that was, I don't know, doing something or other politically.

I mean, who cares? But they're more and more open about this. I mean, abortion is one of the most satanic things I could possibly imagine. But anyway, I wanted to do this video about that because our friend Ruslan reacted to it, and I heard it was good.

The person who asked me to do this video, I wasn't going to do any more Ruslan videos, but he asked really nicely. He said please, number one. But then he also, in the same gab, complimented my most recent catch.

I've been posting pictures of the bass I've been catching lately. Oh, by the way, I went to Bass Pro Shops for the first time in my life. What an awesome store. My goodness. I mean, anyone that has a problem with capitalism has never been to a Bass Pro Shop.

I stole that one from somebody. Austin, I think, said that. Anyway, let's jump right into it because I'm sure that with a very black and white issue like killing babies, that Ruslan is going to be very clear about his position.

You would think. Let's get into it. Ruslan. Ruslan.

Avoiding the Word “Abortion” and the Problem of Censored Moral Language

Spit it out, boy. Why is he talking like this? I'm speaking in code because I don't want to smoke with the tube you. The tube you.

What he's doing here is he doesn't want the algorithm to knock down his video, so he won't say what it actually is. He won't say it's murder. He won't say it's abortion. He won't say it's killing children and stuff like that.

A lot of people do this. People that I really like do this. Well, they'll censor themselves on YouTube. George Gammon does this. I love George Gammon, but George Gammon does this about the coronavirus.

He'll say the Cervasus sickness or stuff like that. I guess I get it. You know what I mean? You want your video to be seen, whatever. But eventually, you've got to take a stand. Eventually, somewhere, you've got to take a stand.

You've just got to call it what it is. I think Ruslan benefits here because he doesn't like to actually call things what they are. Ending life in a other life. That plays right to his strengths, which is not ever saying anything of any value.

That was mean, but it's true. But anyway, I don't know. You've eventually got to take a stand. I've never had a video pulled down at this point. Well, I did have one shadow banned about someone, but then it came back.

People do this. They censor themselves to try to make sure the video gets seen, but whatever. We know what we're talking about. We'll see if this video makes it through. Of course, it's going to make it through, Ruslan.

You're their poster child. They love you because you don't actually believe or say you believe anything. YouTube loves that. We're talking about abortion. Texas passed a law to ban abortions as soon as the heartbeat can be detected.

He'll explain it, and we'll talk about it.

The Texas Heartbeat Law and the Claim That the Issue Is Nuanced

But this is a pretty wild development in terms of what happened. Basically, they limited to the heartbeat, which is at six weeks. What does that mean? That means that the heartbeat is past that. You can no longer end the human inside of the human.

And the human inside of the human can't be ended at six weeks. The issue is that the big human who carries the other human, they don't find out. 85 of them don't find out about the human inside of the human until after six weeks.

I can't deal with this, the way he's starting and stopping because he's trying to figure out the right words to say that will please everybody. I'm just going to speed this up. This will be 1 .2 speed.

Developing humans inside of other humans happens after six weeks because you could just not know. The issue with this is there's no clauses for people who are victims of assault.

There should be no clause for someone who's a victim of assault. Why does someone being the victim of assault make it okay to kill the baby that you're carrying in your womb? I mean, what would the stipulation be?

I guess if you've been assaulted, then you can murder people. Now, that doesn't make any sense. We can have much sympathy for someone who's been sexually assaulted and is carrying the baby of her assaulter.

A lot of sympathy for that person. And I think we ought to bring back the death penalty for rapists and things of that nature. But that doesn't make murder okay.

It doesn't make murder okay. No clauses for women who have a human inside of them that doesn't make it and that needs this procedure. So there's no clauses for them. And there's an incentive to Takashi69 on anybody that fulfills this procedure, including the Uber driver, family member, or clergy.

Yeah, that's the best part about this, in my opinion. Let's go back to one speed because now he's starting to talk faster. There's like a bounty. There's an incentive to report people that are offing their children.

Yeah, I mean, good. Good. Because there should be an incentive just as a human being to report people that are murdering other people. That's something that you should do. You can't just turn a blind eye to murder.

I believe that Ruslan would believe that if it was a murder out of the womb. But I guess somehow if it's in the womb, that might be an issue. Yeah, that's the best part. The bounty. I like that.

That is also true. And so I think the issue here is so layered and so nuanced.

But I'll do my best to explain. Of course it's layered and nuanced because nothing is clear in Ruslan's fantasy world. Nothing is clear because if it was clear, then he'd have to take a clear stand. And that would be bad for his image because he's that reasonable middle-of-the-road kind of Christian who never really takes a solid stand on much of anything.

You have to trick him into taking a stand. If you remember my conversation with him, I had a very difficult time nailing him to anything. But eventually I did get him to admit something he believes. And we were talking about female elders or female pastors or female preachers.

At this point I even forget how I pinned him. But you have to trap him into taking a stand, which is so effeminate. But yeah, abortion law is very nuanced. So let me do my best because it's very nuanced.

It's not nuanced. Murder should be a punishable offense. You should be able to be convicted for murder if you kill your baby. And if you're found killing your baby with malice of forethought and planning and premeditation and stuff like that, the penalty ought to be the death penalty.

That's right. If you off your baby, you ought to be given the death penalty. That's not nuanced. It's crystal clear. Nothing could be more clear in the Bible than the fact that murderers ought to be given the death penalty.

...and get to the heart of it to the best of my ability.

If this is to the best of his ability, well, let's listen to it.

Competing Views of Human Life, Birth, and Personhood

...decided on when the human's life starts, well, then this entire conversation is very meddled and confusing, right? Because you have one extreme that says it starts at birth, and they don't want no limitation ever, right?

That's actually not the extreme anymore. That's actually a more middle-of-the-road opinion. I'm sure Ruslan doesn't know this, but the extreme position is that they want people to be able to murder kids up to nine months, maybe a year.

A lot of people are making the argument right now, because this is how evil pagans and progressives and liberals are. A lot of people are making the argument that there's really no qualitative difference between a month-old baby and a baby in the womb, so why not be able to off the month-old baby?

That's the extreme position now. They're pushing further and further and further as we allow them to go as far as they want to go. That's the extreme position. But yes, that's true, though. Some people don't want any limitations whatsoever up until the point of birth.

I think that's probably the majority liberal opinion, if I had to guess. I don't really have any statistics on that, but probably that's the majority liberal, progressive, Democrat opinion. One of the most satanic opinions I could ever imagine on anything.

Whether or not you should be able to kill your baby in the womb is one of the easiest moral questions that any human has ever been asked. One of the easiest moral questions that any human has ever been asked.

So many of us get that wrong, not because we're too stupid, but because we're too evil. There's no nuance there. None.

That's a pretty fringe, wild extreme. It is. It's pretty wild. That's pretty far out there to say that there should never be a cutoff for this procedure being done. Some people will say, well, technically, biologically speaking, life begins when the sperm and egg meet.

Boom. Life starts. Some people would say life begins when the sperm and egg meet and then latches on to the uterary wall. Some people would say life starts when there is consciousness.

Do you see like he's trying to make sort of like a nuance here? Well, it's like some people say, well, there's actually a scientific reality here where there's new DNA. There's new, you know, processes and things like that.

We don't actually have to guess here.

When you have the ability to know that you're alive. I think I am. Therefore, I am right. When you have the consciousness to know your life, the issue with the consciousness thing is, well, they say that babies aren't really fully conscious of their environment, that they're kind of in a fog for quite a while.

So what do we do with that? Right. So there's this wild spectrum of different views. He understands.

The issue or the caricature of the people who think it starts at inception is that, OK, well, it starts at inception. But are you just about being pro-life or pro-birth? Right. Well, if you're truly pro-life, well, then you have to.

So he's a liberal, obviously, because he's going to give us this pro-life, pro-birth kind of nonsense. I'm pro-birth. Absolutely. And, you know, God is as well. What does God say when he creates men?

He says, be fruitful and multiply. He wants birds. What does it say? And I think it's mica. I think it's mica. Why did he make them one flesh? It asks the prophet. Well, he made them one flesh because he desired a godly offspring.

God is pro-birth. And I'm pro-birth as well. There's just no question about it. I want babies to be born. Just yesterday, somebody asked me, he said, why did I share this post? It was Matt Christensen.

It posted a picture of his new son just born the other day. And I shared it. It's like, well, that's kind of weird for you to share someone else's baby. I'm celebrating this. You know, it's awesome that there's another baby born.

I'm pro-birth. Absolutely. I'm pro-birth.

Charity, Christian Responsibility, and the Limits of Social Programs

It creates a type of systems and institutions to care for these desired new lives that you wanted, right, and to provide for them. And some do. But there's a PR issue there. There's a marketing issue.

Meaning that people that are pro-life are often viewed as just pro-birth. Whether or not statistically they give more to charities who deal with this or to halfway houses, to single mothers. Because the perception is that they don't and they're just about being pro-birth.

You know, the woke church and the social justice movement and basically everything progressive is always about appearances over substance. Because he even just admitted here that it doesn't really matter what the statistics say.

You could donate more to charities. You could take care of people. You could adopt people. You could foster kids and stuff like that. That doesn't matter, though, because the perception is that you don't care.

Well, the perception is only like that if your only source of information is CNN. Or MSNBC. Or something like that. That's the only way you have that perception when you're living in their fantasy that they've created on the TV and you're not living in reality.

See, the thing is, Christians ought to be more about the substance than the appearances. Because the appearances can deceive you, right? The appearances often do deceive you. It's really more about doing what's right as opposed to appearing to do what's right.

You see, the woke church movement is all about appearances. It's been that way since the beginning. Remember Matt Chandler about hiring a black pastor? He would hire a black seven, but not a black six, because the black six would appear like tokenism.

So it doesn't matter if it is tokenism, just so long as it doesn't appear like tokenism. It's always about appearances with these people. It's one of the most disgusting things, counter-Christianity, that I can imagine.

But it's true. Christians are absolutely pro-birth, and we're pro-life in every way. We just don't want to have people that steal money from other people in order to take care of other people's kids and stuff like that, because that breaks another commandment.

You see, we're committed to the whole thing, right? We can't break one commandment in order to keep another. We can't keep one commandment by breaking another. It doesn't work that way. We actually are committed to obey everything that Christ says.

And Christ says that we shouldn't kill. That's something that he says. He also says we shouldn't steal. That's another thing that he says. And so that's what we're about. It's very clear. It's black and white.

There's no nuance there.

So it becomes a convoluted mess.

Only if you're an idiot does it become a convoluted mess. Because if you think that the way to keep one commandment is by breaking another commandment, then you don't understand the first thing about the commands of God.

See, God's commands can't be rendered absurd ever. That's not how it works. Not even in theory can you render God's commands absurd. So only if you're an idiot do you think that the way to keep one commandment is by breaking another.

By the way, the woke church is full of idiots. And so you'll get stuff like, Hey, we got to repent of the sin of partiality in the past by committing partiality today. That's a stupid way to go about it.

And a Christian ought to know better. I don't expect the pagans to know better because they don't know their right hand from their left. But the reality is that it is actually very simple. It's very clear.

And it only becomes convoluted when you're an idiot.

The Problem of Finding Common Ground With Abortion

How do you like that? One side is saying, Nope, it's at inception, never, not for assault, not for incest, not for anything, absolutely off the line. And then people go, Well, are you going to take care of these babies?

And they go, What? Huh? Someone said what? Right? That's not right.

Yeah, that's not right. And that also doesn't exist. That's a fantasy. That's a progressive fantasy that CNN and MSNBC put forward that Ruslan is putting forward here as well. That doesn't happen. What?

Yeah, it was like that at inception as well. Conception?

I said what he said. He got me thinking inception. It was like that from the beginning as well. It was a fully formed human at that stage. It looked exactly like you'd expect a human to look at that stage.

And then it progressed and all of that kind of thing. And when it's 20 weeks, it looks like a 20-week-old. And when it's 40 weeks, it looks like a 40-week-old. And when it's six years old, it looks like a six-year-old.

That's what it's supposed to look like. So 20 weeks, which seems to be sort of like the reasonable middle of the road that he's putting forward. Like you can still be a Christian and believe that life starts at 20 weeks.

I don't know if he believes that, but that's kind of what he's putting forward here. That's the reasonable position. Yeah, that's a fantasy though. You can't kill babies under 20 weeks old, obviously.

That's a body, okay?

So there's no middle ground with this conversation because it instantly leads to dogma. It instantly leads to dogma, which makes it that much more convoluted, and no one wants to actually say, okay, well, if that's your position, let's create more.

Let's create more resources so that the act becomes unnecessary,.

Not just limiting and illegal. And this is the problem with this presentation and with pretty much every evangelical presentation on this issue. It's that that's not why people kill their children, because they don't have access to resources.

That's not why they do it, because you could have a lot of resources, and if you have a greedy heart or if you have an envious heart, you might still kill your kid because you want more. Like it doesn't matter.

The eye is never satisfied. That's what the Bible says, right? So those who have a murderous heart and they're willing to murder in order to get the things that they want, they're going to continue to murder.

Nobody's killed their baby because they were forced to and didn't have access to resources. They killed their baby because they didn't have any regard for the baby's life. They valued their own life more than the baby's life.

That's why they killed the baby. Now, they might have a whole bunch of excuses as to why they killed the baby, but none of that matters. At the end of the day, they did not value the baby's life, and that's what a murderous heart does.

So this is a fantasy. Ruslan is living in a fantasy world. Unfortunately, it's a fantasy world that many, many evangelicals live in.

Unnecessary. Let's put more resource there, which I'm for. 40 sonograms, caring for women, single mothers. I'm for. I do that in my real life. I don't brag about it, but I have family members that I take care of because I'm really about being about people's lives, other people's lives, the orphans.

I'm really about that. So I think as believers….

The Church Must Communicate the Wrath of God, Not Just Compassion

Yeah, yeah, and that's great. And all of us are, by the way, right away. I used to volunteer. I was the president of the board of a pregnancy center, and I was under no delusion that providing ultrasounds, which is something that we did for free, providing ultrasounds to women would prevent them from murdering their child.

I was under no delusion that that would happen, but I believe in charity. I believe in charity for people that need it, right? But you're delusional if you think that the way to stop people from murdering is to have 4D sonograms for everybody.

That doesn't stop a murderous heart, right? That doesn't stop a murderous heart. Money doesn't stop a murderous heart. The eye is never satisfied. Money, care, clothing, free diapers, food. This is all great.

This is all required. God tells us that we should share with people who don't have, and that's what we should do. But we should not labor under the delusion that that is going to stop someone who wants to murder from murdering.

That's a delusion. That's a liberal fantasy.

It's not true. As Christians, as people who value life, we need to do better with communicating the heart behind that. The other side….

I disagree. We actually need to do better with communicating the wrath because Christians forever have communicated the heart behind, you know, God loves you and God loves the baby and God loves life.

We are experts at that. What we're not good at is sending the message that this is actually murdering. You're actually committing infanticide, and this should be a death penalty offense. What we're not doing is communicating the wrath of God against sin.

That's what we're not doing that well at. The state doesn't do that the right way either, and so that's what we're not good at communicating, the wrath of God. Everyone is very happy to share that God loves you and this and that.

That's true for some people, but the reality is that we actually need to bring back the harshness, the severity of God when it comes to the sin of infanticide and murdering babies. That's one of the worst things I could imagine somebody doing, killing their own child, and we need to communicate the wrath of God against that much, much better than we do.

It is, I think, conflating this and saying, well, it's women's health and mind your business, and I can never get a clear answer on at what point are you just uncomfortable with the act? At what point?

Ten weeks? Twenty weeks? Fifteen weeks? Up to when the child arrives? I can never get an answer there. It's just mind your business, my body, my choice, and then those people tend to be mad at the other people who don't want to get the bang, bang, and then they say, my body, my choice, which that's a whole other degree of hypocrisy, is it not?

Both sides are hypercritical or hypocritical. You got one side saying, yeah, no, I'm not getting your bang, bang, and I'm not wearing a mask, however—.

If you don't understand his stupid baby talk, what he's doing here, I can't even believe this. He's comparing people not wanting to get the vaccine for the coronavirus with people that are offing their children and saying, well, it's hypocritical because you'd be like, yeah, I want the vaccine, but then they'd be like, well, I don't want my baby, and you're like, hypocritical, dog.

Like, are you—. I'm going to move on because I don't know if I'll be able to continue talking about this. It's not about the algorithm. It's about keeping myself from sin.

Women, I'm going to limit what access you have, and then the other side's saying, oh, yeah, well, women should be able to do whatever they want because it's their body, their choice, but you need to wear a mask and you need to get the bang, bang.

This entire thing is mad confusing and convoluted. How do we have this conversation?

It's not confusing. It's not confusing at all. It's crystal clear. It's only confusing if you don't want to take a solid stand or if you're an idiot. That's the only thing that makes it confusing. This is easy because we've got to cut through all the nonsense, right?

While he's saying bang, bang, boom, boom, you know, all that kind of stuff, what he's talking about, though, is offing children, murdering them just because you want to, ending their lives out of convenience.

That's what he's talking about. But he's saying bang, bang, boom, boom, bing, bing, boom, bing, and then he's saying, well, it's confusing and convoluted. It's not convoluted because we're talking about murdering children, right?

Forget everything else for a second. What we're actually talking about is murdering children. We're not talking about access to medicine or access to this or this and that, help, charity. Excuse me. I almost choked on my own saliva there.

We're talking about murdering children.

The One-Child Policy as a Warning About State-Controlled Birth

It's not convoluted. It's just quite simply be, hey, when do you legitimately believe this act is no longer appropriate, okay? And I think the solution to this is actually, is actually, is actually watching a documentary about this played out logically in a country called China, and it's called The One Child Policy.

And it was a documentary made about it on Amazon Prime, I believe. And this documentary explores what they did on this logic that, well, we need to control populations, and it's our job to dictate who can and can't be alive, and that anyone who's on the fence doesn't know, if you're on the other extreme, you need to watch that documentary and see how these were forced on people and then ask, were those humans or not?

Did those people deserve those bodies inside of bodies? Did they deserve rights? It's not that simple. And respect to anyone that's on the left, like a Joe Rogan, who says, yeah, this isn't just as simple as someone else's, you know, their body, their trait.

No, this is much, this is more than that, right? Respect to anyone.

You know, I mean, I agree that the Chinese policy, which I guess they've upped to like three kids now, because, you know, surprise, surprise, like you actually need to have babies in a society in order to thrive.

I mean, I'm against that policy as well, but I'm just, I don't understand how that, that's the solution to people that like killing babies, like to show them China killing babies, and like saying, well, is that a life?

I don't think the issue is that they don't think it's a life. You see, this is the other thing. This is the big disconnect. I think Ruslan seems to think that the issue is that people don't know that they're killing babies.

And I have no reason to believe that they don't know that they're killing babies. Why wouldn't they know that? They know exactly what it is. They're killing their own child. Like why would the solution to thinking it's cool to kill your own child be to watch a documentary about other people that killed their own child?

Like the naivete there is just unbelievable. Like, and there's nothing Christian about this. Education is not how you stop people from sinning. Where would you get that in the Bible?

It's not biblical in any way. The eye is never satisfied. Anybody that's at least consistent in that regard. And the people on the right who are saying, hey, we got to outlaw this completely because you're impacting somebody else.

You also got to be consistent with, in light of the panoramic that we're in and the bang bang, your body, your autonomous rights are also impacting other people when you want to run around here and spread this.

Consistency, the Vaccine Analogy, and the Limits of Libertarianism

Is he this stupid? That's the question. If you're still with me, answer this. Does he really not get this? He doesn't understand the difference between getting the vaccine shot and a child and he thinks that that's somehow an inconsistency.

If you don't want to get the vaccine, it's an inconsistency to want to outlaw abortion. Is he that stupid or is he just pretending to be stupid? Because I've had the feeling for a long time that he's just pretending to be an idiot.

But this is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. I mean, you've got to be brain dead in order to use this as your example of inconsistency. I just can't even fathom being so brain dead in order to think this is a good idea.

Let me know what you think. We have to be consistent. We have to have just scale. So my opinion is, I think that surprisingly, this is something that Donald Trump delivered on in terms of having a conservative Supreme Court.

I think what we're going to see this is this is going to be a precedent for other conservative states and it's going to go back to the states will get to decide what they want to do with this. I think this type of law, I'm like, yeah, I think it's reasonable.

Some restrictions are good with there being support for these women who don't want to carry this to term. What resources are there available for them? Can they go into a halfway house? Are there skills that are going to be available to them?

Will there be some type of thing, right? Because if we're going to be pro-life, womb to tomb, baby. Womb to tomb. Let's be consistent.

Let's be congruent in that. No, no, no, no, no, no. We're not trying to be consistent with slogans. See, that's the thing. We're not trying to be consistent with progressive slogans. What we're trying to do is be consistent with the biblical witness, right?

And so charity, yes, but no social nonsense, engineering, socialist programs and stuff like that. And he seems to be wanting to say, well, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You could outlaw abortion. So long as you have the social systems, no, no.

We don't need to play games with the progressives. We outlaw abortion because God said you shall not murder. That's it. End of discussion. Likewise, we don't have socialist systems and taxpayer-funded things because God said you shall not steal.

End of discussion. There will be no compromise. That's the goal. This is not complicated. This is not nuanced. This is a little bit crazy and nuanced. It's not. It's actually quite simple. See, God spoke in a way to be understood, and we can understand it.

And let's actually do what the scriptures say. And I'm not saying Christians don't do that. I know we do. I'm saying let's do that and some and be clear that we do that and that people know that, man, if I'm at this fork in the road moment, I'm in a state where this is now restricted.

I have resources to go to. I think that's what we need to do as Christians. Everybody should be stepping up. There's, I believe, 200 ,000 kids in a foster care system. Okay, I learned this from my brothers with young married Christian.

There's 200 ,000 kids in a foster care system. There's 200 ,000 churches. Think about that for a second. 200 ,000 kids in a foster care system, 200 ,000 churches. That means if every church in America adopted one kid, we'd literally alleviate the foster care system.

There would be no need for it. Think about that for a minute, right? Is that what we're known for? If that's what we were known for, I think we would be able to have more conversation about this.

It doesn't matter if we're known for it or not. It's about what we're doing. How many Christians do foster kids? How many Christians adopt kids? How many Christians do the charity that he says, well, I know we do some of it, but we need to be known for it.

Like, it doesn't matter if CNN will give us any credit for it. You still got to do the right thing. And that's the thing. It's not about optics. It's not about marketing. We need to do, we need to uphold the law of God, even when we're never recognized for it.

That's the bottom line.

Actually lead in this regard. So I think we got this whole thing. The way it's being framed, man, is real messy. It's real messy. It's real sloppy. Both sides are super duper sloppy, especially the people on the left that are like, yeah, no, it's none of your business.

It's like, well, because you're telling these people over here, you know, what they do with their bodies is some of your business for the common good. And I'm saying, when does this start? When does this life start inside of another body?

When does it start? You can't give me a clear answer. So if even that was agreed upon, well, we think.

Imagine that, Ruslan being upset with someone else for not giving a clear answer.

Philosophically, life starts when the egg and the sperm meets. Okay, cool. Heartbeat law. Respect. Okay, but these people are saying, ah, nothing past 12 weeks. Okay, so split the difference. There, I solved it.

I solved the entire debate. Okay, split the difference. 10 weeks, banned. Unless there's specific ongoing circumstances like the mother's health or whatever, right? That's different. But to limit this to say that victim of assault, of incest, women that have had a miscarriage can't get access to services.

But by the way, that is a thing. I don't know if some of you guys know this, but women who have a miscarriage further on in the process sometimes need this procedure. I have a close friend whose wife had to have the procedure, right?

Do you hear what he's doing here? He kind of slipped in incest, rape, stuff like that. And then, by the way, the baby already miscarried. And he's trying to make it all the same thing. And then he's trying to say, well, yeah, there's got to be these exceptions.

You see, this is where the liberalism slips in the back door. This is not how you end abortion, by giving you all these exceptions and stuff like, oh, split the difference. I say 6 weeks. You say 12 weeks.

Let's split the difference. And, you know, that'll be the solution. So you want more babies to be killed is what you're essentially saying. Because remember, we've got to cut through the nonsense. What we're talking about is offing children, right?

And let's split the difference, y 'all, because that way we get along. Like one of Ruslan's highest things is to get along with everybody, even if it means compromising yourself. And the reality is that that's not how we should live the life as a Christian.

We should be, as much as we can, as much as it depends on us, be at peace with people. But not if it means compromising ourselves. Like, again, this is those things where you keep one law by breaking the other.

Yeah, I want to be at peace with everybody because that's what the Bible says I should do. But I can't compromise myself either because I've got to love God more than I love peace with my neighbor. I have to love God more than I love peace with my neighbor.

Terrible, but it's that or the woman's going to die if you don't do the procedure. That's a real thing, right? Because the human inside of the human gets too big and they can't. You guys understand what I'm saying?

So I think that's the part where we have to have some type of common ground in some of these conversations. We have to deal with this foster care system. That's a real, real thing.

That's a real thing, but it's totally unrelated to whether or not it should be legal to kill your own child. The foster care system is one thing. Killing children is a separate thing. I don't care how often you want to tell this progressive talking point that that's the real reason people be killing kids.