Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
>> Rebeca (00:10):
I'm Rebeca Seitz, and this, is Right
to Life.
There's a debate tactic called Gish
gallop. Gish like fish, but it starts
with a G and gallop, like a
horse. In the Gish gallop
technique, the person tries to
(00:32):
overwhelm the other one by bringing up a
ton of arguments, even though most
or all of them are untrue.
By overwhelming someone with
untruths, they're able to get in and out of the
conversation and look like their
position is the victorious one.
Now, listen, if you're a mom, you know the Gish
(00:54):
gallop technique. Remember when your kiddo
wanted a video game or to get a cell phone
or have access to the Internet and your mama
heart sped up because you know all
the danger and the craziness that can get to them
if you say yes to any of those things
too early. Remember how
(01:14):
your kiddo threw a million reasons at you all at
once? All my friends have a cell phone. Nothings
going to happen to me. You can monitor what I do anyway. I
wont ask for anything else all year. Ill clean my
bedroom every week. Ill do the dishes every night. I
wont download anything that I shouldnt.
Youre a mom. You know that. Not a one of
(01:35):
those things is true. But theyre coming at
you so quickly. All you can do is
either let your kid go until they run out of
air or hold up your hand
and seize the barrage. Then say
your piece calmly and rationally and end
the discussion. When a kid uses Gish
(01:55):
gallop on an adult, it's ineffective.
But something happens when an adult
uses Gish gallop on
adults, especially in the political
space, it works.
It really does. President Trump
employs it with incredible alacrity.
His answer to questions, be they from reporters
(02:17):
or debate moderators, are laden with
falsehoods. But they come so quickly,
the person who asks the question is hard pressed to latch
onto any of them long enough to discuss them to full
fruition, because President
Trump has employed this tactic so successfully. And listen,
I'm sure politicians before him have as well. That's just the one I'm
familiar with, because this is the age we're living in. But
(02:40):
because he's employed it so successfully,
others have picked up on it.
And a lot of them are in my former
community, the politically active
evangelical community.
You are about to hear my conversation
with Sam Sorbo, a Gish
(03:00):
galloper.
Now, before we get to the discussion, I
need to disclose some personal backstory
in the interest of full disclosure.
(03:23):
If you listened to episode one, then
you know some of my decades long background in
the evangelical and pro life movements.
You also know that I began seriously questioning
my lifelong identity in evangelicalism back
in 2016, and I formally announced
my departure from it a year later via the
Freevangelic website and podcast.
(03:46):
At this point in my Life, seven
years after imploding mine and my little family's
world with that announcement on freevangelic, it
feels like all of my friends from the evangelical
bubble know and they've made their
decisions about whether or not to continue friendship with
me. But my experience
with the Sorbos proved me wrong in that
(04:08):
belief. Kevin Sorbo and I
became friends maybe a decade ago when I was the head of a
non profit interfaith film and television
development studio. You may know of
Kevin for his role as Hercules from back in the
day. If you're an evangelical christian, you
might more recently know him as one of the stars in the gods
not dead franchise or the film let There be
(04:30):
light, which he did with Sean Hannity.
Kevin has stayed in my home here in Naples.
He's laughed with my husband and kids, headlined
film events that I threw. I even helped my mother
book him to speak at the annual fundraiser for the crisis
pregnancy center that she led. So he stayed in my
little Tennessee hometown, too.
(04:51):
Before last month, though, the last
communication that I had with Kevin was on
August 24, 2017,
and that was project related.
So when I got an email from a friend alerting me to the
formation of a new political action committee here in
Florida, the name Sorbo was not top
(05:11):
of my mind. But
when I clicked the link, a video of
Sam Sorbo began playing.
She was talking about amendment four, about why it should
be defeated, and the things she was saying
made my eyebrows raise. So I
decided to reach out to Kevin by text.
(05:32):
I wrote, hey Kevin, been a while since
we've talked. I've been reading and watching you and Sam's take on
amendment four. Not sure if you're aware,
I've been doing a podcast show about it right to
Life with the goal of just getting info into voters
hands. I'm not party affiliated. I'm
truly one of those annoying people who votes each issue
(05:53):
as I understand it, regardless of party platforms.
I wonder if you or Sam might want to come on and talk over
your concerns about the amendment.
Four days later, Kevin
responded with five words.
(06:14):
Sam will be in touch.
Sam did indeed text me. The next day,
we arranged a time for her to talk with me about amendment four
and her objections to it.
Welcome to our conversation.
(06:44):
Sam Sorboth, welcome to the right to Life
show. Thank you so much for coming on and talking with us
today.
>> Sam Sorbo (06:51):
Well, thank you so much for having me.
>> Rebeca (06:53):
So I've been googling you lately because of course
I know Kevin and have worked stuff with Kevin.
>> Sam Sorbo (06:59):
I didn't feel a thing.
>> Rebeca (07:02):
and so the phrase that I keep running across is
education freedom fighter. Is that okay to say?
>> Sam Sorbo (07:08):
Yes, absolutely.
>> Rebeca (07:09):
Okay. But you are very involved in the
conversation here in Florida about amendment four, right?
>> Sam Sorbo (07:15):
Yes. Yes.
>> Rebeca (07:16):
Okay.
>> Sam Sorbo (07:17):
Absolutely.
>> Rebeca (07:17):
That was why I reached out to Kevin, who very kindly was like, yes,
I will connect you to Sam, so please thank him for
me.
>> Sam Sorbo (07:24):
Will do.
>> Rebeca (07:25):
So, as I've shared with you right before we were recording, you
know, this is just an informational show. I'm not big on telling people
how to vote, though you are welcome, of course, to share the,
you know, how you think that people should vote. But I, as the host of
the show, am just here to talk about it and
share information and let people figure it out from there.
So let's. In that vein, if we can
(07:46):
start with what I know you do
object to amendment four, right?
>> Sam Sorbo (07:51):
That's correct.
>> Rebeca (07:52):
And so tell us the reasons behind the
objection.
>> Sam Sorbo (07:57):
there are several, but the number one is it's an
amendment to our constitution.
So it will change and make
permanent what it
states. The second problem
is it doesn't say much.
What it says is so vague, it's going to
lead to any number of lawsuits.
(08:19):
And the third part is it
contradicts parental
consent, which is a law in
Florida. And so they're thinking about
amending the Constitution to
contradict the rights that parents
have to consent
to surgical or
(08:39):
medical procedures on their own children. And
I really struggle with that because I'm
an education freedom advocate, which means
that I fight
for the rights of parents to educate their
children, in the way that they see
fit. Anything that
comes up against that and says no, the parents can
(09:01):
know, but they can't actually be asked
to consent. They don't need to be asked to
consent. I mean, my biggest problem, and this is just
sort of a personal thing for me with amendment four, is
it gives cover for child predators. So I've
been telling people, how about you make some
signs of and pick it outside and say, save a
child predator, vote yes on four.
>> Rebeca (09:24):
Or.
>> Sam Sorbo (09:27):
preserve, pedophilia, vote yes
on four. Because that's really what this does. It just
offers a whole bunch of COVID fire for
people who want to take advantage of minors.
>> Rebeca (09:41):
Did you catch the gallup the amendment
is an amendment. The amendment is vague. The
amendment contradicts parental consent. The amendment gives cover
for child predators. The first
falsehood there is that the amendment is vague. It
isn't. The second is that it
contradicts parental consent. It
doesn't. And the third is that it
(10:04):
gives cover for child predators.
I am not a debater, and until I looked it
up after the conversation that you are now listening to,
I did not know that the Gish gallop
technique even existed. So
I responded only to that final
falsehood, the one about amendment four giving
(10:24):
cover to child predators.
So how does it. Let me read the amendment.
I've, read it on the show a few times, but it's two sentences. It says,
no law shall prohibit, penalize,
delay, or restrict abortion before
viability or when necessary to
protect the patient's health as determined by the patient's
(10:46):
healthcare provider. And then I think what you're alluding
to is the second sentence, which says, this amendment does not
change the legislature's constitutional
authority to require notification to a
parent or guardian before a minor has an
abortion. So help me connect those dots,
and, our listeners connect those dots to how do
those two sentences give cover for
(11:08):
pedophiles to get to minors? I guess they want to.
>> Sam Sorbo (11:11):
Well, what's notification? It's not consent.
>> Rebeca (11:15):
So I asked an attorney about that.
the way that he explained it to me, which I did not know prior
to asking him, was that in the state of Florida, and please correct
me if you know differently, in the state of
Florida, no amendment to the
constitution can do more than one thing. It can't
serve multiple purposes. Like, you know, like when we pass
(11:35):
laws and they can have pork in them, amendments can't do that. And
so that sentence, the current
law in the state of Florida is that minors
can't have abortions without parental consent. So
that sentence was included to
say, we're not trying to impact any of the
laws regarding parents and
their notification or their consent, because that's the existing law, and the
(11:58):
amendment is not trying to do anything with regard to that.
>> Sam Sorbo (12:01):
That's what they say. That.
>> Rebeca (12:03):
But. And that. Well, the way he explained it, and that's what I
wanted to get into with you is the way he explained it was,
it can't, because if it did, then it
could be construed as an amendment trying to do
two things, and the amendment can only do one
thing. So the amendment, what the amendment's
trying to do is in sentence one, which
(12:23):
is allow for abortion up to fetal viability.
>> Sam Sorbo (12:27):
What is viability?
>> Rebeca (12:28):
22 to 24 weeks. We had doctor brothers on to go over that
the other day.
>> Sam Sorbo (12:32):
Are you sure?
>> Rebeca (12:33):
Yeah, that's what she. Well, I'm not sure. I'm not an OB, but
Doctor Betsy brothers came on, why doesn't it.
>> Sam Sorbo (12:39):
Say 22 to 24 weeks? Why does it say viability?
>> Rebeca (12:42):
Well, I asked the attorney about that, and he
said back when Roe was
passed. Back when Roe was decided
that viability.
>> Sam Sorbo (12:51):
For in 72 or was
decided against back in 1972.
>> Rebeca (12:57):
Yes. That viability at that point
was around 30 to 36 weeks, which is another thing
that doctor brothers said she actually alluded to. Maybe one of
the Kennedy babies died at 36 weeks, which is
interesting because my son was born at 36 weeks. So that was
alarming to learn. But of course,
our technology has progressed, and so
(13:17):
now we've gotten it to where we can keep
a baby alive, even if it's 22, 23,
24 weeks coming out of the womb. That it's different.
That little window is different with every
pregnancy depending on how the baby developed. And that's why they
can't say 22 weeks or 23 or 24. Cause
it's depending on how fast the baby has developed,
(13:37):
but that it is standard in medical
practice that fetal viability is 22 to
24 weeks right now. but
that was why they explained to me why they used the term fetal
viability, because it could get
even further back, as our
technology progresses. So
(13:58):
if it's only up to fetal viability, if
the amendment, I read the amendment to say it's only up to
fetal viability, and that's 22
to 24 weeks. But then I read some of
the objections that say, no, it allows abortion
willy nilly all the way up until day of birth. And so I'm trying
to connect the dots in my mind, if you can connect
(14:19):
them for me, how do we go from
fetal viability is 22 to 24 weeks? And that's what's in the
amendment to no, it allows it all the way up to
birth. What's the mechanism that's doing
that?
>> Sam Sorbo (14:32):
I don't know, except there's
no definition for fetal viability. It's just a
word. And so what you're saying is,
well, the common consensus is that
viability is defined as. But it's
not in the law. Some
people say viability, well, define
the word viability. Able to
(14:54):
live outside the womb. Why don't they just say that? Able
to live outside the womb. And then the question is, well,
who's determining that? The doctor that wants to abort the
baby or a doctor who's pro life and doesn't want to abort the
baby because some doctors will keep a
baby alive and other doctors won't. You know, in the
state of, Minnesota, they've been, doing post birth
(15:14):
abortions, and, the only reason that they
don't, quote, do post birth abortions anymore
is because the governor of Minnesota said, stop
reporting on those. So now there's no reports
that they're doing them.
>> Rebeca (15:28):
So she just galloped from the
topic at hand, fetal viability,
which is a clearly understood
medical term, to asking why
they use the term, even though I just explained
why they used the term, to then
question who is determining fetal viability,
(15:49):
even though I also just explained
it is a medical term that is medically known
to placing importance on the doctor's political
position regarding abortion, which
has nothing to do with Amendment four.
To claiming that post birth abortion
happens, which is a lie, and
(16:11):
also has nothing to do with amendment
four.
>> Sam Sorbo (16:15):
The problem is, if you're not for
the child inside the womb, you cannot make the argument that you're
for the child outside the womb.
It's a child. It's always a child. From
conception on. It is a human
child. It's not a puppy. If it were a
puppy, there probably would be stronger laws about
abortion. I'm kidding. But if it
(16:38):
were a toaster, then that would be
something else. It's not. The only reason that we're
having this discussion is because it is a human being.
>> Rebeca (16:48):
Now she's galloped to the subject of when
life begins. If you've
listened to the episode with Doctor Rebeca Todd
Peters, then you know that the
biblical position is that potential life,
a fetus, that's the medical term for a baby in the
womb, does not equate to
actual life. See Exodus 21,
(17:10):
which requires a different punishment for killing a pregnant woman
than if she is hit and only miscarries.
You also know that actual Life begins
with the breath of Life, according to the Bible.
See Genesis two seven. It reads,
then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
ground and breathed into his
(17:31):
nostrils the breath of Life, and
man became a living soul. That man
became a living soul comes after
breathed into his nostrils the breath of
Life. Soul. Life
started with breath of Life, according
to Genesis two seven.
>> Sam Sorbo (17:52):
And viability is a very
difficult term because it's not defined.
>> Rebeca (18:01):
And, now we're back to fetal.
>> Sam Sorbo (18:03):
Viability, and
let's face it, a comatose patient is not
viable. So why don't we just kill all the coma
patients in the world.
If we're talking just viability,
Right? Why don't we. What about the person
who just severed their spinal cord? Are they worth saving?
They're not really viable at that point, but we have
(18:24):
medical technology that can save them. But maybe,
maybe. No, maybe it's not worth it. This is the struggle that
we have with, the fact that, now
the government is providing for health care, right?
Because the government is trying to
save money. So pretty soon
it'll be like, well, we can't really afford that kind
(18:45):
of health procedure for you.
so, viability. The struggle with
amendment four is that it is so loosey
goosey that it can be interpreted
in many different ways and it will just
open up a morass of legal
issues because it is so
indeterminate.
>> Rebeca (19:06):
Undefined coma
patients, quadra or
paraplegics, government
healthcare. Loosey goosey
amendment interpretations.
Morass of issues. That's a
lot of galloping.
That term. Do you mean the fetal viability term.
>> Sam Sorbo (19:29):
Is all the terms? No.
No restrictions. It says, right, no
restrictions on abortion. Something like that.
>> Rebeca (19:36):
It says, no law shall prohibit, penalize,
delay, or restrict abortion before viability,
or when necessary to protect the patient's
health as determined by the patient's healthcare provider.
>> Sam Sorbo (19:48):
Hold on.
>> Rebeca (19:48):
That's the whole sentence.
>> Sam Sorbo (19:49):
It will not restrict abortion before
viability, Right?
>> Rebeca (19:54):
Meaning you can't have an abortion
after the baby is viable. It can't restrict. It has
to allow abortion before
viability. So the cut off for abortion.
>> Sam Sorbo (20:07):
So viability before viability.
>> Rebeca (20:12):
So if it cannot exist outside the
womb, then this amendment would allow
for abortion.
>> Sam Sorbo (20:19):
Florida is one of the most pro life states.
If we pass an amendment to our
constitution, which is
basically permanent, you're not going to go back and
reconfigure the constitution willy
nilly. This is a very difficult thing. This shouldn't even be on
the ballot. This kind of thing
(20:40):
really should not be a ballot issue. We
have legislators who pass
laws that are crafted
to go through a system of checks and balances
before they're signed into law. There's a whole procedure
for creating law and to do this to
the voters and force this upon the voters to
(21:00):
make a decision on a very nebulous,
very, very craftily worded,
amendment to the constitution. It's not even a law. It's an
amendment to the constitution. Is.
There's something wrong with it. It's very
sneaky. It's very sneaky.
And the fact that it has to do with abortion is like,
okay, what are you trying to do to me? Why are you
(21:23):
trying to. Clearly, this is trying to pull the wool over
somebody's eyes. It's hard to figure
out because it's so craftily worded
and so nebulous. So before viability
is such a. Because anybody can argue
anything about viable, not
viable. the
fact is that the majority of Americans
(21:45):
don't believe in abortion before. I think
it's. I can't remember what it is. It's before 15 weeks. So it's
not. It's not really close to viable or not
viable. Look, you find out you're
pregnant, you should make a decision right away.
Because as Bill Clinton used to
say, and this used to be
the standpoint of the Democrat party
(22:07):
was safe, legal, rare.
Rare. right. But now it's no.
All abortions all the time. They put a
bus outside the Democrat National Convention to
offer abortions, and they killed 25 babies outside the
Democrat National Convention.
>> Rebeca (22:27):
First, she misrepresented what
restrictions amendment four places on
abortion. The amendment allows abortion up
to the point of fetal viability.
Then she shifted to an argument that the
constitution should not be amended at all.
Then it went to an argument about how laws
(22:48):
should be changed through the legislature.
But a constitutional amendment initiated by
the will of the people and voted on
directly by the people is pretty much
the very essence of democracy at work.
So how is that bad? Especially in
the eyes of a self proclaimed freedom
(23:08):
advocate? The next
pivot was to the amendment being craftily
worded and sneaky. It
isn't. It's two clearly written
sentences. I've read them to her in this very
discussion.
Then she galloped back to viability, which
we've already established is indeed a clearly
(23:30):
known and understood medical term.
And then it was invoking Bill Clinton, wanting abortion
to be rare. And we capped off that little jaunt with a
claim that the D and C was having abortions
performed outside its venue.
That's seven gallops.
Listen, I'll say it again.
I did not know, and I had never interacted
(23:53):
with the Gish gallop before this. I could
only respond in the moment to the last thing that
she said.
Seriously, there was a bus where they were performing
abortions in a bus. This is the first time hearing of this.
Okay, before we get back into this crazy
ride, you need to know something. And it's
important, because I have spent my career
(24:16):
calling for the responsible use
of mass media, and it would
be wholly irresponsible of
me not to address Sam's
statement of, quote, they put a bus
outside the Democrat National Convention to offer
abortions. And look, maybe
she's just confused. There has, after
(24:38):
all, been a lot of running around
here. So here are the facts.
There was an organization, Planned
Parenthood Great Rivers, which is based in St. Louis,
that had a mobile medical unit in
Chicago's West Loop neighborhood.
It was not affiliated with the
(24:58):
D and C at all.
The D and C held its nighttime events
at the United center, which is not in the West
Loop. It's blocks away. The
D and C held its daytime events over
at the McCormick Place Convention center
and that is miles away from the West
(25:19):
Loop. So these two things are not
working in tandem. this was not an effort
of the Democrat party or its
convention. Now saddle up,
friend. Let's get back to it.
>> Sam Sorbo (25:32):
Oh, no. Absolutely. And free vasectomies.
They're the party of anti children. They don't believe in
children like they hate
children. But our culture hates children. Let's face
it, there's so much that we do that's against
children in this culture. But
yes, they've made their position very clear. So
(25:53):
you and I are sitting here and we're pro life
and all I'm saying is what are they up
to?
>> Rebeca (25:59):
Well, let me ask, I want to, I was going to ask you that because,
you know, when people are sneaky, it's because they have a hidden agenda,
Right? What's the agenda?
>> Sam Sorbo (26:07):
What do you think babies is the agenda?
Killing babies. What is that agenda? Child sacrifice.
That's, that's their, That's their, their, what's the word I'm looking
for? their worship service. This child
sacrifice. That's, that's their holy grail. That's,
that's, that's their set.
Eucharist.
>> Rebeca (26:31):
So you think it really is a lust to
kill children?
>> Sam Sorbo (26:37):
Yeah. Unfortunately, at the seat of it, it
is.
(26:57):
Now there are a lot of misguided people who think, well,
this is about freedom, bodily
autonomy. Those are the same people who are for
mandating vaccines, by the way, which is a,
complete degradation, of bodily
autonomy when somebody forces you to insert
anything into your body. And, so,
and by the way, same thing. If we
(27:19):
forcibly provided
abortions, forcibly,
we should also be upset about that, right? But these
people are saying, no, I can do this. Basically. I can hire
somebody to do this to myself. Also, there's another
part that's nebulous in the amendment that
is, a health provider, healthcare
provider.
>> Rebeca (27:42):
Alright. Gallup won there vaccine
mandates which have nothing to do with amendment
four, Gallup two,
forcing women to undergo abortion, which
also has nothing to do
with amendment four, Gallup
three, defining healthcare provider.
(28:03):
Now, this one is actually pertinent to amendment
four.
That one I looked up because I had heard the objection. That's actually not true.
Healthcare provider is a defined term in Florida law. Florida statutes,
title 29, public health section
381.026 is the Florida Patients bill of
Rights and responsibilities. And it says health. It's very
short. It says health care provider means a physician
(28:24):
licensed under chapter 458,
an osteopathic physician licensed under chapter
459, or a podiatric physician
licensed under chapter 46 one. So they're all licensed by
the state.
>> Sam Sorbo (28:37):
Why does it not say licensed physician then? why does it
say healthcare provider?
Because healthcare provider is a term that can
be changed.
>> Rebeca (28:48):
What do you mean, changed?
>> Sam Sorbo (28:50):
They can redefine. They'll go back to the
Florida law, and they'll say, hey, you know what?
Eyelash techs are? People who provide health
care. dermatologists provide health
care. you know, your
acupuncturist provides healthcare. They'll change the definition
of a healthcare provider. That's why they didn't
(29:10):
actually say a physician. A
licensed medical physician. They didn't say that.
They said a healthcare provider. That's the problem is, like,
you can look up the terms, but the terms
can change their definitions.
>> Rebeca (29:24):
She's galloping. But I think there's an important point to
consider here. Sam is saying
she fears that the state is
going to license lash technicians
to perform abortions.
Does she really believe that?
And if she does believe that the
(29:45):
Florida state government would
license eyelash technicians to perform
abortions, how does she
also believe that state
should have a say in her, my,
or any woman's healthcare choices?
Those two ideas are incompatible,
(30:06):
because that's.
>> Sam Sorbo (30:07):
Look, I wrote a whole book on it.
I mean, you can see this. Your listeners can't.
>> Rebeca (30:12):
Words for warriors is the book.
>> Sam Sorbo (30:14):
Words for warriors is a book about the
words that they've taken and changed the meanings
of, like, woman.
And so you go, but it's a healthcare provider. And I looked up the
definition. Well, bully for you. I used to know what a woman
was, but now we have a supreme court justice who doesn't
know what a woman is, and she pretends to be
(30:36):
one, and she was nominated because she is
one.
>> Rebeca (30:40):
She's selling you her book, which is not about
amendment four. She's bringing up gender
dysphoria, which is also not
about amendment four. I tried to get us
back on track, so.
Okay, so the concern there is really
what could happen after the fact? Is that what I'm hearing?
It's that, sure, we know what healthcare provider means right
(31:03):
now. It's defined, but that could be
redefined later in the law.
>> Sam Sorbo (31:08):
Yes. And the concern really
is why? Why do
we need this amendment?
Why? Well, I think we're limping along just fine right
now. What's the argument for putting in a
very nebulous, oddly worded
amendment to the constitution?
>> Rebeca (31:28):
I can tell you that what I'm being told, why I'm being
told is because there are some women, and we've interviewed some of them on the
show, that, you know, without
access to abortion, they would be dead.
I.
Their. Their current children would be without a mom, or they
would have lost their fertility. Like, we. We shared one story
of a woman who, she already had two children, got pregnant with a
third. It, was an ectopic. She had to have
(31:50):
a. Ah, DNc. She had.
>> Sam Sorbo (31:52):
The ectopics don't count as abortion.
>> Rebeca (31:55):
Oh, they. Yeah, they meet the definition of abortion. But
the law wasn't in place. This was years ago. So she got the
abortion, and then exactly one year later, had her third child. And
so her. And her reason for we need this
amendment was, I would be dead if I hadn't had access to
abortion. And under the current six week ban,
she wouldn't have had access. So that's that. And to
(32:15):
me, that is a very compelling story and
argument to hear. And we've had other women like that
on the show where they're like, look, I didn't want to
have an abortion. I had to have an abortion, or I would be
dead. Or like, one woman had multiples
and one of them had a chromosomal abnormality that was going
to spark a spontaneous miscarriage, and she would have lost
all the babies. So she had to have a selective reduction, which is an
(32:38):
abortion. Talk about, you know, euphemisms. That's what. That's an abortion, a
selective reduction to save the other
babies. And that's how she's got the daughter that she has
today, is because she aborted one of them so that she could carry
to term. So I am troubled that
we. I'm like you and that I
don't want the government involved in my family decisions,
(32:58):
period. And this does feel a lot
like the government getting involved in my family decisions. And
that part has confused me, if you can speak to it, of, why
is it that. That we share the same values of we
don't want the government involved in all of these things? You're an education freedom
advocate until it comes to this.
Like, I don't feel like there's protection
in getting the government involved in this choice. Do you know what I'm
(33:21):
saying?
>> Sam Sorbo (33:21):
The government tells. The government
tells, The
government tells people not to murder you. You're okay with
that?
>> Rebeca (33:31):
Yes.
>> Sam Sorbo (33:31):
Yeah, I. This is
murder. And
the government is telling people not to murder these
little tiny people. And I'm
okay with that. And I don't like
people messing with that. Because
when we say it's okay to murder little tiny people,
(33:53):
that's just the first step in. It's okay to murder
people, it's okay to murder old people,
it's okay to murderous people. You don't
like, it's okay to murder.
>> Rebeca (34:05):
Okay, can we sit with this idea for a moment?
Because I think it is a core
issue for many of us.
Doctor Peters educated me to the reality
that Life in the womb m is a process.
The Bible does not recognize it as a life,
as evidenced by the fact that the Old
(34:25):
Testament says, if you hit a pregnant
woman and kill the unborn fetus,
the law of a Life for a Life
does not apply. There is a punishment,
though, because a loss of potential
life must be acknowledged.
But not a loss of actual
(34:45):
life. Not according to the Bible,
no. The Bible says Life
starts with breathe. God
breathed the breath of Life into the man he had
created. And at that moment, the moment of breath,
his creation had a soul. It had Life.
God himself allows for
(35:06):
60% of, fertilized
eggs to naturally not
make it to birth. Do
you remember that from our discussion with Doctor
Petersen? That doesn't
show us a God who is concerned with a
fertilized egg getting to birth even
the majority of the time.
(35:28):
So I had to ask myself, why is
Sam more concerned about
getting fertilized eggs to birth
than God? Why
is she placing more value on
those potential lives
than the actual life
(35:49):
of the woman?
How could any of us take that position
and call ourselves for
Life?
>> Sam Sorbo (36:00):
And that's the struggle. This
amendment in particular is so
nebulous, it's very difficult for me
to pinpoint where
it's going to go wrong. I just know it's
going to go wrong. And so to move from
six weeks to this, no
restrictions. No restrictions.
(36:22):
What does that mean?
>> Rebeca (36:24):
There are restrictions. The restriction is up to viability.
>> Sam Sorbo (36:28):
Right? But no restrictions after that?
>> Rebeca (36:30):
No, before that. There are no restrictions
on, If the amendment passed. The amendment says no
restrictions on abortion until
viability.
>> Sam Sorbo (36:39):
Right? And then no restrictions?
>> Rebeca (36:41):
No. Then it's restricted.
Here, let me read it again. No law shall prohibit,
penalize, delay, or restrict abortion
before viability. So that's up until the point of
viability, right?
>> Sam Sorbo (36:55):
No restriction up and
no restriction after. No. Before viability, before
viability. So see, the language itself
is confusing, but there are no restrictions on
abortion before liability. So
any abortion at any time before,
quote, liability, viability, we don't know when that
(37:15):
is. it's nebulous because you can't actually
pinpoint viability and no
restrictions. I'm just saying
it's a very oddly worded
nebulous. The problem is we
just don't know. I can't tell. I can't.
It's confusing in the fact that it's
so strangely
(37:37):
worded that
I can't predict how it's going to go wrong. I just see
it going wrong and I don't see the point in amending
the constitution. It makes me very,
skeptical. It does. It
makes me skeptical. And that's why, and
of course, of course I'm skeptical. I'm pro
life.
>> Rebeca (37:58):
Me too.
>> Sam Sorbo (37:58):
So right now I'm sitting kind of
pretty. We still have abortion, we still allow
abortion. But it seems to me that this
is going to usher in all kinds of
issues that we just don't need in the state of
Florida.
>> Rebeca (38:13):
M.
>> Sam Sorbo (38:27):
Do you know what? Ultimately, I don't
care what your definition of viable is.
Life begins at conception. We should not
be trying to snuff it out. That's
a bad thing to do.
And it's bad for the mother,
it's bad for the child, but it's also bad for the mother. And we
(38:48):
so seldom talk about the repercussions to the
mother and the father. By the way. By the way, like,
let's just ignore the father, Right? How do
you emasculate a man faster than by
telling him he has no right of decision
making over his unborn child? Oh, let's
just take all of his power away.
That just decimates the male population. You're
(39:10):
no good. But to use women to service
your sexual desires.
Boy, that just saps them of all
their purpose. And that's why, by the way,
like 33%, a full third I
just read of young men
who are of sexually, let's see,
(39:30):
sexually active age.
Are not engaged in sexual activity.
They just give up. They're just not even interested. They're just, they'll
go to the porn or they'll go on their games
and they won't even try. And I'm
just saying, like, that's
sad. Not that everybody should be out having all
(39:51):
the sex.
>> Rebeca (39:51):
I'm sitting here going, wait a minute. Didn't we tell them to stop having sex? So
I'm not sure that's.
>> Sam Sorbo (39:55):
No, no, no. We want them to want to
have sex so that they want to get
married, so that they can pursue a
relationship. Because it's in the
relationship that they find their purpose.
for women too, it's in the relationship that we
find our purpose. It's in service of
(40:16):
others that we find our value. And
so if we're not in the business of
relationship and service, then it's very difficult
for us to find value. And we need to have value.
We need to know that we have value.
>> Rebeca (40:29):
Do you mean in marriage when you say relationship?
>> Sam Sorbo (40:32):
Yeah, but, any relationship like
relationship, but in this particular case,
having sex. If we're talking about sex, then yeah.
So it used to be. It used to be that women
held the bar high and
men tried to reach it. And that was their purpose. Their purpose
was to get a job, become
worthy so that they could merit
(40:55):
a marriage, they could merit
the sex.
And they were driven. And now they're not
driven. And they're not driven for two reasons. They can have all
the sex they want. And so now it's like, well,
why? So then they just go on the. And
porn is readily available and it's highly addictive.
Like a drug. It literally acts like a drug on the brain.
(41:16):
And so they just go and have all that's. They just
ignore the. And why? Because relationships
are hard.
It's not easy, but it's worth it. But it's
definitely not easy. So you can't kind of blame them for giving
up. But if only women
shut the gate a little bit, like, make
it a little bit more challenging, shall we?
(41:38):
And then see what happens.
>> Rebeca (41:42):
This has been a long ride. None of that had anything
to do with amendment four. Let's
just see if we can get this horse to the
barna.
Well, I told you we would only go half an hour. We went over it, and I'm very
sorry about that. But thank you very much for coming on right to
Life and talking about some of these things. is there
anything that I didn't ask? anything that's important for those
(42:04):
voters to think about when they go in that
voting booth and decide how to vote on this
amendment?
>> Sam Sorbo (42:10):
Well, I would like them to vote no. And the
reason is because it's,
it's amending the constitution of Florida
and it will be, a bellwether
for the rest of the
states. And I think it's a very
dangerous, because we can't really make a good
(42:31):
definition of it. I think it's just a very dangerous thing.
So there's that.
>> Rebeca (42:35):
Thank you, Sam, for coming on.
>> Sam Sorbo (42:36):
Yeah. Much success with this. Thanks for having me.
>> Rebeca (42:39):
Thank you.
(43:02):
In my conversation with Sam, who is
a spokesperson for why to vote
no on amendment four and
an advisory board member of Keep Florida
pro Life, I was told that
the words used in the amendment are nebulous,
but they are not. And we know that
(43:23):
because we literally asked an
attorney practicing in the state of
Florida who is not affiliated with either
political party, and we
asked an actual ob
gynae.
I was told that it allows for pedophilia. It
does not. I was told that it allows for
(43:44):
abortion with no restrictions, and that is not
true. I was told that it
removes parental notification and consent
requirements, and that is not
true. And she steered
us down a whole lot of trails
that had nothing at all to
do with Amendment four. Look,
(44:06):
I asked Sam, to come on this show so that I could get more
information. I want to
make an informed vote on this
amendment that reflects my
bedrock value of
protecting Life.
I want to give you information so that you can
make an informed vote on this amendment
(44:27):
instead. I got my first experience
with a Gish gallop.
Maybe you're realizing you've been taken on one of those
rides, too. Pretty
soon you're going to walk up to the
doors of a polling place. An
election worker will guide you to a ballot
(44:48):
booth, kind of like a farmer guides
a horse to the water. The thing
is, you can take a horse to water all day
long. It's up to the
horse whether she drinks.
>> Announcer (45:06):
You've been listening to Right to Life on the
one 1C Story Network. If you have a story to
share or would like to learn more, please visit
righttolifestories.com this
show is brought to you by the generous support of people who
value Life. To contribute, visit
righttolifestories.com or get in
(45:27):
touch.
>> Singer (45:43):
The one see story Network.
For the love of stories.