Let's go to Randall now in St. Louis. Good morning, Randall.

My question is if you, there's about 10% of the children in the United States who are hungry,

and I appreciate your concern about abortion. However, you know, if we've got 10% of the country's children

already facing a lack of food security, why would we want to add more to that? Add more what

to that? Add more children. Well, I wonder how you'd answer this question, Randall.

Which do you think is worse to let a child go hungry or to kill that child?

I think it's like, that's, I think comparably worse because you're basically killing them slowly without proper nutrition.

So you're saying, I want to make sure I've got you on record here, you're saying that it would

be better to kill that child than to, for whatever reason, allow that child to go hungry.

You're saying that, actually?

Let me slightly adjust that. Okay.

Once again, a supported child is much, much better than an unsupported child. How's that?

Sure, that's true. But you're bringing up the issue of abortion, which involves the direct killing of that

child in the womb.

So I just want to make sure I understand, and really I want to make sure you understand what you're really advocating for.

It sounds to me like as big of a problem as child hunger is, and it is a terrible problem that we should work on,

you would prefer to kill the child rather than run the risk

of that child maybe going hungry at some point? Are you serious?

To me, your stance or your approach is different than I would word it, obviously.

And I just, I, I, I, I, it's to me a, a very important decision to bring a child into the world, yes.

Yeah, I agree.

It's very, I've got a couple of kids myself.

...