Should Christians Support Equal Protection for the Preborn? A Friendly Debate with Scott Klusendorf

If you've spent any time in pro-life circles over the past couple of years, you've probably heard the phrase equal protection for the pre-born. In fact,

it's become one of the most significant and often contentious debates within the broader pro-life movement. So, over the course of the next couple episodes, we're going to be discussing the case

for and against equal protection and the best ways that Christians can go about ending abortion in our lifetime with two well-qualified guests. Now, this episode

well-qualified guests. Now, this episode is brought to you by Bravebooks, which is a Christian children's entertainment company. You can go to

company. You can go to bravebooks.com/childers

bravebooks.com/childers and use the code children for 20% off your first order. All right, before we jump in, I think it's important to say what this debate is not about. So this

is not a debate over whether abortion ends the life of a human being. Both

sides affirm that life begins at conception and that every unborn child bears the image of God. Both sides want to see abortion come to an end. Both

sides are committed to defending the unborn. In fact, I respect people on

unborn. In fact, I respect people on both sides of this debate. So the

disagreement is about how we should pursue that goal. So what is equal protection? Equal protection is the idea

protection? Equal protection is the idea that if pre-born children are human beings, then they should receive the same legal protection against intentional killing that every other

innocent human being receives. So

advocates of equal protection, of which I will lay my cards on the table and say I am one. We would argue that laws should recognize pre-born children as persons, as people deserving equal

protection under the law, and that abortion should be treated consistently with how the law protects every other innocent life. So, others within the

innocent life. So, others within the pro-life movement agree with the goal of protecting pre-born children, but they would argue that pursuing equal protection acts right now is

strategically unwise, or as in the case of my guest today, they would actually harm pro-life efforts. So, that's the conversation we're going to be having over the next couple of episodes. I want

to just define a couple of terms here, though, because terms like equal protection and abolition or abolitionist movement are sometimes used interchangeably, but they're not

identical. So, an abolitionist is

identical. So, an abolitionist is somebody who argues that abortion should be abolished immediately as a matter of biblical justice and often grounds their

case explicitly in scripture. while a

pro-life equal protection advocate, which I would identify more as, likewise supports immediate legal protection for the unborn, but might make the case primarily through constitutional legal,

natural law, or human rights arguments, and doesn't necessarily identify with the abolitionist movement. So, they're

related, but they're not exactly the same thing. So, for this first episode,

same thing. So, for this first episode, I'm joined by Scott Kusenorf. Scott is

the president of the Life Training Institute and is one of the best known pro-life apologists in the country. So

for decades, he's trained Christians to make the persuasive case for the humanity of the unborn in conversations, debates, college campuses, churches, and in the public square. He's the author of

the book The Case for Life, a widely used resource in pro-life apologetics and has earned the respect of people across the pro-life movement for his careful thinking and charitable engagement. So Scott has also argued

engagement. So Scott has also argued publicly, including in an article for the Gospel Coalition, that pursuing equal protection legislation at this time is a strategic mistake and may

actually hinder the pro-life movement's ability to save lives. And today, he's going to explain why he believes that.

Now, I make no bones about this. I

affirm equal protection. And this

conversation is a bit of a friendly debate between two people who share the same conviction about the value of pre-born life, but disagree about the best legal and political strategy for

protecting it. Then next week, we're

protecting it. Then next week, we're going to continue the conversation with Jenna Cross, who is also an abolitionist and equal protection advocate. She's

going to make the positive case for why she believes equal protection is not only the most biblically faithful approach, but also the only approach that consistently applies justice to

every human being from the moment of conception. So my hope in this series is

conception. So my hope in this series is not to generate more division within the pro-life movement. I want to see

pro-life movement. I want to see everyone come together and understand the strongest arguments on both sides so that we can think carefully, critically, biblically, and charitably about an

issue that is becoming increasingly important. So, here, let's jump into my

important. So, here, let's jump into my conversation with Scott Kluendorf. Well,

Scott, great to have you in studio. Um,

I have learned so much from you over the years. Of course, we've had you on the

years. Of course, we've had you on the show before to talk about your book, The Case for Life, >> and so many of the arguments that you've popularized and just given the church language for how to go about this

pro-life position, but talk a little bit about what you do, who you are for anybody who's unfamiliar with you.

>> Well, thank you, Alisa. It's great to be on your show. We've had you at events at our church, and I feel like we have a kindred spirit here, plus our common interest in the early days of Jesus

music. That's right. And your dad, Chuck

music. That's right. And your dad, Chuck Gerard, who I knew as a teenager who treated me very royally when he could have been a guy who's a highlevel celebrity, but no, he took time to

befriend a lowly box boy at Hughes Market. Do you remember Hughes Market?

Market. Do you remember Hughes Market?

>> I do. In fact, I used to walk there like back when there were still like empty fields in the San Frernando Valley. It

hadn't been all built up yet. And I

remember you wrote something about him after he went to be with the Lord. And

it really touched me cuz I you know that it didn't surprise me cuz my dad was very personable like that. He was very social, way more extroverted I think even than I am. Uh but but he loved

people and and he did treat people so well and it was so sweet. I had no idea I think at that time that there was a past connection between the two of you.

So it was really sweet to read that.

>> Yeah, it was. He he treated me so well.

He'd come into the store. I'm just a lowly box boy. He remembered my name and then I, you know, I talked to him two or three times and then didn't see him for like 10 to 12 years. He shows up at a

church where I'm an associate pastor. He

looks across the room and says, "Scott, how you doing?" I couldn't believe it. I

mean, it's like that's the kind of man he was to me. So, anyway, I know I digress, but yes, I I'm the president of Life Training Institute. I've been

training proiffers in pro-life apologetics now for 36 years. Primarily,

I've done debates on college campuses.

So, my opponents have included people like Naen Strawzen, the president of the ACLU, Kathy Near, the president of Planned Parenthood California, uh Edward

Tibbos, the president of the Council for Secular Humanism, and people like that.

So, all of these debates have been on hostile turf.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> And in a secular college setting, and I've probably done about 30 of those, probably more than most pro-life advocates. And then I've dedicated my

advocates. And then I've dedicated my career toward equipping Christians to make a case for the pro-life view.

There's a lot of good work in the pro-life movement that covers many facets. There's people who do testimony

facets. There's people who do testimony work, telling their story, and that that's important stuff. There's people

who stress abstinence. There's people

who stress pregnancy center work. And

all of that I support. But I felt when I first started doing this, there was a gap between the smart people that were writing great arguments, but nobody was reading them

>> and the lay person who needs to be armed with the best arguments to engage a culture that is increasingly hostile to our view. So I thought, I'm going to

our view. So I thought, I'm going to step into that and see what I can do to be a translator and a trainer. And

that's what I've spent my life doing.

It's so sweet watching various young people in particular become really impassioned for the pro-life movement.

In fact, I just had coffee yesterday with a young woman who's 18 years old and she is just passionate about doing man on the street interviews to talk with people but really to make a bridge

not just embarrass people or you know own them on the internet for the clicks truly persuade. and she's been able to

truly persuade. and she's been able to persuade like I think she said six people >> just with these I know these these man on the street interviews to just ask really good questions and connect with people. In fact, she's going to be

people. In fact, she's going to be coming on the show in a couple of months to talk about some of that stuff that she's doing. But I know that so much of

she's doing. But I know that so much of what she's able to do is due to people like you who have been in the trenches, boots on the ground for so long, helping give language to so many of us. like

I've learned so much from you. When you

do these debates, especially in the hostile territory, I would imagine there are some themes that emerge, like you know what they're going to say. You know

the arguments that are going to What are what do you think are the main objections that people from the non-Christian cultural world might have toward pro-life? So, when a Christian is

toward pro-life? So, when a Christian is talking with their friend at work, what can they expect is going to be the the push back primarily?

>> The first thing we have to do is defy expectations. They've been programmed to

expectations. They've been programmed to believe a couple of things. We hate

women. We uh want to take away people's freedoms. We're not very intelligent.

And we're just imposing our religion on people. So, when they hear a proer give

people. So, when they hear a proer give a sound and valid pro-life argument and support it well with evidence, they're kind of taken off guard by that. They're

like, "Wow, this defies something." So,

it's very important that we be both intelligent and gracious in the way we approach this. And it tends to surprise

approach this. And it tends to surprise people. They go, I I don't know what to

people. They go, I I don't know what to make of this. And they're curious, but their push back tends to be what they're hearing on the media, not what they've thought about. I have yet to encounter a

thought about. I have yet to encounter a student on a college campus that has read the best thinkers on their side of the issue. I have I've read their best

the issue. I have I've read their best thinkers. I've read Peter Singer, David

thinkers. I've read Peter Singer, David Boon, and Michael Tulie, Kate Griezley, and others. They haven't. In fact, there

and others. They haven't. In fact, there was one time I was in a debate with Naen Strawzen, the president of the ACLU at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, and a guy raised his hand. He

had the ponytail, the whole leftist look, the peace sign on, and he looked at me and said, "How intelligent are you on the people who disagree with you?

Name for me the top writers on Naen's side of the issue." So, I did. I said,

"Well, number one, Peter Singer." And I gave a summary of his book. Michael

Tulie gave a summary of his thinking.

David Boon and contrasted him with Tulian Singer because he thinks differently than they do. And then I talked about Jubilini Manurva on the afterbirth abortion. And then I talked

afterbirth abortion. And then I talked about Judith Jarvis Thompson. I gave a summary of each thinker. He then looked at Naen and said, "Who are the top five on Scott's side?" Wow.

>> She said, "No comment." Devastating

moment for the proabortion side because I was able to demonstrate that I had thoughtfully engaged with their ideas.

>> Yeah.

>> And I think we as Christians need to do that. Yeah, that's really good. The main

that. Yeah, that's really good. The main

thing that I tend to see is it used to be people were talking about, >> oh, it's not a human life, but scientifically that's irrefutable at this point that it's [clears throat] not a turnup, it's not a kangaroo in there,

it's human and it's alive.

>> So then the debate shifted to what's called personhood theory. Is that do you find that that's where a lot of the debate is?

>> Yeah, you're correct. In fact, the whole bodily rights argument, the idea that even if the unborn are human, they don't have a right to use the body of the mother. She may disconnect through

mother. She may disconnect through abortion if she wants to, that argument is fallen off the radar in academic circles. In fact, it's been viciously

circles. In fact, it's been viciously refuted by people like Kate Griezley and others who say it just doesn't work. You

can't get from a right to withhold support to a right to slit someone's throat in the name of withholding support. And and so as a result now

support. And and so as a result now they're shifting back toward the ontological question. What is morally

ontological question. What is morally relevant personhood? And do embryos,

relevant personhood? And do embryos, fetuses, newborns, and toddlers have it?

>> Wow.

>> So that is >> even toddlers. They're asking that.

>> Yeah. Because they're recognizing the implications of their argument. As soon

as you argue that you must value your own existence, see yourself existing over time, want to go on living, have the ability to see your life as distinct

from your mother. Well, we now know from psychological studies that probably doesn't happen until somewhere around age three, which means now we've got a huge problem. Why can't we use toddlers

huge problem. Why can't we use toddlers for medical experiments? I mean, after all, the argument is that only actual persons have a right to life, not potential ones.

>> Well, if it if if it's not only the unborn that are potential persons, but newborns and early toddlers, then why can't they be used for, you know,

farming, for example, to get organs that we need, or why can't they be used for, you know, treating disease in others?

Uh, you know, I mean, the list just goes on and on. And if you're going to make personhood about cognitive development, what you end up with is you end up not only disqualifying the unborn, but a

whole lot of other people that >> Yeah.

>> that a lot of people in the culture don't want to throw on the ash heap, but you end up doing it if you buy that premise. But there's a deeper worldview

premise. But there's a deeper worldview behind all this, Alisa. There's a view of the human person called body self dualism. And you know what that is, but

dualism. And you know what that is, but for the sake of your your viewers, body self-dualism says your identity has nothing to do with your body. Your body

is just mere physical stuff, matter in motion, if you will, that you are free to manipulate through technology any way you want. So if I'm a man and I feel I'm

you want. So if I'm a man and I feel I'm a woman, I can say I'm really a woman trapped in a man's body. And people will divide between the identity me that I

feel and my body. And the the view here is my body has no intrinsic purposes.

>> It is just for me to manipulate to suit my desires and my needs. Well, you can see how body self-duelism plays out in abortion because embryos and fetuses do

not have the cognitive hardware yet to see themselves existing over time to have those traits of personhood.

Therefore, there's no real person there.

And that's the argument of Peter Singer and Michael Tulie. M

>> they hold to what we call a mental continuity view that says the real you has nothing to do with biology. It's not

biological history that matters. It's

biographical history that matters. So

>> the real you is your thoughts, your memories, your desires, your aims, not your body. So that being that came into

your body. So that being that came into existence at conception, indeed even the being that was born on your birthday was not you.

>> Wow.

>> That was a physical human entity, but it wasn't you. There was no person there.

wasn't you. There was no person there.

In fact, Jubilini and Manurva in their defense of killing newborns argues that if they had been killed as newborns, there would have been no crime morally or otherwise because there was no

subject of consciousness present.

>> Wow. I mean, there's nothing new under the sun. I was reading Augustine's

the sun. I was reading Augustine's confessions years ago, and he came from a sect kind of nognostic related sect called the Manakans, and that's exactly what they believed. In fact, that's what

led Augustine to have a concubine on the side that he just, you know, he did what he wanted with his body, but everything nonmaterial was spiritual. And so, he was pursuing the spiritual reality with

his non-material self, but his material self was sort of disposable. It didn't

really matter. It was, you know, I mean, the Gnostics would take it even further that matter was evil. But it it was just so interesting to me that these ideas, >> whether they look different, as time

goes on, they're recycled. And I'm also reminded of a book I read recently called When Children Became People. Are

you familiar with that book?

>> I'm not. I I feel like everybody should read this book because it really talks about kind of the the way that personhood was viewed in the first century kind of Roman Empire context

with the logos being the center of reason and really only freeborn males had like the full embodiment of the logos and so like women and slaves were lower on the list and then children were

at the very bottom. In fact, people wouldn't even sometimes name their children >> until they were 2 years old because they didn't want to connect yet, you know, for death or whatever might happen or

infant exposure and abortion, which was so common as well. And so, yeah, it was like the same kind of thing through again today that they're not truly people.

>> So, yeah, so that's that is uh very helpful. And um

helpful. And um >> spiritually, I really believe that Satan revels in child killing and child harming. And if you just go step outside

harming. And if you just go step outside abortion, even Mullik, think about the Second World War, recent history.

>> Where did Hitler concentrate his bombs in London >> in the city center where children and families lived to the point where you think about it, Churchill had to get the kids out of London? That's why the kids

in the Narnia series are out in the country and they find the wardrobe because they'd been evacuated.

>> Satan revels in child killing and he loves it when Christians look the other way on it.

>> Wow, man. It's so true. It's so true.

>> And that's why I think every Christian should be very vocally involved in this and be defending and speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves.

And which is why I'm so grateful >> for so much of the work that you do.

Now, one of the reasons that I wanted to have you on this show today in particular, I mean, you've been on before a couple times, I think, to talk about pro-life is there's a huge rift in

the broader movement of what you might call pro-life or pro-life versus abolition. And there are various things

abolition. And there are various things going on within that movement. And I

have friends that I love and respect on both sides of this. people that I know like you that are 100% you want abortion to end. My friends on the other side

to end. My friends on the other side want abortion to end. I have a good friend who's also been on the show, Joanie in Tucson, who runs a pro-life pregnancy center. She wants abortion to

pregnancy center. She wants abortion to end. And yet there seems to be this huge

end. And yet there seems to be this huge rift and um it's it's over this kind of abolition versus pro-life and I've had an abolitionist on to talk about that

side of things. I'd love for you to give your side of um you know, I mean, you don't have to encompass everything, but maybe just give a thumbnail sketch of your understanding of the difference

maybe between abolition and pro-life and why you're not an abolitionist.

>> Quick pause here to tell you about Brave Books, a Christian children's entertainment company that we have gifted to many kids in our lives. So,

there's a version of Christianity out there that sounds compassionate. feels

relevant, but it's fundamentally wrong.

And it's shaping the world that our kids are growing up in. So ask the culture or even sadly some pastors today what's true about things like biological sex or the value of human life and you're going

to get a very different answer than what the Bible gives. So we as Christian parents have to prepare our kids to stand strong in a very convincing yet confusing world. So that's exactly why I

confusing world. So that's exactly why I love Brave Books. Every book teaches a fundamental Christian value that kids can understand like God-given identity, the sanctity of life, and the fruit of

the spirit. But through stories, kids

the spirit. But through stories, kids actually enjoy reading these books. And

each book ends with games, Bible verses, and conversation starters to help your family talk about what you believe and why. So, [snorts] right now when you

why. So, [snorts] right now when you join the Brave Book Club to get a new book every month, you'll also get a free starter kit and free access to their parent vetted streaming platform, Brave

Plus. On top of that, you can get 20%

Plus. On top of that, you can get 20% off your first order when you use the code children. So, go to

code children. So, go to bravebooks.com/childers

bravebooks.com/childers and use the code children for 20% off your first order. Again, that's

bravebooks.com/childers.

Use the code children.

Well, I would just say one thing in advance. I'm not sure the rift is huge.

advance. I'm not sure the rift is huge.

>> Okay, good. I think I hope it's not as huge as it seems like it is sometime.

>> Well, it's very loud.

>> Yeah.

>> Uh I do think the abolitionist side is very loud, but I'm not convinced they have the numbers to to say, "Hey, it's an equal divide here."

>> Okay.

>> I It's not. Uh but here's the the two world views involved in this. An

abolitionist view says we should work immediately to stop abortion and we must stop it immediately. Now, in principle, all proifers are abolitionists. If there

was a button on this table that I could push right this second and stop all abortion, you and I would both push it.

>> Yeah.

>> And so would every prolifer I know.

We're all abolitionist in principle. The

rift comes when we can't abolish abortion immediately. Now what what

abortion immediately. Now what what should we do when you can't just make it go away immediately? What's our strategy then? The abolitionist strategy says

then? The abolitionist strategy says that anything short of total abolition, in other words, any legislative strategy that would allow for bills that don't

ban abortion completely and impose criminal pen penalties, any legislation that leaves a particular group of unborn

humans unprotected is intrinsically evil. That's their view. My view is

evil. That's their view. My view is different. It's not incrementalism

different. It's not incrementalism itself that's evil. It's the intent behind it. Are we using it to um

behind it. Are we using it to um obstruct full protection? Are we using it to, you know, prevent some humans from being protected in law? Or are we

using it to save as many lives as we can because the culture isn't with us and we don't have the political power to save all. So, I'm one who says we should

all. So, I'm one who says we should practice what some have called smashmouth incrementalism. We get all we

smashmouth incrementalism. We get all we can just like Wilbur Force did. We never

quit. We keep coming back for more. and

we're not going to stop until we can protect all unborn humans. But I think it's also helpful to think about is incrementalism wrong in principle? For

example, if you were a member of the Continental Congress in 1776, would you sign the Declaration of Independence even though the language condemning slavery was pulled out of it

to get the southern states into the Union in 1860? Would you have voted for Abraham Lincoln? Even though he said he

Abraham Lincoln? Even though he said he would do nothing to try to stop slavery in states where it already existed, he would only work to stop the expansion of it in federal territories. He wasn't

even going to stop it in the North. He

said, "If you answer yes to both of those questions, you've just ruled out incrementalism being wrong in principle." Or if you say to an

principle." Or if you say to an abolitionist, when you introduce a bill in one state, but not all of them at once, you're working geographically incrementally, uh, does that mean then

you're consenting to the deaths of the children you leave unprotected by your legislative effort? Well, if you say no,

legislative effort? Well, if you say no, if it's okay for abolitionists to practice incrementalism, why is it wrong for prolifers to do it? I think we're all incrementalists at heart. We we

practice geographic incrementalism. We

practice strategic incrementalism where we realize we just can't get something done. For example, I've I've talked with

done. For example, I've I've talked with abolitionists who have introduced bills to ban abortion from conception, but they leave unprotected IVF embryos, millions of them. Does that mean that

they're compromised because they didn't save those kids? And I would answer no.

They just realized that politically we're not at a place where they're in a position to save those kids. So, they

save the ones they could. I don't fault them for that. But then again, we shouldn't fault proifers who look at it the same way and say, "Here's what we can do in the real world we have to live in."

in." >> Yeah. I appreciate the way you put that

>> Yeah. I appreciate the way you put that that I think everybody I know on both sides, like you said, if there was a button as everybody I know that's really in this pro-life abolition, they would

they would press that button. And as I think this through, um, the reason I I I'm I'm not an abolitionist at this point, although I have, you know, friends who they really I'll be honest, like they make a lot of sense and I'm

like that that does make a lot of sense when they explain the ins and the outs of it.

>> But at the same time, I think I'm still in the position where I would say if we can pass like for example a heartbeat bill in a particular state, we're at least saving some lives at at this

point. And so I am not against that. I

point. And so I am not against that. I

think that that is the kind of thing that like my friend Joanie in Tucson, >> I mean, things are really dismal in in uh where she's at. And so, they're

trying to get what they can and in total sincerity and wanting to save as many lives as possible at this point. And so,

then there's this other topic that I think we're going to we're going to talk about a bit here today, and that's this concept of equal protection. Now, this

is I think where you and I, as we've talked in private, this is where we're going to disagree. Um, I've come out publicly really in favor of what is being called equal protection. And then

you wrote a recent article on the Gospel Coalition that says why why equal protection bills harm pro-life efforts.

So, I want to let you make your case because I really want my audience to hear both sides of this and we're going to do another episode where the other side is is um >> going to make their case, but uh let's

start with some definitions. Okay. So,

would you define abortion and then define equal protection? Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. And the reason I like that

being. And the reason I like that definition is it begs no questions.

Everybody in the abortion debate, as we just talked about, agrees we've got a human life here.

>> Yeah.

>> By not calling it murder, we take away the objection that wait a minute, murder is a legal term. And many places in the country, abortion isn't illegal. So

murder tends to stack the deck in their minds and gives us one more thing we have to argue about. So, I'll just take the more modest definition. It is the intentional killing of an innocent human

being. And if I were to put a syllogism

being. And if I were to put a syllogism forward, it would be this. Premise one,

it's wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Premise two,

abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being. Conclusion, therefore,

human being. Conclusion, therefore, abortion's wrong. Now, that argument I

abortion's wrong. Now, that argument I believe to be both sound and valid. I

can defend it on those terms, though I don't think I need to do it with your audience. The point here is that yes, it

audience. The point here is that yes, it is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. And everybody on the pro-life side, abolitionist or not, agrees with that. The differences start

to show up when we talk about what should our legislative strategy be in light of that. Now, I think this is where some history in the pro-life movement could help here. In the

immediate decade after Roie Wade, pro-lifeers tried a frontal assault.

There were no less than 19 human life and human amendment bills that did two things. state life begins at conception,

things. state life begins at conception, ban abortion from conception, and said that it there was no conceivable way you could justify intentionally killing this

innocent human being. We had at that time strong tailwinds in our favor in the pro-life movement. We had pro-life Democrats like Jesse Jackson at the

time, Al Gore, Joe Biden, uh Dick Gart, Joe Biden. Joe Biden co-sponsored a

Joe Biden. Joe Biden co-sponsored a human life amendment that would have returned the issue to the states.

>> Really?

>> Yeah. In the early 80s.

>> Wow.

>> So up until about the mid80s, we had strong tailwinds going. Now, think about just take 1980. We had pro-life representatives in both parties. We had

a pro-life presidentelect, Ronald Reagan. We had the Catholic bishops

Reagan. We had the Catholic bishops actively mobilizing Catholics to oppose abortion. We had allies in the media.

abortion. We had allies in the media.

And even with those strong tailwinds, these attempts to take a frontal assault on abortion all failed. And they didn't just fail, they failed and crashed and

burned miserably. So at that point,

burned miserably. So at that point, prolifers began practicing another strategy. And that was one that worked

strategy. And that was one that worked to limit the evil done. Given we didn't have the power to stop it outright, we would at least limit the evil done. And

that strategy has resulted in things like the Hight Amendment, which to date has saved 2.5 million lives. Uh things

like cutting off uh tax funding for abortion at state levels, parental consent laws that have stopped abortions and put clinics out of business, by the way. Now, have these bills resulted in

way. Now, have these bills resulted in total abolition? No. But I don't think

total abolition? No. But I don't think the pro-life movement has been a failure.

>> And I think too, Alisa, and you'll appreciate this, a lot of people, and I get this, you know, those that are on the abolition side, equal protection side, they're frustrated. They look

around and they go, "Man, here we are 50 years in, and this thing is still here.

The pro-life movement must be failing in what it's doing." Now, we can always do better. And I think this is one of the

better. And I think this is one of the things I differ from some of my pro-life allies. I actually think it's important

allies. I actually think it's important to push for better legislation and I'm grateful abolitionists do that. I'm not

troubled by that. But I think we need to be careful that we don't let our impatience eclipse what we need to see clearly here. And that is this. The worldview

here. And that is this. The worldview

premises that have made abortion plausible to millions of our fellow citizens have been deeply entrenched in the cultures not for decades, centuries.

I can go all the way back to William Aam and here he is arguing we should focus more on the particulars not the universals. Then you get to the

universals. Then you get to the enlightenment where if you can't t it I'll go to speech therapy after this. Uh

if you can't taste it, touch it, feel it, see it or hear it, it's not real.

And of course morals can't be measured empirically. So that put morals in the

empirically. So that put morals in the subjective category. Then you get of

subjective category. Then you get of course beyond that into the 60s and the American culture of the west and you've got the relativistic worldviews that

came in. You know, even looking back to

came in. You know, even looking back to a guy like Frederick Mech, he he showed up. He said in one of his books in a

up. He said in one of his books in a parable, he said, "Look, I've arrived too early. You guys are announcing God

too early. You guys are announcing God is dead, but you don't want to live like he's dead." Right.

he's dead." Right.

>> The reality is you cannot kill God and then keep theology as a foundation for morality. And in fact, Carl Truman has

morality. And in fact, Carl Truman has written a very important book recently called the desecration of man where he's arguing the challenge we face culturally right now is not just people who are

dehumanizing the unborn, dehumanizing people with dementia and what have you.

It's that we are desecrating the idea of the IMO day. And here's why. Because if

man is in the image of God, he has intrinsic purposes. His body has

intrinsic purposes. His body has intrinsic purposes. He is not free to do

intrinsic purposes. He is not free to do whatever he wants. And the the Nietian view is we should have an unfettered will to power. And the idea of man

having intrinsic purposes gets in the way of that. So our culture is rushing headlong to destroy the idea of intrinsic human value of the idea that

we should have rights based on our nature as humans, not our functions.

>> And all of these things are happening at the worldview level in the culture right now. And Truman's thesis is the Nietian

now. And Truman's thesis is the Nietian equation is now coming to its full conclusion in the culture we live in.

>> We see it. Yeah. People, we're here.

>> And and and and the point being you can't pin that on the pro-life movement.

The reason why we're stalling has to do with these worldview obstacles more than the fact that the movement is itself has failed. Now, could the movement do some

failed. Now, could the movement do some things better? Yes. But to say that the

things better? Yes. But to say that the whole thing is due to the fact that prolifers have been compromised incrementalists all these years is just an unfair statement.

>> In a world of mass-roduced disposables, Range Leather stands apart. Every

product they craft in their Laramie, Wyoming workshop is built to last a lifetime. Just like the values we all

lifetime. Just like the values we all hold dear. They have full grain Horween

hold dear. They have full grain Horween leather Apple watch bands that aren't just accessories. They're a daily

just accessories. They're a daily reminder of American craftsmanship at its finest. Every band is hand cut and

its finest. Every band is hand cut and meticulously crafted by skilled crafters who take pride in creating products that wear in and not out. I have certainly found this to be true with my range

leather products. I have a beautiful

leather products. I have a beautiful tote bag. I talk about it all the time.

tote bag. I talk about it all the time.

It is big and beautiful and it carries my laptop and all of the extra things I'm carrying around in the summer like my sunscreens and all that stuff. Plus,

I have a little clutch if I just want to take a few things. But it's perfect size to fit my phone, some credit cards, some cash, even a lipstick and a powder. It's

perfect. They have the most beautiful leathercrafted products. I also love

leathercrafted products. I also love that they are a Christianowned andrun business. Check them out today by going

business. Check them out today by going to rangeleather.com and use the code alisa for 15% off. Again, that's

rangeleather.com.

Use my code alisa, >> right? And I would that is not the case

>> right? And I would that is not the case that I would make. I I'm very grateful for so much of the work that proifers have done. But when it comes to equal

have done. But when it comes to equal protection, I guess maybe I'll explain kind of where I'm coming from and why I've I've I didn't even realize to be honest with you that this was something

that was debated. So recently when I found out that this was something that was debated, I was like that doesn't make sense to me cuz it >> to me it makes common biblical sense that um you know I'll just I wrote down

the 14th amendment because I didn't want to get it wrong, but it says uh nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. And so this is

the debate has kind of surrounded things like do we criminalize women? Do we

punish abortion the same we would punish murder? And to be honest, from a

murder? And to be honest, from a Christian perspective, it it's hard for me to understand why anybody would be against that. Now, obviously, there are

against that. Now, obviously, there are things that I wouldn't advocate for.

Like, for example, I'm sure you were aware of this recent situation with Jesse and Ashley Ridgeway where they found out that their baby had Down syndrome and then aborted the baby and then went on social media and announced

it to the world. And the first thing I thought about when I saw that story is that if abortion were not just illegal, but actually punishable in the same way

murder is, they may not have done it.

They may have still done it, but they definitely wouldn't have gone on social media and basically given >> brag to the world, >> brag to the world, given an apologetic to every other couple that might receive

a diagnosis like that that it's perfectly fine to, >> you know, throw it away and try again.

and 24 million people I think was the last I'm sure it's gone up even since then even just on the expost that he had with so many people and so I'm thinking like if that were punishable they

probably wouldn't have done it and even if they did do it they wouldn't have given an apologetic to so many people that for them to do it too right >> and so then I think about well would I

want them to be prosecuted in the same way as a murderer well right now I would say no because they it was legal when they did it. Like I I don't think anybody that's arguing for equal

protection is wanting it to be retroactive or something like that. But

I guess the way I would define equal protection is probably just very simple.

You're you're protecting the unborn with your the way you go about establishing the laws in the same way that you would protect a murder victim in an alley.

>> Um that that you wouldn't do a different type of prosecution in one case versus another. And obviously I know there's

another. And obviously I know there's lots of complicated things to think through that are surrounding that in a very practical way. But just from a biblical perspective,

um that that's what makes sense to me that if we're going to say abortion is wrong and it should be illegal, but we don't want to criminalize women, right?

Then it's kind of like telling the slave, you know, back to the Wilberforce example, it'd be like telling Wilburforce or or you know, people of that era, well, slavery is is outlawed,

but if you do it, we're not I mean, we'll make you stop, but we're not going to actually criminalize you or you're not going to have to go to jail or you're not going to have any really meaningful repercussions for your actions. So, that's kind of where I'm

actions. So, that's kind of where I'm coming from, and I'd love to hear where you're coming from.

>> Well, I think it'd be important to do two things leading into this. Number

one, define what an equal protection approach is. Equal protection bills are

approach is. Equal protection bills are not, as some prolifers wrongly attribute, to their opponents, bills where we're just bloodthirsty to criminalize women and prosecute them,

give them the death penalty. That's an

unfair formation of their view. Their

view is we should not write into law bills that exempt women from prosecution. We should always have it

prosecution. We should always have it available as an allowance that they could be prosecuted. So you when you write a bill against abortion, it should allow for women to be prosecuted for

murder, it doesn't they don't say that every woman must be and this is another thing I think some proifers have misconstrued their argument >> unfairly. They're not they're not saying

>> unfairly. They're not they're not saying every woman must be prosecuted for murder. They're saying we shouldn't

murder. They're saying we shouldn't write into our bills an exemption that just gives them >> immunity. Yeah. Immunity. So that's what

>> immunity. Yeah. Immunity. So that's what they mean by that. And then the other thing I think we need to keep in mind is there's really two types of people who are concerned about these equal

protection bills. There are those who

protection bills. There are those who say women are always victims and therefore not responsible and should never be punished criminally. That's not

my view. And there's those of us who grant that women know what they're doing even though they don't always. But let's

just for the sake of argument grant they know. but say that culturally right now

know. but say that culturally right now if we start leading with bills that allow women to be prosecuted, more children will die because it will put at risk pro-life legislation in other

states that would have actually saved lives because it will scare away timid pro-life legislators. It scares away the

pro-life legislators. It scares away the public. I mean, we've all seen what's

public. I mean, we've all seen what's happened since Roie Wade was overturned.

Public opinion is crashing on us. And

why is that? Because the other side has very successfully framed a narrative that the pro-life movement wants to criminalize women, throw them in jail, and by the way, not let them get medical

treatment if they're suffering an ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage. We

want women to die. We hate women. We're

misogynist. And now we we're going to lead with bills that say, "Oh, and by the way, we want it to be available for you to be prosecuted for murder." So as a prolifer I could say an equal

protection bill as the advocates are advancing right now could be our north star but is now the moment to lead with that >> that there is a principle of of

political prudence we need to consider as well as biblical uh formation principles. So for example if you uh

principles. So for example if you uh look at William Wilberforce he was very prudent in the way that he worked to abolish slavery. uh Wilburforce was

abolish slavery. uh Wilburforce was absolutely committed in principle to abolishing slavery, but yet he was willing to work prudently legislatively

to bring that about. So, for example, in in 1799, he supported three regulatory bills that didn't ban abortion, but but for example, regul Yeah, I'm sorry.

[laughter] Slavery, let's get that right. Yeah, I'm not even drinking and I

right. Yeah, I'm not even drinking and I got a problem here.

Uh yeah, that that didn't ban slavery, but regulated how many slaves could be on a ship, regulated where slave ships could take port, regulated uh uh where

they could go once they came back to England, things like that. They didn't

ban abortion or regular uh slavery, but they regulated it. Then in 1800 from 1800 to 1803 Wilburforce actually withdrew his bills for total

abolitionist slavery because culturally the conditions were not good for it. And

the reason was Britain was at war with France and the abolitionists had been successfully framed as being in alliance with the French. They weren't, but that's how they were painted and the

culture believed it. And so the abolitionists were viewed with great suspicion. And so Wilburforce to avoid

suspicion. And so Wilburforce to avoid unnecessary obstacles just pulled back on his bills. He did it again in 1805 because of the uprising of slavery uh

slave rebellions in the Dominican Republic in Haiti. And he realized that if he tried to push for abolition at that point, it was just going to be counterproductive and would set the

cause back. And so then he shifted gears

cause back. And so then he shifted gears completely and said, "Wait a minute.

We're going to have to do an incremental step here. Let's ban the slave trade."

step here. Let's ban the slave trade."

And that got done and it was almost another 30 years before the abolition of slavery in total.

>> So he was working very prudently. Was he

compromising? No. Because his principle was solid. All slaves should be

was solid. All slaves should be protected.

>> Yeah. I I suppose when I think about it that way with Wilberforce, the the difference that I see is that and and I don't know the history as well as you do, so maybe you can speak to this, but

was there I I think the difference for me would be what Wilbur Force was working incrementally with was like what people could or couldn't do within what was already existing in the slave trade,

like people that were already enslaved, but there wasn't or maybe there was that I'm not aware of, but was there like an actual exemption for slave traders and

slave owners. Cuz I feel like that's the

slave owners. Cuz I feel like that's the difference is that there there there doesn't seem to have been like an exemption that he was advocating for, but more like like cuz I can see I'm I'm

not I don't really have a big issue with the incremental view as far as like what's prudent, what we, you know, how many lives can we save with what we're able to do right now.

>> But along with that though, it's very hard for me to see why there'd be an exemption.

>> No. Fair. Fair. And and I think you're you're fair to bring this up, but here's what I'm saying. I'm not arguing it's a direct parallel between equal protection and what Wilbur Force did. I'm simply

making the point there's room for prudence in how we approach an entrenched evil and that sometimes a frontal assault may not be the best way as the pro-life movement learned, as Wilburforce learned, as Lincoln learned.

>> Yeah.

>> And there are prudent steps you have to take. That's all. I'm just making the

take. That's all. I'm just making the point that prudence in principle is not the same as compromise. Right.

>> It's the intent behind it. Are you

withholding full abolition because you want to obstruct justice or are you withholding it because you don't have the pieces in place to make it happen?

Just take the abortion issue for example. Think about all the abolition

example. Think about all the abolition bills that have been proposed. None of

them had a chance were it not for the incremental victory of the DOS decision.

Even these equal protection bills, they don't even have a foundation to get off the ground without the incremental work that was done by prolifers to lay the the groundwork for jobs. These are

things that were prudent steps at the time. And I guess I'm looking at the

time. And I guess I'm looking at the culture, Elise, and here's what I see.

I'm told, well, we can pass these equal protection bills in red states like Florida, where we nearly lost a ballot initiative. And you know, we came so

initiative. And you know, we came so close to abortion rights being written into the reddest state in the country, Florida. The only reason we beat that

Florida. The only reason we beat that ballot initiative that would have done that is it had a 60% threshold. We lost

in red states like Missouri, Ohio, that wrote abortion into their state constitutions. These are red state

constitutions. These are red state voters. Montana wouldn't even pass a

voters. Montana wouldn't even pass a ballot initiative that would protect children after they're born, that would provide them with medical care. Then you

go to Arizona, we lost there. Uh you

look at Kentucky, we re we were unable to reverse abortion being written into the constitution there. Then you get Kansas, it gets written into the state

constitution. I mean, against that

constitution. I mean, against that backdrop and against the backdrop of collapsing public opinion where the culture thinks proiffers hate women and

want them to die, is now the time to lead with bills that allow women to be prosecuted for murder. And I'm arguing no, it's not. Now, it can remain our north star in principle that that's

where we hope to end up. Of course, of course, we hope to see the unborn treated like everybody else. But

political prudence causes us to take a step back and say, "Well, wait a minute.

Is that the right thing to do right now?" It's a timing issue for me.

now?" It's a timing issue for me.

>> Adele Natural Cosmetics is a Christian family-owned company based in Comfort, Texas. You guys, I love Adele Natural

Texas. You guys, I love Adele Natural Cosmetics cuz I am such a girly girl. I

love my lotions, my potions, my makeup, all that stuff. And what I love about Adele is that they're Christianowned and run. All of their products are totally

run. All of their products are totally clean. And they don't use artificial

clean. And they don't use artificial fragrances or colors or any of the junk that you worry about in your products.

All the products are formulated in the USA. They are proudly pro-life and they

USA. They are proudly pro-life and they support organizations that share a commitment to protecting and valuing life. I don't even know where to begin

life. I don't even know where to begin with what products to tell you about. I

love their eyeshadows. I love their lipsticks. The formula is just perfectly

lipsticks. The formula is just perfectly creamy. It doesn't feather. It doesn't

creamy. It doesn't feather. It doesn't

get into those lines. I love their uh Blue Lagoon face balm just to put a little bit of a layer of something on top of my skin care at night so it doesn't evaporate off my skin while I

sleep. They have such beautiful

sleep. They have such beautiful hydrating sprays. If you just get dry

hydrating sprays. If you just get dry during the day, you can spray some of that on and their Blue Lagoon uh hydrating spray is beautiful for that

purpose. So go to adeleosmetics.com

purpose. So go to adeleosmetics.com today. That's spelled A DLCosmetics.com

today. That's spelled A DLCosmetics.com and use my code Alisa for 25% off your first order. Again, that's

first order. Again, that's adeleosmetics.com.

adeleosmetics.com.

Use my code Alisa.

So, if I I want to make sure I'm characterizing you correctly, you would actually be for equal protection, but just in a more incremental way, like not not advocating for it right now, but eventually, like if the button gets

pushed, >> Yes.

>> you would say we should prosecute women for murder if if the button gets pushed, >> provided the evidence is there to to convict them.

>> And that's the other thing I want to say, too, for anybody that's watching this that might be new to the conversation. And I think we would both

conversation. And I think we would both agree that if equal protection were enacted, number one, we're not saying it's retroactive. We're not saying that

it's retroactive. We're not saying that somebody who committed this the crime when it was legal is not a crime. They

shouldn't be prosecuted for that.

>> And also, as with any kind of situation, yeah.

>> Um like I was even thinking about the Ridgeways and I, you know, I was testing myself like, do I really believe what I'm what I'm saying? You know, do I think they should be prosecuted for murder? Of course, I would say no

murder? Of course, I would say no because what they did when they did it, it was legal. But if they did it in a world where abortion was banned and equal protection for the unborn was in

place, >> then what my answer would be is that they should be prosecuted in the same way anybody else would. That would be a lot of the variables within the case.

People would ask questions like, "Was she coerced? Was there stuff going on?

she coerced? Was there stuff going on?

Is she more of an I mean, you you you would ask these questions. a jury of their peers would make that decision, but it would be the same. And I think that's what so many of us that are arguing for equal protection are saying.

>> And so I I'm I'm encouraged to hear that that that you would be for that, you know, if if that were to come. So for

you, it's a timing issue kind of like >> timing issue, the the the general thing.

So the I guess the one thing that I might push back on just a little bit um is, you know, you were mentioning that they already think we hate women. they

already think that we're misogynist and all that. I don't see that changing

all that. I don't see that changing personally, even if what I see is like here in Tennessee >> there um the bill uh that was proposed

or that was on the table at one point, I don't it didn't get very far, but uh it it didn't even mention women. It just

said that it would be, you know, prosecutable and and so it didn't even really mention women. And so what I would probably say is rather than being moved by what they're going to

say, and I know that's not that's not exactly it's an oversimplification cuz because what you're trying to do is persuade. You know, you're you're

persuade. You know, you're you're saying, "No, I want I want to show you that we're not against women. We're not

misogynist. We love everyone." And um yet I would say they're going to think that no matter what if you're pro-life.

So why not take that energy explaining rather like, "Hey, we're not even singling out women. In fact, we're respecting women enough to say that they're we're not infantilizing them.

We're not saying that they're too stupid to understand this or or that they don't know things. We're actually elevating

know things. We're actually elevating women to the point of saying we're not going to make a special exemption for them because we think that they don't know what they're doing or or something

along those lines. I would rather come at it from the perspective of making that apologetic rather than um but but you know, I'd love to hear what you think about that. Well, I think one-on-one, you're absolutely correct.

We have time to unpack that. But take

what happened yesterday. There was a big unveiling of a new equal protection uh effort. The the New York Times picked it

effort. The the New York Times picked it up immediately and said pro-life, I'm paraphrasing their their headline here, proiffers renew and strengthen their

efforts to prosecute women. Now, you're

a low information voter. the New York Times, CNN is your CNN is your source of news. Uh the mainstream media, what is

news. Uh the mainstream media, what is it you hear? Now, we can say, "Oh, these are just, you know, dumb people who ought to know better." Okay, I agree.

They ought to know better. But the

reality is we're going to have to win a lot of these people over to our side to advance our case. We may wish it weren't so, but we have to. We have to win over

moderate politicians. We've got to win

moderate politicians. We've got to win over marginally pro-life voting blocks and we're alienating them right now is my point. Uh I do think there is a place

my point. Uh I do think there is a place for saying to people, look, here's our north star. In principle, we want all

north star. In principle, we want all unborn children protected and that's my position. I'm not the one who says women

position. I'm not the one who says women should never be prosecuted. I think

there can be consequences for abortion today even. But what those consequences

today even. But what those consequences should be must be prudently considered.

And I don't see enough of that prudent consideration happening right now.

Right. I don't think it follows that because you say abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being that it follows that you prosecute for murder.

What follows is you want the state to end abortion. You want the state to make

end abortion. You want the state to make it illegal. Now, there could be

it illegal. Now, there could be incremental steps along the way that make that happen. And we do have to acknowledge the culture. For 50 years, women have been told that abortion is

not only permissible, it's a moral good.

Academia >> a matter of justice now. It's, you know, reproductive justice.

>> Of course, now with a woke worldview coming into this, you got it. It's an

it's an intersectionality point. But you

think about it, academia, education, the arts, the entertainment, the legal order, uh the news media have all told women abortion is a positive good. You

can shout your abortion for 50 years.

That's been the the rhetoric they've been exposed to. And no wonder we see studies out there showing that less than 1 in4 Americans can even give a basic

outline of fetal development or even understands at an elementary level the basics of human biology in the womb.

They haven't been taught it because it's been viewed as propaganda. And I think my colleague Greg Cunningham puts it well. He says, "As long as the public

well. He says, "As long as the public thinks of babies as blobs, we lose." And

I think that's a pretty profound thing.

My biggest hurdle that I see in the culture is not our inconsistency. It's

the worldview hurdles we face right now that are just almost insurmountable to me. I mean, I lay awake at night

me. I mean, I lay awake at night thinking about him and it's just like, um, >> short of God doing miraculous work. I

just don't know how we overcome this.

>> Yeah. And I think that's probably where the divide is um for like the equal protection and and people like you who might say it's incremental. I do want to ask you a question, but I want to respond to one thing you said.

>> Please do.

>> It's um for me when I hear you talk about where the culture is at because I agree with you 100%. I mean, I think that this whole it's just a clump of cells thing, so many people buy that,

which is why uh and you've done a lot of amazing work in this area. When you show people with their eyeballs what it actually is, you see people change their minds on camera. You see this happen all the time because they've never seen an

abortion. They don't know what exactly

abortion. They don't know what exactly or they haven't thought it through enough. And yet, so for me though,

enough. And yet, so for me though, considering that makes me want to go even harder into equal protection because when you when when a law changes

and I I think the church I'm maybe I'm optimistic and I'm too hopeful, but I think the church would rally around this. I've actually seen that happen

this. I've actually seen that happen with um like there was an equal protection bill that got really slammed in the news in a particular area. I wish

I had the the story at the front of my fingertips here, but it really rallied the church. Uh because the church came

the church. Uh because the church came out and said, "Yes, we we want to be able to protect women." So like the way that culture is even more so it from my

opinion would be that we need to have laws that restrain the evil that people are either unwilling to see or don't see because of the way the culture is. It's

like, well, if you if I can't convince you that it's not just a clump of cells, if we can make it illegal and punishable, maybe you'll think twice before you do it if you're not even

caught up with the morality. Now, maybe

that's a little bit optimistic and and uh or or >> No, I think you're making a very important point here, and that is the law is indeed a moral teacher. It serves

influencer.

>> It is. It does. And we can trace that line of thought all the way back to Aristoilian schools. And I I embrace

Aristoilian schools. And I I embrace that. I think we can look at though the

that. I think we can look at though the two things. Number one, what has

two things. Number one, what has abortion law taught the culture for the last 50 years? That it's permissible.

It's to be celebrated and there should be no limits on it. That's what the law has taught. So any law that pushes

has taught. So any law that pushes against that is going to help mitigate that evil premise in the law. So, we saw this with partial birth abortion, for example, when the pictures came out in

the Senate hearings with Rick Santorum there and Barbara Boxer debating it and he points to the picture, a drawing of a DNX abortion and says, "Is this what you support, Senator? How about if this

support, Senator? How about if this child has only a foot in the womb? Does

it have a right to life then?" And I mean, he really brought it home. Well,

when we pass partial birth abortion laws, we put a couple of premises in the law. Number one, we put a premise in the

law. Number one, we put a premise in the law that the child in the womb was a real thing, a real entity. The other

premise we put in law is that abortion was not untouchable as a constitutional right. And eventually both of those

right. And eventually both of those premises went into the DOS victory we're seeing and has laid the groundwork for things we're seeing now in terms of legislative efforts. So I don't think

legislative efforts. So I don't think that's a problem to say that the law is a moral teacher. But I also think incremental bills put important premises in the law that allow us to achieve

victories from which we can get more victories.

>> Right. Okay. I want to ask you a question uh about the pro-life movement in general.

>> Yeah. because I know like what I've heard from the abolition side is that there not everybody obviously I would not put you in this category but

do you think that there are people in the pro-life establishment that well I I I can actually think of one I know there are but like people who don't want women

prosecuted ever like even if abortion became illegal which they want but they shouldn't prosecute women is that is that a something that's going on in the pro-life movement there people who think

that. I'm not one of them, but there are

that. I'm not one of them, but there are people who think that.

>> But I would say, let's grant that they should be prosecuted. They're guilty.

Let's take a steelman case where a woman knows exactly what she's doing. Uh I

borrowed this from my friend Jonathan Van Marin. Let's think of a young woman,

Van Marin. Let's think of a young woman, 18 years old, we'll call her Lily. She's

raised in a Christian home. She goes to pro-life rallies. By the time she's in

pro-life rallies. By the time she's in 10th grade, she's giving pro-life speeches. She wins a pro-life speech

speeches. She wins a pro-life speech contest at a local right to life affiliate. She knows what abortion is.

affiliate. She knows what abortion is.

But at age 18, and we've all seen this happen, this young woman goes off to the secular university, meets her for first boyfriend who's not a Christian. Things

get dicey, and she ends up pregnant.

Okay, now here's a girl who knows what abortion is. There's no way you can

abortion is. There's no way you can argue she does not. But let's imagine the scene in that courtroom. She's on

trial for murder. Maybe the state does or does not have the death penalty. I

don't know. Let's let's just take it either way. What is the the message the

either way. What is the the message the culture gets when they see the images of that weeping 18-year-old with her family? Now, imagine you're a pro-life

family? Now, imagine you're a pro-life politician and you have to defend that on the campaign trail. What does that do to pro-life efforts in surrounding states?

I think it is very problematic for us.

Uh now, again, notice I'm granting she knows what she's doing. I'm not saying she's an innocent victim. She knows.

>> Yeah, >> it's undeniable, but she took the abortion pills anyway.

>> Yeah. I suppose the way I would respond to that is, and this might be where we have a a little bit of a different perspective, is I would lean more into what is biblically just and right rather

than worrying about how that's going to affect other people because you never know. M

know. M >> a situation like that could actually give courage to other pro-life people in other states to say, you know, like

we're seeing this happen that we do we wow, abortion really is murder. Like

we're actually prosecuting. And I do get that the optics of that is difficult to overcome. But like I think about, you

overcome. But like I think about, you know, after the overturning of Roie Wade, now we have the chemical abortion issue that is like like here in Tennessee,

>> we technically have a almost full ban. I

think there are some caveats where doctors can perform abortions if the life of the mother is in danger, things like that. But for all intents and

like that. But for all intents and purposes, like abortion clinics have shut down or changed what they do because they can't perform.

>> It's mostly chemical now.

>> Yeah. There's no third party in Tennessee, >> right, >> for for the most part performing an abortion, but I can go on the computer and order abortion pills and they can be here, of course, >> tomorrow.

>> And so now we're in a totally different scenario where you don't even have a third party to prosecute and it's only the woman. And the way that I see it,

the woman. And the way that I see it, maybe in the context of your example, is it's kind of like I think it's irrelevant how much they know about what they're doing or not because in that

scenario, the law would have been enacted to where she would have known she was breaking the law. She was

according to what the laws of that state were. She was committing murder and

were. She was committing murder and would be potentially prosecuted for that. So, not only did she have full

that. So, not only did she have full knowledge of what abortion was, she actually knew the laws of her state, but even take somebody who doesn't really know what abortion is. It would in my mind, it's kind of like, and you can

tell me if you think this works or not, but it would be kind of like a woman who really hates her husband and she she calls a hitman and she's like, I don't I don't want to know how it's done, right?

>> And he's like, well, I'm busy, but here, if you just slip this pill into his drink, it'll it'll take care of it. and

she kind of does that and then just leaves and doesn't really see whatever what really happened. She just knows she got rid of the husband. Um she would be just as culpable as the hitman, you

know, and whether she really was aware of the ins and outs of how that was going to work and maybe she even just didn't even deal with the body or anything just left. And we can't change

what the law is based on someone's knowledge of it. Um, and I guess for for me, I just think that they're going to hate us anyway, the as you know, you

would affirm as well, Jesus, the world hated Jesus and it was because he convicted the world of their sin. And I

think that when we advocate for laws like equal protection, yes, they're going to hate us, but I'm not sure personally they're going to hate us more than they do now. But I don't know. I'd

love to hear your thoughts on some of that.

>> Well, I I I always like to go back to the history of social reform because at the emotional level, I I'm where you're at, but I look at the history of social

reform and I see Abraham Lincoln banning slavery, but not providing equal protection for blacks. The 13th

Amendment did not provide the ability to prosecute slave owners who continued slaveolding. Uh it simply said slavery

slaveolding. Uh it simply said slavery is illegal. And that's because Lincoln

is illegal. And that's because Lincoln had the votes to do that. He did not have the votes to go further. And

Lincoln understood that. So Lincoln got what he could. And was he compromising at that point? Well, you might say he was compromising materially, but not

formally. He didn't intend for slaves to

formally. He didn't intend for slaves to be left without full civil rights. But

at the time, he's dealing with a North that had no stomach for giving blacks full civil rights. In fact, if you proposed interracial marriage, uh,

blacks voting, in fact, link Lincoln got shot because he gave a speech saying that blacks should have the right to vote, black males, that is, and that led John Wils Booth to do what he did. Um,

Lincoln understood he could ban slavery through the 13th amendment. Barely, by

the way, he barely got that across the line, but he didn't have the ability to do more. Was that a compromise? No. I

do more. Was that a compromise? No. I

think it was prudent. He did what he could and he protected a lot of slaves by doing that. A lot of people went to sleep after that amendment got ratified.

Free people that wouldn't have had it not been. So again, I look at it. Yes,

not been. So again, I look at it. Yes,

the world will hate us. We're going to get push back. That's always going to be the case. They're going to hate us

the case. They're going to hate us because we're Christians, because we don't like them. But I think they can hate us in a way that can obstruct our getting done what needs to be done. We

have to face the fact we live in a real world. We don't live in a theocracy

world. We don't live in a theocracy where we can just say, "Okay, we can take biblical law and superimpose it today." One reason among many, I'm not

today." One reason among many, I'm not aimist, but uh the idea here is we've got to function in the real world we're in where there's real politicians who

have real voting habits that we need to learn and discern and work within that as best we can to limit the evil that's done. I don't think that's compromise.

done. I don't think that's compromise.

And I do think there are things we do now that we don't have to lead with at this moment. For example, uh let's talk

this moment. For example, uh let's talk enforcement for a moment. We we just mentioned how uh chemical abortions are the new kid on the block.

>> Uh I've read studies that indicate that within a decade 90% of all abortions will be chemical. Now think

>> I'm surprised it's not there now, at least in this country.

>> It's close. It's close. But think about what this means for enforcement. Number

one, you will never get rid of the drugs because there's always off label use for them. So, you're never going to be able

them. So, you're never going to be able to say it, you know, God bless Josh Howie, I appreciate him, but look, you can't just ban RU46 and think, okay, we're done. Because now you can get

we're done. Because now you can get abortions using the second drug only, the Miss Bristol. So, imagine if we got to a situation where 90% of abortions

are chemical. How do we enforce that law

are chemical. How do we enforce that law that's going to prosecute women for murder potentially? Think about what

murder potentially? Think about what you'd have to do. Uh first of all, you can't shut the drug supply off.

Secondly, these drugs present themselves exactly like natural miscarriage. In

fact, the Roxy Abortion Clinic in Maryland on its website gives advice to women in red states who have taken abortion drugs and are having trouble.

And they say just go to the local hospital and tell them you're miscarrying. There's no blood test they

miscarrying. There's no blood test they can use to detect the drugs. The body

absorbs them and the only way you get a a way to confirm that there was a drug is to get the body of the child which has since been flushed down the toilet.

>> So now we're at a point where every time we have a miscarriage, women are going to be subjected to this kind of investigation. Imagine the optics of

investigation. Imagine the optics of that.

>> A poor woman has a miscarriage and now the media is there. Oh, I gotta go through a state prosecution process here and make sure I didn't do anything bad.

Yeah.

>> I mean, the optics of this are >> way beyond the they're just going to dislike us. This is

dislike us. This is >> bad stuff that's going to cause unborn children to be left unprotected in other states where we might pass laws that actually protect them from abortion.

>> Right. And I guess I would say you can't enforce it at all unless it's the law though. You know, it's like we could we

though. You know, it's like we could we could go to the enforcement question and I would agree with you. I don't think every woman who comes in presenting as a miscarriage should go through some kind of a trial and and we could have that

discussion, but you can't do any enforcement if you don't have the law. I

guess that's where I would come from.

>> Well, true, but I would argue that uninforcable laws are bad laws and you shouldn't write laws you can't enforce.

>> Well, I think I I I'm not saying you couldn't enforce it. I I just I think we could have a discussion about how to enforce or how could this be enforced, which you know I haven't actually thought this question through yet, so I

would probably just be talking off the top of my head. But

>> fair enough, >> you know, I would agree with you. I

don't think that everybody coming in as a miscarriage like that should be where the focus would be for enforcement. But

if you have the law on the books, then you can start to do some kind of enforcement. you could trace, did this

enforcement. you could trace, did this woman order that? You know, police can now subpoena your, you know, your online activity. They could find out, did she

activity. They could find out, did she receive these pills? I there. I mean, I don't know. I'm not a cop and I'm not a

don't know. I'm not a cop and I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure there are ways they could do it that wouldn't just put every woman with a miscarriage on trial. But I

guess my point is you can't enforce it at all unless there's a law to back it up. Well, practically speaking, Governor

up. Well, practically speaking, Governor Gavin Newsome in California passed and signed AB260, which gave abortion providers the right

to dispense these drugs without identifying where they come from and with no name on the label for who they're going to, which means how are you going to prove the person ordered them? This is tough stuff. I mean, it

them? This is tough stuff. I mean, it becomes uninforcable and and uninforcable laws work against us because people go, "Wait, this is just a lousy law." That teaches a lesson when

lousy law." That teaches a lesson when you have an uninforcable law on the books. We all know the classic example

books. We all know the classic example of prohibition. But I think it's worth

of prohibition. But I think it's worth considering here. If you have a law

considering here. If you have a law that's uninforcable, what lesson does that teach the culture?

>> Yeah. Well, and I suppose I would say I I don't know that I agree that it's uninforcable. I think that's a question

uninforcable. I think that's a question that that um is not quite as simple as maybe either one of us could figure out in in a conversation today. I I think

there would be ways that you could enforce it. Um so I don't know if I

enforce it. Um so I don't know if I would agree it's >> uninforcable. I I would just say when

>> uninforcable. I I would just say when the drugs can't be detected in the body and you can't shut off the supply of them, how do you enforce it? That's a

it's a question that needs to be answered.

>> Yeah. I mean and that that is for sure a discussion that needs to be had. And I

want I want to say on the record that I do not think you are a compromiser and I am so grateful for so much of the work that you've done in the pro-life movement. Is there anything that you

movement. Is there anything that you didn't get to say that you want to make sure you get to say on this topic for my audience?

>> That's a great question. I think that it's important for people to realize the cultural realities we face right now.

That the worldview premises that brought us abortion are deeply entrenched. And I

get the impatience people feel. I really

do. And by the way, I support efforts to say, "Let's make tougher laws." What I I'll tell you what I'd love to see, and this is going to get me in trouble with the pro-life people. I would love to see

somebody put forward a bill that bans abortion from conception, no exceptions, and let's see who our real friends are.

>> Now, you taken away the poison pill of prosecuting people for murder. So, they

can't hide behind that anymore. Let's

find out who the politicians are that are really with us. And by the way, a bill that that got passed that way would teach an important lesson and it would save a lot of lives. And you could even

have prosecution that is less than murder. For example, you could have a

murder. For example, you could have a prosecution point that says, "We're going to get this person for solicitation of an illegal act or the possession of narcotics they shouldn't

have in their possession, the possession of illegal drugs." Okay, those that has some teeth in it, but it stops short of this idea that we just want to lock women up and send them to the gas

chamber. We all wish people didn't think

chamber. We all wish people didn't think this, but you can't just say, well, you know, people are always going to hate us. Yeah, that's true, but they may hate

us. Yeah, that's true, but they may hate us more, and it they may hate us in a way that prevents the passage of good legislation, and I don't want children to die. My my question is this. Do we

to die. My my question is this. Do we

get principled legislation or do we get more dead unborn children from fewer pro-life laws? That's my concern.

pro-life laws? That's my concern.

>> Okay. And and I appreciate that. And

where can people connect with your ministry and obviously we want everyone to get your book, The Case for Life, which is so informative.

>> Uh they can connect with me at prolifeetraining.com.

prolifeetraining.com.

They can check out my show that's on the NRB network once a week called The Case for Life. uh those are two places they

for Life. uh those are two places they can go and uh yes thank you for the kind plug on the book and thank you for the good discussion. Yeah

good discussion. Yeah >> uh I appreciate this and I >> I I think one of the things that's disturbed me is that >> there has been more disruption than there needs to be about this. When I

wrote my Gospel Coalition article, I remember one person in particular saying, "Oh, you're just a seeker friendly proiffer."

friendly proiffer." >> Yeah.

>> It's like really >> that's not you.

>> Really? Uh excuse me. 35 years in the movement debating some of the top people on the other side.

>> I know. I mean, that's the best you're going to offer here. And then, you know, to say things like, oh, you know, he's outside his lane.

>> I I think I've got some credentials here. I could be wrong. That doesn't

here. I could be wrong. That doesn't

make me right. But, you know, these kinds of comments aren't helpful.

>> They're sophomoric and they don't help.

What does help is conversations like this. And,

this. And, >> you know, I'm glad you're going to bring somebody on that thinks differently than I do. Let the audience hear both sides.

I do. Let the audience hear both sides.

>> Yeah. especially on a topic like this where there's people I respect so much on both sides and >> so appreciate you Scott and all of the work you do and uh I want to thank my guest Scott Kluendorf. Pick up his book,

The Case for Life. Check out his website. So much good training,

website. So much good training, especially [music] if you're going to be discussing the pro-life issue with people in your very real life. He's got

[music] amazing responses to common arguments that you're going to find. And

let's remember, as we pursue Christ, let's keep a sharp mind, a [music] soft heart, and a thick skin. We'll see you next time.

[music and singing] >> No turning right or [singing] left it through.

The road that's narrow and the gate [singing] that small. [music]

Don't give up. It's going to be worth it all. [music]

all. [music]