Non-rockabotas must stop. I don't want to rock the boat. I want to sink it Are you gonna bark all day a little doggy? Where are you gonna fight? Delusional yeah delusional is okay in your worldview. I'm an animal you don't chastise chickens for being delusional You don't chastise pigs for being delusional. So you calling me delusional using your worldview is perfectly okay It doesn't really hurt you Desperate times call for faithful men and not for careful men The careful men come later and write the biographies of the faithful men lauding them for their courage Going to all the world make disciples not going to the world make buddies not to make brosives right Don't go in the world make ponies right disciples I got I got a bit of a jibil neck That's a joke pasta when we have the real message of truth we cannot let somebody say there's What of those who decree iniquitous decrees and the writers who keep writing oppression to turn aside the needy from justice and To rob the poor of my people of their right that widows may be their spoil and that they may make the fatherless their prey What's up everybody welcome back to another episode of apology a radio. This is the gospel heard around the world You guys can get more at apology of studios calm. That's a P O L O G I a studios calm be sure to go there After the episode today go to apology of studios calm when you go there you can sign up for your bonsen you account It is totally for free. It's a gift to you through us from the bonsen family. We are so grateful to have dr Greg bonsen's life life's work there you have whole courses on Philosophy Christian apologetics church history books of the Bible I mean seminary level education because many of them many the courses are from his seminary where he's teaching these courses They're all up there So you get the best education all for free from one of the best one of the giants of I believe Christian history Dr. Greg bonsen and that's at bonsen you at apology studios calm make sure you guys are doing that get a hold of that Also, you guys can get all the past episodes of apology a radio provoked cultist shea logins everything is there and if you're part of this ministry with us if you're a partner in this ministry with us you make Everything we do possible and you do that at apology is all access when you guys are all access not only do you help us to produce What you've even seen over the last couple of weeks at apology of studios the on the street of angelism the engagement the training in in Evangelism that all the videos that are there whether even it sits related to what we're talking about today and abortion now You make all that possible and you do it at all access and when you do you get a bunch of extra content we just finished It well, it's it's in production right now being cut a new apology academy with dr. Kenneth gentry on the book of revelation We're very excited about that his his commentary is finally out. I just got my copy two days ago actual hard copy I had it in pdf a long time ago, but I just don't do well with pdf and electronic stuff And so I have the physical copy in my hands now His commentary in the book of revelation is finally out and that works perfectly with now the academy we have for you guys So there's tons there all kinds of extra content for our ministry partners And we want to say always as we always do we're so thankful for all of you guys who pray for this mineral ministry and a part of this ministry with us So we are having an interesting show today Obviously it's a little different than apology radio normally luke the bear is not here conover is not here It's just me under these lights and have the privilege of having a conversation today with A very good brother a man that I love and respect greatly his name is sam you'll say you guys I'm sure many of you guys are aware of him. You know him. You know some of his work His website is slow to write and make sure I get this exactly right here Sloats it's slow to write calm and uh, he's got some great stuff there and you may have in uh Well, fairly recently you've seen sam Doing a couple of programs where he's talked about the issue of abolition versus pro life And so sam's a friend loves sam. He loves me. We respect each other. We're brothers and the lord But we have some differences on the issue of like how do we get to the abolition of abortion And provide equal protection for all human beings from fertilization And so I'm just gonna we're just gonna thrust everyone into it and the way that sam and I decided to do this Was just really to have this as a conversation between brothers and um, I'm sure we're gonna have things We completely agree on and then other areas where we disagree But we wanted to do that in a way that glorifies god loves one another and helps to to get this conversation Uh moving better than it has in in the past and so sam you'll say thank you for joining us on apology radio brother It's a real honor. Thank you for your very kind words. You've been so kind that you know, don't make me become an abolitionist Well, yeah, I mean, well, no, it go ahead. Go ahead I was I was looking around with some mutual friends of ours that I'm I'm so star struck that just by seeing you Mentioning my name. I'm like, you know what? All right. I'm an abolitionist already Um, i'm joking around, you know, okay, so let's do this this way. So there's um Um, uh, I think I want I want to give you a chance to explain to everybody Um where you're at on this issue because um and it relates to something I've I've heard you say often when I've I've listened to some of the programs you've done in conversations You've had about this And and you and you even talk about in terms of the kindness and the love and affection we have between one another It's one of the things that in the past has has bothered you about many of the abolitionists you've had to run in with Um, just the behavior the unChrist like behavior those sorts of things now obviously that can be demonstrated both sides Right. Oh, yeah, but it is but it is something that we I think we have to critic We have to be critical about and I think you're right in terms of like this is wrong the behavior the abuse Um the the uncharitable behavior that you might see coming Because i'm put it this way. I'm going to take ownership right in terms of uh, even as as a Calvinist as someone who's reformed If someone points out a flaw in the reform community. I want to take ownership of and say, you know what? That's actually a good critique that that's a problem in the reform community We need to make that right and so let's let's so going into it I think that we want to demonstrate to people that we can love one another and actually do this as christians Yeah, and I would like for you to tell everybody Where you're at on this issue so that there's no confusion Um, yeah, and go ahead Yeah, that that's a really really helpful way to start off before I share my views on this to continue your point And that of course not surprisingly i was very humble and gracious of you But you know, that's something that i've addressed before and some dismiss But I think they get they don't get the point the point is not because i'm you know I'm you know, i'm used to addressing woke ideologies controversial things. So, um, you know Sinful words unrighteous words are not new to be what bothers me about unfortunately This issue is this is an issue of babies being murdered babies are being Uh, dismembered and decapitated and if someone is passionate about this issue Because they hate sin and love god rise above us says I think in amis five six I think where it says we should hoe fast to what is good. Um love justice and have an abhor evil Well, if we're gonna abhor evil if we're gonna hate abortion, we have to hate all unrighteousness. We have to hate um the the slander false accusations and the the words, you know, the unwholesome words that are so common because i'll tell you this Um, we'll share, you know, I guess i'll share soon my agreements with um with abolitionists But you know for a lot of people when they hear A lot of people who make who make call themselves pro-life when they hear that they want to be in that abolitionist want to penalize women When they hear when they associate that with unwholesome words and anger and truly seeing people who may even be close to agreeing with abolitionists Hearing them say seeing them say horrible things about each other They're it's gonna be hard for them to associate penalizing women with loving god and loving justice. They're going to associate that with Oh, well, they're just mean spirited, which is not true, right? Because that's well, we'll get to that soon That's a biblical, but when there is poor character when there is uh when there is unrighteous character People are going to use that as a reason to reject some of the good things abolitionists have And I don't think they get it So to me it's very frustrating that so many abolitionists dismissed this which is why i'm grateful That you acknowledge it and of course too. I know pro-life people who have also said some horrible things about abolitionists too I mean some of them says horrible things about me. It's also it's not a surprise, right? So unfortunately there's sin on both camps but too often in my own personal life too often I've seen too many abolitionists hurting their own arguments By just on frank frankly poor character at times and i'm sure i've been guilty of that too, right? So that's not too that's not too um said that i'm better than anybody else But I think too often this is a something that people would characterize abolitionists as uh being guilty of Well, let's let's let's get i'm going to get you to explain that point But I think the reason that the reason i bring it up is I think that this issue needs to be about the principal Issues we have to stick to the issues right not not make it about attacking the personality It's it's what what are you saying and is that consistent with god's revelation is it is it consistent? Is it reasonable is it logical those sorts of things and we need to stick to those and not make it about personalities But at the same time I will start with saying that one of the things that I have tried To communicate to uh fellow abolitionists and just christians on this issue Is you know the proverb says in verse uh the chapter 6 verse 16 It says there are six things that the lord hates seven that are an abomination to him Hadi is a lying tongue and hands that shed innocent blood now We love to seize on that as apple as christians Let's just forget abolitionists. Um that we love to seize on that as as christians in this issue of abortion God hates the hands that shed innocent blood because it's true he does And so we should feel that we should feel that the weight of that and and we love to draw on that versus as christians With regard to the issue of abortion however The text goes on to say a heart that devises wicked plans feet that make haste to run evil false witness who breathes out lies and one who sows discord among brothers He hates all those things and so it's important for us if you want to be consistent to say Yes, god hates the hands that shed innocent blood, but he also hates The one who sows discord among brothers and breeds out lies and so if it's if it's a corrective that's needed on either side I think we need to use it and we need to apply it and appeal to it and say Let's be let's be consistent, right? Let's let's avoid slander. Let's avoid lying about one another Let's use equal weights and measures in our personal relationships with one another like it doesn't really doing good for us to like You know shout equal protection and and decry unequal it's a measures, but we don't actually do that in our personal relationships with one another Amen. Yeah, and so I think that's the key issue. I think you know is is stepping into this to say it's not about personalities In terms of our discussion But if there's a corrective needed period for us in the body of christ in this issue, that's a corrective. We should all listen We should all listen to Yeah, and this is something that I'm you know, the reason why I pull myself slow to write. It's not because I am slow to write Although I'm a very slow writer truly technically, but in terms of character. I want to be I'm not saying I'm there yet, but I I want to be slow to read or you know Quick to listen so I want to be quick to read quick to listen and slow to write or slow to speak Right, but part of that means being slow to anger now of course We should be angered by what is happening with the abortion issue babies being murdered We should be angry about that Um, but we should not send right and too often there's so much sin involved and it just hurts What we're trying to do to honor god and to save babies Um, yeah, so we need to avoid we need to avoid those pitfalls Because we're not a yeah, we're not advancing the cause of justice If we're having to wade through all of that muck at the same time Has to be about the issues the principal issues make it about that and you know Look And on this issue, I I think we need to be humble enough to say there's things that i'm right about and wrong about your things You're wrong right about wrong about what we're trying to do as brothers here is discover what does god say about this So that we can be changed and that's the key issue here is is to say as Brothers in christ as members of the body of christ as people who are part of the church Let's get to the scriptures. Let's make it about what does god say about this so we can be changed so that we can glorify god by establishing justice That's the key issue Exactly. Yeah And and you know in in addressing that and also getting to what one of the things you asked me earlier is I would hope one of the reason I would hope that um Um, I hope that by the grace of god It is me wanting to be humble and wanting to be quick to listen and slow to speed That has led me to agreeing with abolitionist on certain things Right, um Now it wasn't there weren't things that I really was we're rejecting necessarily But I hadn't considered until several years ago when I heard our volition is talking about it Frankly people like you and I was like, huh. I didn't consider that so not to get to Um, what is my view? So I think actually I you know I I in a sense. I don't have to turn pro life not because I'm not pro life I am pro life when it comes to this debate or this discussion I think the word pro life is not helpful in my view. I think the most helpful terms are Uh, immediateist and incrementalist or to go back to the original words gradual abolition and immediate abolition because I would say that I am an abolitionist Um just not uh an agreement with Those who normally call themselves abolitionists today in in strategy I'm an abolitionist that says that of course I want to abolish abortion I would say that every true sincere pro life person or to be more specific pro life christian wants to abolish abortion They just have different views on how we should end and then also when it comes to a major part Which is of course income protection, but to share my views Um, I absolutely believe that of course abortion should be abolished with zero exceptions. I do believe that women should be penalized Um with the abortion or with the abortionist or anybody plays any role in Um the abortion because it's murder and it's it's very clear in the scriptures that you murder then you must be um charged for that it's it's there's no debate over that as many of my uh, quote unquote pro life or incrementalist friends disagree and I think they're wrong and I think Um, there are many who are starting to cook frankly like me before many had not considered that issue Um until recently and I've had talks with people. I'm like, hey guys. Have you considered? I'll tell you this. Um, I had a conversation with Um, I'll mention her name with christian hawkins. Um, she um You know, she's the president of student student for life. I think or sooner my for life. I'm forgetting exactly um The official name, but she didn't do it with me. Um, and she did not know my views on this right Live, um, she assumed because I wouldn't article about abolitionism and she reached out to me, but I guess she hadn't read Everything I said and she was like, yeah, well, they believe in penalizing women and that's wrong. I'm like, well Uh, let's talk about this, right? So I made I made the point that well If you know when slavery was abolished, you would of course agree that anybody then who would illegally um own a slave. Well should be uh, you know penalized for that. She's like, yeah, well What's the difference then with the the you know with a preborn child because the pro-life movement rightly has said that we are these generations Um, um, you know, um versions of the abolitionist, right? The abortion is the abortion issue is just as it all even worse Than the issue of slavery, you know, uh in the past or even as it still exists in some places today, even illegally So, um, so anyways, my view is that yes women should be penalized Uh, because of course I do agree with equal protection. Um, so I think that covers generally where where i'm in agreement with Yeah, of course, no exceptions abortion an equal protection And let's let's do this. I actually had a poll up here because I thought if this was an important part of that conversation You had with christen hawkins, uh, i'll just play a little portion of that so people can hear what you said Killing a baby is just like killing a five-year-old person Then I think then we need to say then that people who who have abortions then once abortion is as illegal should be penalized for that Well, that was a lot, uh, and you certainly did say something a lot of people disagree with um, especially when you talked about, uh Penalties for and seeking criminal punishment for women who have undergone an abortion. I would say that view is largely opposed to about 95 of the uh pro-life movement in america Um who says, you know, we can't offer a helping hand one day and slap women with penalties the next um Uh, so I think that you know, I I think you're right in that there are always going to be And there are women today any of us know who have gone out to pray in front of abortion facility or sidewalk council in front of abortion facility There are women who truly do not know Uh, what it is they're doing there's women who are So steeped in a crisis and have a tunnel vision of the crisis of the pregnancy that they Refused to consider any other information about the development of their child that you know, the Fundamental unique whole human being living inside of them who it was also created in the image of our god Um, and but there are women who do know what abortion is, uh, and still choose abortion. I think though Your policy prescription of you know punishing women of Saying that you would be in favor of of laws that criminalize women I would deeply disagree with that especially at a moment Where you have for 50 years a country that has told women Uh killing a child is okay. And in fact is empowerment So I thought you did a Fine job and responding to this and everyone can go look that up themselves to to see how how sam handled that objection I think you did a really fine job Um, and i'm going to use that in the future Uh, in terms of relating it to the issue of slavery and the culture that was developed at that time And just what they many of them had just sort of Adopted this is fine. We can dehumanize them. They're not persons their property those sorts of things You brought up a fine point like when when, uh, slavery was abolished and it was criminalized It was abolished and criminalized and anybody involved in it would have been punished and and there's no There's no excuse on day two Uh, the person can't say well, you know, I've just and I've been a part of this environment in this culture And you know, I can't help but how I've thought about this you would say no, this is a crime You've dehumanized this person. That's not allowed They will be treated as equals and if you engage in this you will be punished And and I would say that she probably fully accepts that yeah, that's exactly how this should have gone down Anybody who would have enslaved black person after that should have immediately been penalized But she had she has a worldview and I think this is the key issue brother as we as we spring into this This is I think the key issue The thing because you bring up the point that okay, so like what everyone heard from sam is he loves jesus He loves god's word. He wants justice. He wants equal protection. He does not hold to the position that christen Illustrated that and she she's I think she's Exactly right. I think it's higher than 95 percent but we talk about the night the pro-life movement of the pro-life industry um This this whole machine Uh when she says that night this is against 95 percent of the pro-life movement. We don't agree women should be penalized Uh sam doesn't hold to that position he holds to the position like no If we're going to be consistent, it's a human being from fertilization and every human being deserves equal protection And that it needs to be criminalized and anybody involved in that process needs to be criminalized So sam's in full agreement on that Um, and so in that sense, that's where sam that's where you're going You're going the way that we're saying this needs to land it needs a land and equal protection and justice that is equal justice Uh equal weights and measures that's where you're saying you want to land But you're saying that you think that that's the dispute is between incrementalism and immediateism tell me what you would say to this um I've tried to argue That I think that that is not a helpful way for us to have this discussion Because I don't think it's actually true Um, and I've said this to Doug Doug's you know, he he promotes smash mouth incrementalism Would you say sam by the way would you say that you that's kind of where you're at smash mouth incrementalism? Um, I am but I I just use a different term. I use biblical incrementalism. Okay. All right. That's helpful Well, so when I've when I've addressed publicly dug on this issue that I've said this repeatedly and like I said I'd like to hear you say to this. I've said I don't think that the the categories of Immediateism versus incrementalism is actually helpful because When we when you and I have this discussion We are having it as brothers who have a mind on an eye on uh abolition or legal protection as the end goal When when we're having this discussion with the pro-life movement They don't actually have the categories that you and I are reasoning within and I think you already understand this in terms of even talking to christen here And what I mean by that is this I don't think it's incrementalism versus immediateism I think it's an issue of justice versus injustice in terms of method methodology And the reason I say that is because the pro-life establishment has gone on record and I know you're aware of this They've gone on record. They've put their name on a dotted line. They've they've killed our bills They've sat next to me at legislatures killing our bills of equal protection Because they don't actually have your goal Like you know, they would they would consider themselves incrementalists, but they don't actually have your goal of of actual equal protection and abolition So that's why I think that that those categories aren't helpful because the pro-life industry isn't thinking like you and I They aren't thinking in terms of the abolition of abortion because they don't actually want equal protection They're never even aiming at that and a good example of that what I would give a number of examples, but In every legislature that I've either been in and got a bill in or I've sat before and testified on behalf of a bill of equal protection The people fighting against that bill are the people who are saying we don't ever want This child to receive equal protection from the mother Um, we think she's not guilty and she's a victim as well And so we're never aiming towards criminalizing the mom who willfully takes the life of her child And so tell me what you think about that because that's what I think is is not helpful in terms of the discussion Because I think you and I are thinking like christians in terms of the end goal But christen and others like her in the pro-life establishment. They don't want equal protection. They're never working to abolish this Yeah, I think I would disagree in a sense. I definitely many most pro-lifers do not support Complete equal protection. I think that's an important thing to address. I think too often abolitionists Ignore an important part. So just before I say what I'm going to say to be clear. I do believe that Everybody involved in an abortion should be penalized, but I think too often abolitionist or immediateist um Make it seem as if pro-lifers do not want anyone to be penalized And I think that's unhelpful because they do believe in a version or form of equal protection I say they I'm referring to my counterparts who would disagree with me on on women being penalized They believe that abortionist should be penalized And I think if we're being honest that is a version of equal protection Is it complete? Absolutely not and it's not sufficient And I would say that if that's if you know if the if the goal remains the same It's unjust because every single person who murders a child needs to be penalized But I think it's still wrong to to suggest that um that as if uh pro-life uh the pro-life movement does not want anyone to be held accountable for that Do you see I can you yeah, that's helpful to hear you say that Can you illustrate that? Do you know anybody who is an abolitionist that says that The pro-lifers don't want anyone to be punished because I'm not aware of anybody like that Well, I think so often when they talk about equal protection, they all distribute They solely focus on the women, right? So no one has said they don't believe that that no one should be held accountable But so often when they talk about it, I think it's implied when they say when they always When they always focus on On women being penalized without addressing that the pro-life movement because I want to represent Abolitionist as fair as possible. Yeah, and I think it's important that abolitionists also represent the pro-life movements or those who um You have the pro-life movement as first possible by saying that look they do believe that someone should be held accountable and Very very most of the time that's never mentioned Um, and I followed abolitionists. I followed you guys. I followed a lot of other people and that's rarely mentioned from what I've seen It's usually just that they don't want equal protection Well, that mentioned the context of they don't want the equal they don't want equal protection For women, but or I mean um as in penalizing the women But they do believe in it for the abortionist. So like I've said, I think that view is unjust I don't think that's right, but I think it's important to still mention that. Yeah. No, that's helpful. So I think that what we would say is that Equal protection means equal protection And if there's not if somebody if if you're showing partiality and somebody is being protected to actually do this crime Then it's not equal protection By any definition somebody has been afforded Protection under law to do it and I think that's one of the things that we've Try to illustrate and I and I think you know this you've seen this is that The pro-life movement actually when they legislate they will legislate that it is a crime for the abortionist and of course for the abortion clinic and anybody involved there But they will actually write into their bills protection for the woman. So they'll say things like this shall be a crime except for the mother and And that's that's what you see across the board. They will literally write it into their legislation that the woman has legal immunity to do it and she's to do it with impunity without punishment and so So I think And you brought up a good point too. This is interesting and I just want to share this with you in in terms of like thinking about this Biblically and critically as brothers as Christians none of our bills that we've put in mention gender class Nothing Uh, the bill like like Louisiana's bill that historic bill. We were able to get in Louisiana Uh that the pro-life establishment came in and killed over that that week where we handle the votes We needed to to abolish it was the pro-life establishment mike johnson Louisiana right to life and then of course that massive letter that was written with all his organizations the erlc National right to life that told the legislators never to pass a bill of equal protection That would lead to the punishment of a woman. What was weird about that sam was that the bill in Louisiana didn't mention the mother all it mentioned all it said was what's in the woman's in the image of god And these children in Louisiana will be afforded equal protection from fertilization what it did though sam Is it revealed a theological position that the pro-life establishment has They saw that and what was what was crazy was that the legislators saw it and dude you should have seen their faces They were like well, obviously Of course we'll pass this that's that's the pro-life position. Isn't it human life from fertilization? Everyone deserves equal protection. Isn't that our bill? Isn't that our thing and all of a sudden the pro-life establishment comes in and goes No, no, no, no We don't want that because we don't actually want that kind of that that kind of law that would lead to the prosecution of a mother And what we were saying was who taught who's talking about the mother We didn't mention her. We didn't mention anybody. We just mentioned a definition and a crime And what it revealed and this is what i've been saying sam you've probably heard me say this Is that the pro-life establishment has a fatal flaw and it is actually a heresy Historically biblically and historically in christian theology. It's it's a heresy And that is that they believe the mother is a victim That she is not guilty and that she must be protected and never punished for for engaging in the abortion So what my point is is when we put a bill of equal protection in and they go oh, but the mother it's a revelation That their theology is their worldview is that she's never guilty and she must not be seen as guilty So what i've been arguing sam is that that's really the main issue as the fatal flaw here Is we can have all these disputes about like methodology and criminalism versus immediately and those are important conversations But the fatal flaw here is that the pro-life establishment doesn't hold to a christian worldview On this issue. They they believe that somebody in this must be protected to kill their child Willfully with no punishment, which is what removes the gospel from the mother as well How are we gonna preach the gospel to a woman? Who's being told she's not guilty and she doesn't need to turn to christ for her abortion, right? Yeah, I I mostly agree with you. I think and you've you know since you've um From you know watching my interview with uh with christian and and um and then maybe seeing some of my words on this issue That you know that I I despise with pat with the passion the The messaging from the pro-life movement that women are victims. It just drives me nuts It's not true whatsoever and it is a theological issue. It is when they when if an unrepentant um a woman if a woman has not repented from an abortion And she faces god She one of the sins i'll be that she'll be hell if god is going to hold a woman accountable for murdering her child Why should not why should end the law do so it is absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, so i'm completely in agreement with that, right? I agree. Yeah, I think the so so if it's going to be do I have disagreements with The pro-life movement on certain things. Absolutely. Of course. I I I do Um to be very honest just as some abolitionists Um do not like me some pro-life people do not like me either because of these these views um and you know if so if this conversation will be about What do I disagree with with the pro-life movement? We can talk about that, but I think even amongst us brothers, right? Even amongst we christians There are a bullishness who believe that my views are sinful that my views are Unbiblical or unjust which I think is something that we should we should make a major focus of this as well I'm sure we'll probably get into yeah, yeah, because yeah, but I will say this this is where I disagree. I think so often And the abolitionist describe the pro-life movement as Their biggest enemy. I say I say that I do say that which I think yeah, which I think is completely wrong Um, I I understand the temptation to say that I understand but The reason why I'm the reason why I disagree with that is because of this so you know Going back to history. So for example, these debates are not new um in you know in in slavery, um, you had again, I mentioned before you had gradual abolitionist and then you had um the immediate abolitionist, so Originally before the the abolitionist did anything they had to vote on what was the strategy moving forward And they voted against those who wanted Immediate abolition or who wanted, um to start off by a Bosch and slavery as a whole first They they they voted to say let's start incrementally or gradually Right, this was the anti-slavery society and they started off with a dolphin act, right? But I mentioned this because I think So often when abolitionists describe the pro-life movement as their chief enemy That just if abolitionists are going to say that they are actually being like their original abolitionist Then it doesn't quite work because you had the anti-slavery society who recognized that look They had people that they disagreed with people who were voting against their own um goals to have immediate abolition And yet they said that we must win them. They are not our enemy We have disagreements with them, but they are not our enemy our real enemies are those who believe in owning slaves So the the real the real enemy for the abolitionist is not the pro-life person Now there are some major disagreements there and I think there are some people who call himself for example Don trump says he's uh, he's pro-life. He's not pro-life. He's pro-abortion There are some people who claim they're pro-life who are truly pro-abortion And I think those people are absolutely the enemy of every true abolitionist which includes any pro-life person who truly wants to abolish Um abortion, but I think you said that they're their chief enemy. I think it's wrong. It is no I guess good No, that's that's good. Yeah, so go ahead. No, it's helpful. It's helpful to hear you say that So I'll I'll try to address those and give you something to shoot at right. So yeah, um, I think it's a category error to compare the situation we are in now In terms of dealing with what you and I are talking about about equal protection and criminalizing this and in equal justice Versus the pro-life establishment that doesn't actually want abolition. They don't want equal protection Uh, they're not working towards that goal. They've stated it Uh, they want someone to be able to do this with impunity and immunity in perpetuity They want that permanently and so I think it's a category error to take our situation in terms of like gradualism versus immediatelyism As as us versus what the pro-life movement is is failing in and then take them back to slavery because what is clear is that during the days of Of the slave trade where you had abolitionists even disagreements methodologically versus gradualism versus immediatelyism They did have the same goal The real abolition of of slavery the goal was they actually had the same goal. What what I don't have Is a shared goal with the pro-life establishment. They've told me that They've sat next to me last year in mizuri. I was in I was in before the mizuri legislature And uh, we had a bill of equal protection simple bill sam said what you and I believe image of god Equal protection, uh and nothing about a woman, uh, no class mentioned and uh, I'm testifying on behalf of the bill And sitting next to bradley pierce and I uh were two of the leading uh, the leaders of the pro-life establishment in mizuri And they killed our bill because they told the legislature that they did not want Any bill that would lead to the prosecution of a woman who wilfully takes a life for a child So when i've said and I do stand by it that the greatest enemy of the abolition of abortion in this nation Is actually the pro-life establishment. I don't mean that the pro-choicers aren't trying to You know foster culture and grow their love of death. I don't mean that they're not there But they actually aren't there at the legislature Uh fighting against my bill like I i'll give you an example, uh, and then i'll i'll shut up here So in louisiana, there were maybe five pro-choicers that day Uh, I mean there were so many thousands of people there throughout that day Maybe five pro-choicers fighting against our bill the rest was the pro-life establishment Um, the letter that everyone was walking around with that day the legislatures Legislators were walking around with the letter from these 70 pro-life organizations saying do not pass any bill that will lead to the prosecution of a mother That killed our bill. We had all yes votes that whole week. And so the establishment came in and killed our bill Mike johnson louisiana right to life national right to life the erlc in missouri They killed our bill. Um in arizona. We had a bill here too brother. Um, and it was doing very well We had lots of co-sponsors everyone was saying yes to it And it was the leader of the pro-life establishment. I hear a cathe harid that killed our bill and she did it by saying I do not support a bill that would lead to the prosecution of the mother. And so my point is Greatest enemy to the abolition of abortion is because they hold to a different worldview They don't believe what you and I believe about this. They are not aimed at Actual abolition and equal protection. They don't want it. It's not part of their worldview Well, I think um, it's I know abolitionist tie equal protection to abolition. I disagree with that I I think they are abolitionists and so that they they do want to ban abortion Um, and now that's not to say that it's enough, right? We need as I said before we need to penalize anyone who's involved in the abortion issue Um, but I think you know, they they are abolitionists, but there's again, they disagree Which I completely agree with and set theological issue, but they do disagree with that But the reason why I mentioned that well, okay I see real fast. I'm so sorry when you say they are abolitionists, but they do believe that a woman should be able to do it With immunity and impunity. How is that and help me to understand? How is that in any way abolition? I think that's a bit different. I I'm not sure I would quite phrase it that way I wouldn't say they want women to do it without any um, any consequence when they write it and they write it into the legislation, sam Well, but what I'm saying is of course they want to ban abortion. They don't want abortion to be legal or I think so often people will say that they They want to I think you've said it before too. They want to regulate abortion, right? Which I think is not quite accurate I think again, they do want to ban all abortion now again I agree that if you if you want that right if you want to ban abortion you you're saying this is an injustice You therefore need to charge the people doing that injustice with the crime, right? So I think it's important, but I think that you know, you you to say that They that they don't want to abolish it is wrong because again, they do want to abolish it. Well, hold on. Let's let's this is good We're getting somewhere. This is really really important. That's Answer the question, but I've been wanting to have you some question. Sure. Sure. Yeah, but just on this point And please do ask every and interrupt me to it. Definitely interrupt. This is a dialogue between us So no formal no formal debate rules here in fact this yeah, but when you say they do want to ban it Uh and not regulate it, but what I would say to you Sam is I can give you an example after example after example of them Writing the legislation that does regulate it. You can kill these kids, but not these kids You can kill them for these reasons but not these reasons and then they actually do say That they don't want it banned for the mother because these they'll say that this law does not apply to the mother of the child and uh, they don't want prosecution for the mother and so They actually write that legislation someone's not writing it for them They're writing it saying that they do want the woman to be able to do it with legal immunity and impunity That's that's in their legislation There is a lot in there. I don't want to forget. Um one of the things I wanted to say earlier, but sure I think Uh again, we can get into the incremental aside when you mentioned the regular the regulation thing so that we can get into that soon But um, so I don't want to forget what I was gonna say Um, no take your time and there's no rush. Yeah, no rush. Yeah, but yeah, but I think um to say that They're saying that women should be able to do this. I think again. That's wrong. Right. I think again If if you're if you're I think it's more accurate to say They just do not believe in penalizing the women. Right. I think that is what actually I think about this They legislate it though, brother. They put it in writing that she should be protected under law to do it Yeah, so so again, I don't think that's exactly quite um the way to frame it Right it is because again, that's not exactly the same because again, they do So because you're not saying that they really believe that women should have abortions, right? No, yeah, you're right. No, they they don't want her to have the abortion But they do want her to have the legal protection to not ever be penalized if she does Yeah, again, which which is I think the way you frame that now I think is Um, is the fair way to say I think is a more accurate way to say it But I think i'm forgetting how you've raised it before but before that they Suggesting that they they they write into their legislation and I can give you a number of examples of this brother Um, they write into their legislation that they do not want the penalties Or the definition of crime applied to the mother meaning that they're writing into their legislation That they do not want it legally criminalized or banned for her Which is what I was saying is that they don't actually have the goal you have And so what i'm saying is when you compare this to the abolitionists Of slavery they at least had the same goal the the real abolition of slavery We don't have the same goal as the pro-life establishment That's actually again. Sorry, there's maybe three or four things different things. I want to say about that. Sorry. Go ahead. Go So yeah, no worry. So actually there were some abolitionists actually who did not have the same ultimate goal There were some who just wanted to ban the slave trade, but did not want to ban slavery Um, this is this is both true in with the british and with uh and in america And yet they saw them as their allies and they worked with them. They did not see them as their enemy Then they had some very strong words to say rightly so But did not see them as their enemy because they were wanting to work with them to about to abolish a slave trade And then hopefully convince them to abolish slavery as a whole. So you didn't have that within the abolitionist movement Um, so, uh, and then when we talk about again, I think how you how you worded it Um later on I think when you said that they do want to make abortion illegal, but they don't believe in penalizing the women That is that is true. And I I agree with you on that But I think again so often I think to frame it as they do not again I'm forgetting exactly how you framed it because i'm thinking about different things now, but To say that they did not want Um, um, um, it to be illegal for the woman. Yeah, I think I said you phrased it is wrong to say that again It shouldn't be penalized. They write it. No, my point is illegal Well, my point is is if they write Uh into their legislation like the right the legislation up. This is the pro-life establishment The right the legislation up and in the legislation they make sure That she has the legal protection under law in that state to do it with impunity and immunity That is them writing into law that she must be protected From consequence and the law itself, um to to do this willfully to her child Yes, but when you and I would say this and then I think I'll ask the question I wanted to ask but i'm sure what you're leaving out is with the other laws in place If they if the ultimate end goal where to happen the woman wouldn't have the opportunity to do that in the first place, right? Which she does she does well. So so in in the in the in in the um If if we were to have The the ultimate end goal when it comes to banning abortion The there'll be no doctor that would or so-called doctor and abortion is that would be able to have an abortion The abortion pail would be banned and in every scenario the woman would not have the opportunity to do so in the first place So I think again, it's important to say that she would though brother. She would through the same way women have done it throughout All of history diy abortions pills and potions Right now brother. This is sickening to see it really is sickening you see you can go on youtube and there's women who are Teaching women how to do a diy do it yourself abortion from home And different methodologies you can do and one of my point is is this is the main point That I don't believe that this dispute is actually between incrementalism and immediatism because really lurking there as the foundation Is the fact that they don't hold to our worldview or want the end of abortion criminal for everybody I think but I think that's a bit uh would all do respect it. I think it's a bit convenient because um you people people have described me able to describe me as As being one of the enemies of the abolitionists, right? Abolitionist movement they've described this because every any incremental policy is considered as being An attack on abolitionism. So I think again I think it's wrong to frame it as was not really just about a debate over incrementalism versus Abolitionism or immediatism. It's just the pro-life movement versus uh versus abolitionist. I think that's a bit wrong But because I know that's a good point. I if I may ask if I might ask this question. Yeah, so Would you support if pro-lifers were to support were to um were to introduce a bill that would ban all abortion that would um again just just bear me here ban all abortion would penalize women would penalize anybody involved with The abortion, right, but they would not But definitely would not be included would you support it? Yeah, so that's actually that's a great question It's an important question because That's actually the the state of things across the country We have to contend with that that there are certain states that do have capital punishment Which you know, what is scripture say about taking a life of another person is that This civil magistrate wields a sort of justice and uh in those in those in those in those cases the right Um the right way to deal with the pinaology of murder Is essentially capital punishment? We well of course we should believe that as christians but uh in some states across the union we don't have capital punishment in some states I would say Their standards of witnesses and evidence are not even good enough right now to trust them with that. However, however There's a difference in terms of when we talk about abolition. There's a difference between The definition of something is a crime and then the question of pinaology scripture The law of god deals with things as defined as a crime Things that are and you know those things that are called sins, but they're not crimes And then things that are sins and crimes and then the scriptures give you the pinaology The penalty for if they do this here's the case law examples of how you deal with those particular crimes And then sometimes like even when like theft, there's different ways of managing the issue of theft with pinaology Like there's there's a personal theft and then there's a business theft and the pinaology for that is different So but my point is this in scripture. You've got something as crime and then you got to deal with pinaology Well, we're saying is abolitionists when you go into a state to get a legislation into providing equal protection You have to we are trying to deal with something as how does god define this? It needs to be the crime of murder It needs to be equal protection that other category of pinaology is a separate category that we also yes have to work in But those are two different categories pinaology but versus Making it a crime in that category and being consistent But um if I if I understand you correct sir with the game without you respect I think that's a bit of a convenient way to separate the issue because so for example, um, let's let's to let's make it a Issue of of the states, right? So you've mentioned that some states have um death penalties and some do not so let's say let's suppose this is a state where It does have the capital punishment for murders, right first degree murder Yeah, in this case would you support and then this and then a A the pro-life lobby introduces a bill same scenario as I mentioned before but would not penalize Um, but would not have the property for the woman would you support it? Well, it wouldn't happen because their worldview doesn't allow for it to happen But let's imagine let's imagine that that they would when they won't because it's not their worldview Imagine that they were in the state of arizona going to make it a crime and afford equal protection so that everyone was punished For the murder of the child. I would absolutely support that Um, it and again the issue of penology is this is is it is and this is the thing you said it was convenient I don't think sam is it's a matter of convenience. That's how the bible does it it deals with something as a crime And then it deals with the penology But let me explain why I think it's convenient because abolitionists have framed this issue of you've been mentioning yourself before about justice and injustice Yeah, right you've mentioned that you don't believe in regular, you know You don't believe in incremental policies because you believe it's regulating abortion, right? You believe it's partiality. Yeah, it's partiality. It is Yeah, so so well, we disagree on that we can talk about that next, but I think the So when you frame it as issue of justice and issue of of injustice, right? We're talking about what is honorable to god if a murderer murder if a murderer murders a baby Right and there isn't a And then there is a bill that would not that would not have true justice for that crime Right, right if a life for a life if we're not going to support that then that is in that's inherently Unjust it's unjust. So I think for it gives the issue the abolitionist. I know the son of bush is who I think are much more Uh, consistent on this issue who say no they would not support it and they're being consistent now. They're wrong I think they're being I think they're being bibberly inconsistent cuz scripture deals with those two things as categories There's something defined as a crime and pinnology is something that's that's dealt with in a number of different cases In case law examples and so pinnology is one thing how it's how it's actually punished Uh, the the question of whether or not it's a crime. What kind of crime is it is is a separate question And so what what would be right is in the category of definition and justice Take the life of a human being in the womb willfully. Um, you are murdering that child. You are guilty of murder That's one category and the other category is well, how do you deal with murder? And here's the deal look at again, we can say convenience, but scripture does Give you examples of differing degrees of murder and how you deal with that So it'll call something you should not murder and this is murder right and that's a crime So you call it crime and that's murder and then there's categories and case law examples Okay, what kind of murder was it and how do you punish those differing degrees or accidental death man's lawter those sorts of things And again, even with theft you should not steal it's a crime to steal But then it gives you the category of pinnology dealing with okay Well, how do you deal with the different ways someone steals? So what i'm saying is that well, we have to focus on as abolitionist is what you already agree with We need to provide equal protection for all human beings from fertilization and it doesn't matter who does it Anybody engaged in it is guilty and my point there is the pro-life establishment doesn't agree with you Yeah, but sir the you know, you've mentioned again that um that we agree that A life that that if you if you kill the preborn child, there's no difference between that and killing a five-year-old child That's right. Right. So so it's not a comparison and i mentioned that there's different polities for different crimes That's true, but they're but killing a preborn child and killing if every old is the exact same crime So again, if this is an issue of justice or of honoring god above all we don't want to sin We don't want to introduce a bill that would dishonor god. We don't want to support a bill that doesn't dishonor god But if you're going to support a bill that would say Right, we're not going to get the death penalty in a state that supports the death penalty Which would be just that is how it was supposed to be right if you murder a child Whether it's a five-year-old or preborn baby. They should be penalized for that Some abolitionists are consistent and they say well in light of that they will not support any bill That does not have that as part of its bill But you're saying that you would from what you're saying you would support an unjust bill No, because no, but sir, I think you're understanding how the law works in this country. That's that's the problem Um, well, hey, what I what I mean by that and what I mean and that's for Maybe it's because you're from maybe it's because you're from Canada No No, but what I mean by that is is in each state I can get to that sure but I can get to that I'll answer that though real real brief though. I answer that so when you go into a state and you write this legislation And we've done this a number of times across the country bradley pierce who I know you know Has has written so much of this legislation The legislation is written not dealing with the criminal Penology that's a separate issue. Um, that's not how it works in this country So the state has its penology and it's It's a application of penology in the criminal code for differing degrees of homicide Again manslaughter's in there. You got first second third degree all that stuff is in there That's already in the state's um Law in terms of how does the state decide to deal with it that this the law itself is seen as separate because What this is doing is putting into the state's law The definition of what's in the womb human being from fertilization and that it should be afforded equal protection under the law Now once that is law Then that makes this murder and then it goes into the state's categories of murder and how they deal with murder in that state So what i was saying is i don't think you understand how this this works when we write this legislation You're not dealing with penology in the legislation The state already has a code of penology and this just puts it into the homicide code So it is it is a category of of definition and crime versus penology and again, that's how scripture does it I see that that's that's helpful. I understand what you're saying now. So, okay. So is it is it possible Is it um, you know, so does it i'm not a i'm not a lawyer, right? I'm not I mean either. I hate those guys Except me exactly here. It's exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, so is it possible for a bill to For a bill To to say that this would not apply to penology Is it possible for a bill to make that clear that this whatever this bill is it would not involve the woman Um getting like the death penalty um I'd have to ask Bradley pierce about how that I don't even I he's he's been frustrated at times Where he's written legislation and he he's had to put things in Uh that shouldn't even need to go into legislation. It's more of a of a way to respond to the pro-life establishment That's trying to kill the bill. So he'll write things he'll write things into the legislation that annoy him even like this This doesn't even need to be stated. It's already a part of this. It's already a part of the law in the state But but but when these bills are written though, Sam I I think this will help you when they're written they're written as legislation that Essentially is providing the definitions and allowing for it to be a crime Uh, and then once it is that crime it goes into that state's Penology and how they deal with it. So it is separate. It is separate. So okay, so and and again. I'm not I'm not very um, I'm as aware of um the Um the nature of the bills as much and I can look into that more But but let's just say since we both acknowledge that we are not Um, now you are more familiar with than I am but since we we don't know exactly The nature of these laws whether that would be a you know possible or not Let's assume that it was possible. There's a reason why I'm asking this right now. I want you to bear with me Yeah, let's assume it was possible Right let's assume it was possible for them to say that and again it may not be right and that's fine But let's assume that it was possible. Let's just say that there is a country out there Right because if abolitionism is biblical then it should be applicable in any nation in the world Right so let's assume that there was a there is a nation there is a nation where Death penalty is legal and it allows for a bill to address penology as well Let's just assume that and the bill again this same bill is introduced by Anti-abortion people all right so you can say pro-lifers And it has it in the bill that the woman would be penalized, but it would not be the death penalty Would you support it? I would speak prophetically against it. Yeah, I would I would I would Use the law of God God's word and his law and his standards of wisdom to speak prophetically against something that was A bill that God hates You should support it. So I'm saying I would speak prophetically on that issue I would I would use the word of God to testify on behalf of God's word and in his authority to say God calls partiality a sin it is an abomination in his eyes unequal weights and measures is an abomination in his eyes I would try to speak against it like Isaiah chapter 10 woe to those who write iniquitous decrees and make the fatherless pray I would speak against it like Just in terms of like getting to the scriptures here Deuteronomy 16 19 you shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality So I would say the word of God commands us to not show partiality and not pervert justice So my duty as a Christian in that context is to speak prophetically against something that would show partiality or pervert justice That's what my duty is. That's what scripture commands of me so I and that forgets us into this discussion of of whether we can as Christians accept or pursue even So-called incremental bills that say You can kill these children, but not these children So we can get to that sir. I want to be I was going to be clear. Okay, then I mentioned that something But maybe answer my question, but I want to be sure they said that you would prophetically speak against it Yes, I would speak against the The partiality and not giving her what is already you gave the example of it's already capital crime It's already murder Capital punishment is available and we're going to take it off the table for her I would I would speak against that and say that's partiality. That's a sin against God I'm only asking this because I want to be very sure because You said that you would speak against it, but does that include that you would vote against it as well? I would it might think our duty there in in every world not there, but in every context is to bring the word of God Faithfully in that context To speak in terms of how Isaiah speaks about iniquitous decrees And the way they get in the way that God even threatens those who write them. I think that we can't actually We are never going to see Transformation happen in the world and I know that you agree with this fundamentally. We're never going to see transformation happen in the world Through compromise and evil like if we do things as Christians that are evil so that good may come I think we're misguided. I think scripture would call us to be faithful to tell the truth no matter the consequences And I think that's our duty in whatever culture as we speak God's word and the truth And and we don't approach it with pragmatism I I agree, but I'm still trying to make sure I understand what you're saying because it's It seems like I'm not answering my question. I know that you would speak against it We agree and I agree. I would do the same as well Uh, well just an extent, but my point is would you vote against it as well voting? I would I vote See I you'd have to be more clear on the on the details of something like this because it's a hypothetical situation where capital punishment is already Is already a crime in that place? And you're going to give equal protection to the child on the womb from fertilization and everybody involves going to be punished But we're going to make sure that the woman in this scenario is not actually guilty of She's not because she's not going to be penalized like everybody else I would I would speak prophetically against that and say that you're showing partiality In this in this penology and I would I would vote for it what I vote for the criminalization of abortion and calling it murder for everybody? Yes, but the penology is a separate question though, but but sir, so so remember You're giving and here's the new you're giving a scenario that is a hypothetical dream imaginary scenario That I would say is is skirting is skirting the the real issue The the real issue here again is is the question Not between immediatism and incrementalism. It's justice versus injustice and the main point Which I don't think you've quite addressed yet is that the pro-life establishment does not want The equal protection and abolition of abortion. So the the question of Incremental bills or gradual bills doesn't really apply because they don't want what you want Sure that with all due respect, you know, you know, I love you and we Know this is how I do this. Yeah. Yeah, so we've talked about equal protection. I've mentioned my views on that at length I think what I'm asking you now. I think and I think you've just answered it now Although it seems like you're kind of dodging it a little bit, sir I think you've know I think you're I think you're confusing categories You would remember I gave this is a scenario you mentioned this is a scenario It was a hypothetical question, right? Which of course in a debate in a discussion we're gonna have some Questions like that so that we know what our stance, you know, what our stance, you know is if we're consistent So that's why I asked you that question, right? And you said that you would speak against it acknowledging that that bill would not be ideal that bill would not be perfect That bill would not on its own the The penology is showing partiality, but sir, but sir, but remember that I have already mentioned that again This is a scenario where that is possible, right? So you so we acknowledge that In your view do you believe that it'd be partiality you speak against it, but you said that you would still vote for it Oh, let's be let's be clear. It's not my view that it's partiality. That's the biblical view. It is partiality If you regard If you were well scriptures really clear on it if you regard the face of one person and you show them personal favoritism Well, we'll get to us if you prefer justice on their behalf that is partiality. It's the very definition of partiality Well, I'll explain why I disagree with I disagree with you on this But before I get to that I just want to make it very clear right that you said that this bill that would Support and a version of an injustice, right? You would speak against it, but you would still support I would speak against the injustice of the penology, but I would I would actually support I would support The justice in terms of the establishment of justice for the child and the legal protection for their life Yes, well still use because there's no and here's why here's Finish my point. So yeah, this will help you. This will help you because you're having a hard time understanding what I'm saying So in the category in the category of of defining it making it a crime And showing no partiality that anybody who does it is guilty of the crime That is one category and there's no partiality being shown. There's no unequal weights and measures The category of the establishment of justice calling it a crime and and saying that you you cannot do it Is one category and you're saying in the penology over here You have an inconsistency. So what I'm saying is in the penology and how it's punished I would speak prophetically against showing partiality to the mother And saying you must be consistent have equal weights and measures because unequal weights and measures are an abomination So i'm saying that you're talking about two categories here. I would highlight this is I would highlight the goodness of the one But but sir But sir, I think again, I I understand what you're saying. I really understand it. Right? So you're saying you would hate you would abhor you would You would speak against the the partiality in saying that That for any other kind of murder We're in that nation or state that you know, we would have death penalty But for this we're going to show partiality for the women So therefore we're not going to you you would you would speak against that But you said that you would still vote but you would still be glad that it would it would have equal protection and it would ban abortion So I hear what you're saying My point is again in this scenario that i've given you it is still supporting a and injustice because you and I acknowledge You and I acknowledge that again partiality where Again and how you framed it is is wrong or or Also by saying that we're not going to have death penalty for anyone who murder or at least for the woman who murders the child That is also an injustice, but you would support that my point No, I would go ahead and try to get to my point. Yeah, i'm trying I don't want to for you saying a lot of things that I want to I don't want to miss some of them Go ahead Well, my my point in saying that is because that is my view of pro-life bills That is my view of it, but you say that If frankly, it seems like you're having different rules for yourself when it comes to that particular bill But then when it comes to pro-life people who would say look we are we hate that some babies Right that some babies do not have the protection that others would that we hate that this is prioritizing some babies over others We hate that we are still going to rejoice that some babies are being saved Because one thing that I think abolitionists forget about is that You know is that when the bible says rescue those be taken to the slaughter It does address laws, but not just that as well. All right, so don't just it's not just addressing the ideal perfect bill I'm glad that some babies are being rescued because their reality is is when it comes to the abolition and when it comes to incrementalism or or immediateism Worst case scenario with immediateism. No babies get saved Best worst case scenario with incrementalism some babies get saved So since rovey weighed there have been 32 000 babies that annually that has been that have been saved Um in america. I know some of us will try to dispute this, but this is really dis indisputable This is uh, there's a study that came out from i'm forgetting the school the school in the us That said that birth that the birth rates have gone up by 2.3 Mostly dealing with women who are in college 20 to 24 year olds All right, and that there are now 32 more babies being born Than before and they this is a secular organization that say it's clearly because of these bills, right? So clearly even though unfortunately this is not enough and 32 babies being saved while it's fantastic again. It should be No babies should be killed because of abortion, right? But the reality is I rejoice that while these bills are imperfect while these bills are not on their own enough While I i'm going to speak against the reality of some babies being killed I'm still going to support these bills if it's the best we can offer if it's the best we can do for example like the heartbeat bill I would support that not like you when it came to the bill that I that I shared not because I completely support everything in there But because i'm glad that at least it's going to save some babies and I think again I think you have a more convenient argument for yourself But I think when it comes to the incrementalist you only identify no the the imperfections there instead of also addressing the fact that some babies Are being are being saved and I rejoice in that okay? All right. So, um, not again not convenient biblical categories of definitions of something as a crime versus penology And I think that you you have to contend with that So you'd said a lot there. I'll do my best. I wanted to make sure you got a chance to say all that but when you tried to compare your uh your uh scenario of uh, It's a crime for everybody. It's equal protection, but the category of penology the mother will be shown partiality over here When you tried to compare my saying I would speak prophetically against that and I would call it partiality I would call it an abomination. I would call it sin when you try to compare that scenario to the incremental type Legislation that is by permission of the pro-life legislators and the pro-life movement I think you're you're engaging in a in a very very serious category error because the pro-life legislation that you're referring to that is quote unquote incremental or gradual Is legislation written by pro-life legislators and the pro-life lobby and establishment that is media permission. It is definitionally writing into law partiality and unequates and measures. I'll give you the examples uh the some examples. So In Arizona, we put our bill of equal protection in very simple image of god equal protection for all humans from fertilization When that bill was killed by the pro-life establishment Um She came out and told the legislator legislators not to pass the bill that she didn't want any bill passed that would end to the Criminalization of the mother. She said both mother and baby are victims And so what she did sam is she put a different bill in she wrote it It was passed because she had all the years of the the pro-life legislators and that bill wrote into the bill That you could not kill a child in Arizona in the womb for the reason the express reason that it had a genetic abnormality Which means in that legislation you can kill The healthy kids in the womb, but you can't say that you're killing the child because it has a genetic abnormality Which I pointed out to kathie sam That that bill is a is irrelevant because all a mother has to do in Arizona with that bill Is say oh, I'm not killing it because it has down syndrome. I love down syndrome I'm killing it because it's healthy and I hate it And it wouldn't have mattered. She also said that um, you can kill a child in Arizona, but it has to be given a proper burial Um, of course, you know, let's a legislation that's gone into say you can kill the kids with these methods, but not these methods And so the legislation that you're suggesting that christians can get behind and approve of Is legislation that god? specifically abominates And that's why I say the issue is not incrementalism versus immediately it is does god hate this bill And if he hates it and he abominates it the question is as christians Can we support something that god has told us expressly over and over and over again? He abominates he detests it do not pervert justice show no partiality if those are his commands Then how do we as christians actually say yes, please pass this bill that god hates Well, let let's let's talk about that right before i get to that let's address again. So, um in that so I think um I we've talked about the pro-life Movement, um, you know for the majority. I think the this conversation and I think again We've said that we have some disagreements, but we mostly agree Right. So to me I to me I think since we've established that let's talk about because this this conversation is about Us as christian brothers, right because you have christian Incrementalist and then you have christian immediately, right? I think I know you think it's not about that But I think because i'm a christian and you have many other christians who share my views I think we need to talk about our differences, right? So, um, I don't have an issue talking about the pro-life movement But again, we we mostly agree on that But I think before I move on to I think what is the core of right now? What we're talking about when it comes to these incremental bills and your disagreements on and how you're how you understand it I want to explain to you why I disagree with you on that but before I get to that I think again in a bill that would say a bill that says that It is unjust. It would be wrong to give the penalty to a murderer Got a god abominations that as well, right? It is unjust, but you still said you would support it Right that you was against it, but you would still support it and i know again you're talking about Are you talking about the scenario where we have bills and states that don't deal with pinnology There's deal with the definition of it as a crime and an affordable protection Or are you dealing with it are you dealing again with the scenario with the with the hypothetical situation where it's just a mother who wouldn't give the capital punishment? So again, yeah, I think I've sufficiently addressed that I said I because I specifically said you then tried to compare that scenario In terms of partiality to the incrementalism that you would actually celebrate that you would support That actually writes into the legislation permission you can kill these kids But not these kids and they show partiality in that way Comparing those two scenarios is I think it's again. I think it's a heavy category error to compare those scenarios I think no because remember because the issue is dealing with what is just right? So again, I think that's why I mentioned that it's a bit convenient Right. I'm talking about is it just or unjust right? I'm saying both bills on their own are unjust Both bills on their own are unjust, right? But and you've said that In a sense, you said the same thing as well But you would say that it seems to me because the other bill is better that you would be against Maybe this maybe this is how I'm showing you. I'm showing that I'm trying to be consistent in both scenarios yours and mine and And both of them both scenarios I'm saying that I'm going to speak against the partiality and unequal weights and measures And what I'm saying is that I'm the one in this conversation. That's willing to do that in both scenarios But in your scenario, you're saying that you will support partiality So long as it saves some lives Actually, sir. So as I mentioned earlier, I would speak against the fact that some babies are not protected I mentioned earlier on I would speak against it But I'll still celebrate that some babies are being saved the same that you would celebrate that at least it gives Ecore protection to someone this will help this this will probably help then so I see what you're saying And I think everyone could probably see it and of course I respect your position in terms of I'm glad that you want to see it criminalize and abolish an equal protection And you're giving me a scenario where you have a person like yourself who believes in abolition equal protection as the end goal But you are willing to deal in this category over here of legislation along the way That I would say shows partiality. It's unequal weights and measures I think it's biblically defined as that way my question is Where are the people like you at the legislature because I've never met someone like you at the legislature because who I do meet at the legislature Are the pro-life leaders and legislators who do not have the end goal of abolition And they are only regulating with bills of partiality. So my point is is this you're kind of a unicorn I've never met some I've never I've never met someone like you I've never met someone like you at the legislature. What I'm saying is that is this your position doesn't exist at the legislature Nowhere yeah in this country Yeah, well, but again, I think that's going back to we started off by saying that I just agree with the pro-life movements on on those things so So that so that to me that's kind of going back to our original conversation And I think we need to I would love for people to have my my views you know with more influence and I'm with whatever influence I have I'm trying to To use that Brian brian has a question for you. Sorry if you probably let the people in the thread say something brian Okay, has a question brian gunter actually says a sam saying he says a sees a sam because this is related to what you're saying Name one bill that fits the scenario you describe you can't because it doesn't exist But I can show you hundreds of bills of partiality and you support those why Okay, so I will get to that but again, I've been trying to get the the question that I asked you earlier was to get to Let's talk about these pro-life bills, right? And I've been able to well forgive me. I go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah, so I think um, the reason why I said that is because So often abolitionists so you may say that it doesn't exist and all that but again when it comes to a conversation We're trying to deal with because for me while I care about you know We can care about the rights and laws and everything else as Christians What matters most to us is what is biblical what is just what is unjust what is righteous before God? What is pleasing to God, right? And the reason why I wanted to establish that hypothetical situation is because While it is hypothetical while you can say there hasn't been a bill that has that has happened yet The reality is this we are dealing with context. We're dealing with how do we react to scenarios? Well, how do you react to uh, you know a group of republicans that might introduce a certain law or democrats that might oppose a certain law I say all that because you know If we're if you're going to say and again bear me here because I want to get to the question now If you're going to say that you would support that bill that I that I that I that I mentioned To me it is is absolutely no different than what I have said you might talk about well with panology or whatever It's very different I found it Sam. I found I found the point you missed. Okay. I was trying to figure out where where is he not understanding what I'm saying When I said category error, you're dealing with panology for the perpetrator in your scenario But on your side, you're not dealing with panology for the perpetrator on your side We're talking about actual legislation of partiality that says you can kill these kids, but not these kids So when I said massive category error, that's what I meant in your scenario It's dealing with the panology the punishment of the mother of the criminal But in trying to compare those two things in terms of your support Of bills of partiality that god abominates. I think is a massive category error One is dealing with panology for the criminal and one is actually saying no I will support bills that are bills of permission to kill Yeah, I again, I I understand that's your argument But the reality comes down to again if we say that a Murderer should not be given the death penalty. That's unjust just as partialities on pain knowledge Sure, but it's still unjust. Right. Would you not agree? That's unjust. I've agreed with a hundred times. Uh, of course That's partially so yeah, the penology the penology the punishment but to try to compare to try to compare the question of penology for the criminal the perpetrator to Incremental bills that actually legislate but for the murder of children the crime itself is a massive Sam, it's a massive category error. It just in the arena of logic that doesn't work But sir you keep yeah But with all the respect for you keep saying that but again the issue what I'm addressing is that it's either just or unjust You've acknowledged it's unjust just as just as partiality is but if we're allowed to think if we're allowed to think in categories Which we should we should be able to think of categories then we should be able to make the distinction that scripture makes between Defining something as a sin or a crime or a sin anochrome and then something that is dealing with penology That's those are different categories and scripture deals in those different definitions of categories So sir, but but this gets us to the main issue What do you think everyone's waiting for actually? Can we do this? Can we can we do this? We're fast to game game are you there game? Yeah, can we do like a like a pause screen and give Sam a chance to get a drink of water? Maybe take a bathroom break and then me as well. Oh, yeah Can we do that Sam? Yeah, good idea, right? Okay, so we'll we'll just take everyone just a two-minute break And I want to give Sam the floor and we come back to to get to the questions and things he wanted to do with in terms of these Incremental bills and those sorts of things. I'm gonna give him a give him the floor and allow him to ask everything who wants to ask So we'll just take a two-minute break here right game. All right. Thank you All right guys, we're back. Thanks for letting us take that break there for a minute So I'll just start this by saying and then give the floor to Sam I think the confusion here and that's why I said it's not between incrementalism versus immediateism is that abolitionists do believe in righteous increments for example Probably only going to be able to abolish abortion in one state first. So it might be Louisiana first That's a righteous increment. It's it's not the whole country. It's a righteous increment But we do it consistently according to God's standards without partiality And so we believe in in a righteous increment, but it must be something that is pleasing to God So if we write a bill Is that bill pleasing to God? Does it show partiality? And that's the key issue where I said it's between justice and and injustice not Incrementalism versus immediateism because all abolitionists realize that we have to have righteous increments to make our way But they have to be righteous. They can't be unrighteous and that's the key issue and I'll give it to you, Sam Okay, so a lot of what you just said you've mentioned rightly that this is a matter of justice versus injustice Um, and please let me finish my thought here But you've mentioned that you would support a a an an an unjust bill if it has some of the um if it if he penalizes women has protection and Bands abortion and the reason why I raised that point is because that view while we may talk about how it's a category Kind of a chemistry category error. Yeah. Yeah while while you're saying that I don't think it really addresses the point The point is is it an unjust bill or not? That's all I'm trying to get to right and you've acknowledged as an unjust bill regardless of the category error It doesn't matter. It's still the reality is an unjust bill that you would support I know I said I would prophetically speak against it and I said I would speak against it I said I would support I would support the lack of partiality and the consistency in the criminalization and equal protection But I would prophetically speak against with god's word the partiality is shown to the mother Uh and and again and so everyone's uh people are just jumping in what what and this is where you I think we need to get because I think we've We sufficiently we sufficiently both address this that and we I am I just want to say while I'm addressing what you said in terms and and I think when I said category error Is because it is a category error to to compare the penology of the criminal To what you're advocating for is that we support bills that actually legislate that you can kill certain kids, uh, but not others Um, it doesn't again address the the obvious which is that you've mentioned that you why do we speak against it? You would support that unjust bill, which abolitionist claim they would never do Right, and that's what i'm trying to get to so so now we can get to why I would support a bill For the same reason that you would while I speak against the unjust nature of not protecting every single Preborn child. I would still say that I would support that both of the very same reason because I believe that it is more Uh, it does much more good than harm It saves some babies and I will rejoice in that even though I I will also speak prophetically against that bill Knowing that that bill is not good enough that that bill is inherently unjust, but now here's what I think is important It's unjust because it's not protect so it doesn't protect all babies, but I do not believe it's partiality Here's why um you and I seemingly have different different definition of the word partiality or the meaning of partiality I don't judge partiality by the outcome. I judge it by the intention Um, so james two talks about um Actually, let me I mean I should quickly read it. I don't want to butcher the text. I think it's james two verse four Uh, where uh where james, um says Have you not then this of course referring to how you treat people differently based on whether they are wealthy or or poor You know in terms of you know, they're seeding and things like that and then Um james says have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts, right? So I so that's how I understand and I've addressed this a lot when it comes to the issue of critical race theory and things like that That when it comes to what we how we define partiality or racism is not just by outcome. It is not just by Um, um by even just distinctions. It is by the motivation behind it as well It is by for example. It is by the evil thoughts involved there That's very important because in my view it depends so when let's say a heartbeat bill for example I don't believe it shows partiality because of the intention behind it. Now so if if if there is uh, so I oftentimes say that when it comes to Uh this issue in some states. I am a I'm an abolitionist or an immediateist and then in some states or in some nations like canada I am an incrementalist in canada. We have zero laws on on abortion in 1989 interestingly enough Um, there was a bill that would have been at the time the most pro-life bill Or one of them in the world, but groups so much abolitionist actually voted against it They said that no No law is better than um than a bad law and since then 1989 there have been zero bills in canada abolitionists oftentimes claim that the reason why you don't have Um, it banned on abortion the reason why you don't have uh, abolitionist bills because of pro-life movement But if that was the case then you would you would imagine that what had happened in canada 40 years ago It would have led to an abolition in canada, but it hasn't happened It actually made things worse because there has been nothing if you even asked the abolitionist in canada The majority of them will tell you that Um america is much more right for an abolitionist bill than canada is and I think that's because You actually have the pro-life movement doing some groundwork to make an abolitionist bill possible in the future Um, the pro-life movement doesn't want abolition. So so so we've addressed that many times already, but let me just get to my point True, but but but but my point is is that um, so you have an abolitionist bill Uh, sorry you have a pro-life bill in canada that was vetoed by a volitionist So oftentimes you have a volitionist who complain about you know as you did right now that the pro-life movement killed some of these bills Well, it's has also happened in other nations like canada, right? But now get to the partiality aspect. The reason why I don't think it's partiality is this in canada. You have about 90 Sorry, I'm so dumb. You have nine out of ten people in canada who are Radically pro-abortion, but you have about roughly 13 percent of the population who are pro-life But that 90 percent of the nation also says they would have they'll support some kind of a bill On abortion some kind of ability that would have that would restrict abortion Right. So it's not I don't believe it's partiality for me to say look I want to save some babies I want to rescue some babies from the slaughter. I want to rescue some babies and while I want to rescue all I know in a nation like canada that is not going to happen right now But I want to save as many as possible. So I'm going to introduce a bill that would save some Yeah, that's not partiality. That is me trying to save as many as possible. And I'm quickly get to this Well, you're doing a lot of it had to respond to some of this for others Okay, just some of it just some of it. Okay. There's a lot there I've allowed you, you know, I've not gotten you know chance to really get to what I Sam if you bring up so many different points I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna miss I you said it's not partiality Those bills would be partiality by biblical definition And I think what you're advocating for is pragmatism over principle And that I think is it has to be said Is that you're saying I don't think it's possible and so let's do what's pragmatic I think we need to be prophets and operate on principle and use the word of god and trust god with his gospel and the authority of his word Let me just say that so but going back to I was actually I had it pulled up here I didn't even have to open my bible James chapter two because I think James chapter two is is a significant Section of scripture that just isn't tandem with all the texts in the old testament and the and god's law word That forbid partiality or perversions of justice That abominate unequal weights and measures and partiality in James two He says at the start of verse one my brothers show No partiality as you hold the faith in our lord. Jesus christ the lord of glory Now I think if we're we shouldn't just try to figure out what does partiality mean Partiality is very clearly defined in scripture It's to regard regard the face of another in other words have a favorite face You're picking a face and saying I will favor you over you. That's partiality And so um, so of course James goes into discussion about the poor man and you sit here And he says something interesting here though because you quoted it, but yeah, I think you you went the wrong way with it Um, it says have you not then through what they're doing Then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts So it's the action. It's what is actually taking place first And then leads to the accusation of the evil thoughts So he goes on to say if you really fulfill the royal law according to scripture You show love your neighbor as yourself. You are doing well, but if you show partiality You are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors This is one of the premier passages that christian abolitionists would say to you as a brother Brother there's no way to honor this word from god and support and advocate for The bills that literally legislate partiality because that is sam what they do. They I'm not sure if you've read these bills I have Over and over and over And they legislate they legislate partiality they say and you brought up the heartbeat one Then i'll stop talking after this the heartbeat bill when you say it's not partiality It is by definition partiality you're saying I will regard the human being with a heartbeat But I will not regard the human beings without one But I thought that the christian worldview said that he knits us together in our mother's womb We are fearfully and wonderfully made and we are emago day who from fertilization So it is the definition of partiality to say heartbeat Regard your face partiality no heartbeat Less than human that is partiality, but sir that that's that's not true, sir I think the way you're I think to say less than human is just not true So that's part of the point i'm trying to make I think again That's very very um, but i'm glad you mentioned that because it would be partiality If the bill were if if if the if the position was that the preborn child or the or the child without the heartbeat Isn't a human, but that's not that that's not what it is. Right. We are trying to so we're trying to save as many as we can Sam, would you go back to that spot? Can you explain that? So i'm letting you talk sam sam i'm letting you sound i want you to explain it Sam sam sam relax brother i'm asking you to explain further what you said Sam please explain i'm going to give you the floor Explain further what you said in response to my saying it is partiality and I said Okay, you're not human what I meant by that is that human beings Are protected by law in our nation persons human beings are protected by law That's what I was referring to so explain what you mean how that's not partiality go on. I'll give you the floor I just want more more definition. What do you mean that that's what do you mean by that? Yeah, so what i'm trying to say is is that as I mentioned earlier that the intention is what matters So for example, I'm glad you mentioned James too again. See if in that scenario, right? For example, I'm sure they've been okay. So let me just say this so if in that scenario, right that that James is talking about It's not the it's not the it's not the fact that they're just happy They're just happens to be that they're saying that okay you rich people stay here you poor people stay here, right? You know that's that that in itself is not partiality What makes it partiality is that they're doing so because they believe that the That the that the rich person deserves and should sit here and the poor person should sit there I think it's impossible to to ignore that. Oh, that's perfect. Yeah, so that that's perfect. Your explanation. Your explanation is perfect It's perfect because it defines it defines exactly the scenario. What's happening with the heartbeat bill Sir if so if I may continue what i'm trying to say what i'm trying to say then is again the intentions what matters here We are dealing with people who are radically pro-abortion, right now again if the if if I mentioned before if we did not if if the pro-life movement we're introducing these bills in a vacuum If they were not dealing with pro-abortion people that also have to vote as well too, right? Then I would agree with you that's partiality because if you have the complete power to do so and you're not that's wrong That's why I've said in some states, right in some states you have you have Compromised so-called pro-life politicians who because they're thinking about their own political interests do not protect The babies that they should be protecting, right? But if in a place like Canada If I know that the only opportunity I have to give some babies legal rights is to introduce a A pro-life bill that would be like a heartbeat bill or something like that. That is not partiality because of my intention Now, let me explain why this is very important to to understand Let's look at for example in Israel, right? You have Israel and Hamas right now Obviously what's going on Israel Has 52 sorry to 152 of its of its citizens right now in hostage By by Hamas. They just recently have been able to rescue 112 of the of the of the of the hostages Almost all of them are children and I think actually I think all of them are children and women And it's been very obvious that they've been prioritizing the women and the children Is that partiality? Explain that a little further. I'm trying to make the connection. You just made the way you just said it So okay, so in Israel right and in Hamas issue, right? Israel has So hamat has has 252 israeli's You know in hostage Israel has negotiated for the rescue of 112 of the hostages almost all of them are children and And and women this is because they're they're trying to they've been prioritizing those people Because they they recognize that those people are easier to rescue than the men is that partiality Now it's again another category area you're talking about a situation where you have the preservation of human life happening And the understood worldview of an image bearer of god that you The men preserve the lives of women and children first men sacrifice their lives It's an understood image of god thing in us that we we rescue the women and children first That is our pattern and it has something to do with saying that you are more here's the category I'm going to give it to you the category error is that we're talking about Defining someone as human and not human and worthy of protection in your scenario. They're all human They're all human and we want to as men rescue the women and children major category error Now what you said a lot you know you said a lot's my turn now You said a lot sam sam sam Audiences even begging sam their audience is even begging for you to let me have a moment to speak here So here here Sam sam no no sam sam i'm going to respond to the audience Brother brother brother. There's people in there. There's people in the audience disagreeing with me here too brother So um, but I am gonna I need to respond you can't go on for five minutes with 10 different points We're never gonna get anywhere. So you you try to um Preserve your honestly interesting definition of partiality it sam. It's not biblical Biblically biblically defined while i'm telling what the text says partiality is to regard the face of another I can't invent what it means the text is very clear showing partiality is as biblically defined We don't get to decide how to define it But you said here's the scenario you said james is saying It's partiality because the person is thinking this you said Because you are rich. I will treat you in this way and because you are poor I will treat you in this way and you said that because that's what they think and that's their intentions and motives You're rich. So i'll give you this and you're not rich. So i'll give you this you said that's partiality But with a heart with a heartbeat bill sam you're not going to avoid your very own definition Because you have a heartbeat i'll protect you and because you don't i will not protect you by your own definition sam That's partiality No, sir. So again, so i will i'll get to that, but i didn't get to finish the point because Again, you mentioned category because we've addressed our already. So i want to get to that i don't know Well, let's commit to condensing so let's commit to condensing and not doing 10 points in one session. Okay, condense. Okay. Okay. Okay So so again, you you've you pointed out category error I think oftentimes the kind of dodge the question to to deal with the the core of what i'm saying Right by your even even in this definition even what you've just said right now If you define partiality as strictly making distinctions strictly just that right? No matter what the intent is no matter the context no matter what if that is a definition I didn't say that. I didn't say that. Well, well, well, well, again If if from what you've just said from what i heard you even if you think i am not summarizing it Well from what you said by your own definition because what the israelis are doing is they're saying if you have Certain anatomy if you have a certain age, we're going to prioritize you now you might claim Well, there's one way that you know it includes murder and one where it's actually preserving Although i would say well, we're trying to preserve life through with the increment with the incremental bills as well So it depends again how you want to frame it but the reality is in both scenarios we're trying to preserve life Right so again help me understand why when it when it comes to the israeli Um house's issue why that's not partiality based on your definition. Yeah, okay. I didn't say making distinctions Was partiality making distinctions is something we have to do as as image bearers of god every single day What I said was biblically defined partiality would be to regard the face or have a favorite face in a scenario Right that's partiality in judgment is is hey, this guy's rich. So i'm going to pervert justice Uh for the poor guy because this guy's the rich guy. He's my favorite face. That's partiality, right? So that's the key thing So it's not it's not showing this it's not showing distinctions Um, it's not saying that there are distinctions so but i was saying just what yeah what i was saying is that when i said category error Is in the one category we're talking about bills that legislate you can kill these children, but not these children That's how the bills that's how the bills are Put into law that by permission kill these but no permission to kill these though. That's one category Then you bring up a situation that's a category of all human beings All respected all worthy of life All trying to be protected and in this category over here We're trying to save some of these children or these these people these human beings all of them are human from these terrorists And so let's go for the women and children and that is i'm saying a category error We're talking about two different things they don't match in the one scenario you have what is common amongst humanity Save the women and children men sacrifice their lives in that way, but that category can't be blended with a category You're suggesting that says that we should advocate for and celebrate and help Bills that god abominates where they actually deal with unequal weights and measures They acquit the guilty. They show partiality They say if you have a heartbeat you're worthy of life if you don't have a heartbeat. We're going to kill you You can't compare those things Yes, you can so i think again you're dodging the heart of the question the question Sam we need to we need to some brother brother stop brother rofast To if we're going to show affection to each other in respect we have to we have to stop with the dodging Okay, so allegations the allegations of dodging and and all those things. I don't think that's helpful in this discussion Let's not make it about personalities. Let's deal with the issues. I didn't mean to make it personality I didn't mean to i'm not trying to accuse you. I just meant that you're not addressing my question. I didn't mean that i've addressed it I've addressed it abundantly. Yeah. Well, I think again. So again forgive me I'm not trying to accuse you of of like any kind of sin and like that I'm just saying that I don't think you're really dealing with my question. You may disagree with that But i'm thinking you are so what i'm trying to say is this is that again. This is about partiality, right? We have disagreements on the law aspects and all that but remember this this topic is about partiality I'm trying to get us to define partiality and from what you said I think that is an issue with when it comes to the issue of the hostages, right? Because they You know, they are saying that look we are going to choose So we're going to prioritize certain people over others, right? And what that means is they are also saying that look these people are going to be um More in danger with hamas as in the men because we're going to prioritize the women And my point is that is the exact same reasoning. No, it's not the same reasoning. It's not the same reasoning It's a it's a It's a it's a category error. It's not the same scenario. It can't be logically connected to the two The point but sir again, you keep saying that but I think the point is this the point is is that in both scenarios We are trying to prioritize the people that we believe we're possibly able to rescue Before we can save them all. Okay, you may disagree with that but that is the point two points Two points out of making it hasn't really actually been addressed by you And I'd I'd like you to get to it And that is that the pro-life legislators and lobby and organizations that you refer to Are not actually working for equal protection and abolition. They they don't want it. They fight against it They have officially come out and set it They've written again signed on the dotted line and what they do Engage in and maybe this is where you can get to this Scripture says to show no partiality and judgment. Okay, so no partiality and judgment It says that differing weights. Sorry Unequal weights and measures are both alike and abomination to the lord. Okay, so let's just put an example If I have a bill that says you can kill the healthy babies in the womb But you cannot kill the handicap children in the womb Is that an abomination to god? If that yeah that building abomination the same way that the other bill that I mentioned as a hypothetical is also an abomination as well But context would matter. Right. So that's why I'm trying to get at the context does matter here Um, I don't think anyone can can can try to make an argument that any bill that allows for Some babies to be killed or I also say in the same way in my scenario that I gave you earlier that to say that Um that we shouldn't penalize a ocean give women the death penalty that they can say that that's that's just both scenarios are unjust However, we're dealing with the with context here. Right if if the alternative right is that all babies get killed I want to save as many as possible. And I think you can't ignore that context I think too often the pro the the abolitionist movement ignores the context and you know what I will I will use this argument Um as an example of to what I'm trying to say. This is why this immediately be the core of what I'm trying to get at Abolition is Um by the by you know by that you're very named the title You're saying that you are this generations version of the original abolitionist and I think that's actually very much incorrect I think this is important to address Would you have voted for Global forces slave trade act. Oh, hold on. Hold on Kelly We're doing it. There. I we keep you're going to a lot of different issues. Let's let's work through them Well, so I answered the question you asked me if I would support and I said yes I would support that bill because of the context and I'm trying to explain that by asking you a question to see I want to make sure we zero in though and because there's a there's a lot of things brought being brought out at once And so I want to I want to make sure that we're we're actually addressing them and not missing them So when I said is that bill an abomination you said yes So a bill that says you can kill the children without a heartbeat, but you you can't kill the ones with a heartbeat Um, uh, you can kill the healthy children, but not the children with a genetic abnormality Um, you can't you can't kill them because they're black You know those sorts of things. Um, you acknowledge that god abominates those And so I the my the reason I was asking you that is that what you're advocating for Is again, you're you're a unicorn because the pro-life establishment doesn't want what you want So when they write these bills these legislate this legislation, they're not even aimed at your goal They don't want what you want, but they are legislating bills of partiality And so I guess the main thing I have to ask you is Do you believe that god is glorified in us actually engaging in things that he declares a whoa on An iniquitous decree and he threatens legislators and rulers who do it So should we support that and go along with it or should we be prophetic? Condemit and be faithful in the midst of an adulterous generation like I mean, that's kind of where i'm getting at You're saying we should go along with it because it's pragmatic because it's what works for now Yes, god abominates it, but we should actually just do it I'm saying I think we need to be prophetic and speak god's word in the truth and trust him to change hearts and minds Rather than being pragmatic and not as prayerful or trusting Yeah, I I will I'll speak. Um, I don't can speak very fast and maybe I'll speak slower and then maybe that'll be that'll be helpful That's okay. Here's the problem. All right, but here's the problem I speak very fast. We've been going for two hours We should probably end this soon because we have been going for two hours. We're both probably I didn't realize it too fast. It's been two hours. I know I've been enjoying it. Yeah, yeah And again, I'm sorry, sir I didn't mean I sincerely did not mean the dodging the question thing to be and I just meant that well You owe me dinner the next time you come out. Okay, that would be great. All right. All right, but um But um, yeah, so I've answered that question. I think several times right that I think again That's why I I know that is in many ways the the core of this very issue That's why I asked you the question earlier about my hypothetical Um, um, you know scenario, right and you acknowledge that in that situation. It's an abomination to say that The the women should not reach your death penalty, but you would still Support the bill while speaking prophetically against the it's evil nature or it's abominable nature And that's the same scenario. That's the same thing that I would do That's what I'm trying to say that Any the heartbeat bill I would celebrate that it would save some babies But I'm still going to speak prophetically against Um, the nature that it still allows for some babies. I I despise the nonsense about Um, this whole this idea that uh, the abortion should be uh acceptable if it threatens a woman's life It's abortion is never justified for any reason. It never threatens a woman's life. There's always Um, um, a opportunity to induce, uh, to induce labor. So again, I do not I would not want to celebrate The the abominable nature of a bill, but I would still support it in the same way that you would in my scenario, right? No, I think you understand me. Yeah, I think the audience Yeah, the audience But you make an accusation there and so when I address it Not address it. I've addressed it probably at least a half a dozen times What I told you is I would speak prophetically against the penology of the one And I would say I would say that the criminalization there the equal protection there is good and glorifying to god But i'm not the one who legislates and so i'm saying my duty as a christian in that scenario Is to speak prophetically with the word of god against the penology and the partiality shown there I've said that I've said that at least a half a dozen times Yes, you have but again, it also missing my point. I wouldn't be the one introducing that bill either Right, so i'm saying that I would also do the exact same thing. I would speak against the unjust nature of the Of the bills, right and then I would also say that I would also be glad that it does it would save some babies I'm glad that 32,000 babies have been have been saved Because of incremental bills. I rejoicing that right now again the question that was asking earlier. I think this is an important thing Right, would you support the slave trade act by will be forced? Describe what you mean by that? So the slave trade act by will be forced it it banned I mean historically it's been known as banning the slave trade Right, would you support it? I would I would have spoken consistently with the christian worldview Which is what will be forced tried to do in terms of the definition of what a black man and a black woman is and bringing the biblical worldview into collision with it And uh, and the fact that will be forced may have had inconsistencies is is not I mean I think germane even to this discussion. I mean we're talking about something that is very that is very very different in a way And so I would speak. I would say this I think our duty is to be consistent faithful and prophetic in the midst of any kind of holocaust or injustice And so I would have wanted to be a corrective force in the midst of the abolition of slavery To say that we need to hold in god's word. We need to preach the truth We need to make sure the gospel is premier here the authority of christ the word of god We need to use god standards here and we need to not compromise I think my main objection to even in you're bringing up the will before a discussion on the slave trade act I think the main conflict here is between principle versus pragmatism because you've said over and over again It's not possible and this is all we can do And so we should accept what is a an abomination in god's eyes because that's all we've got I want to say that I think and I know you agree with this fundamentally That the gospel is the power of god for salvation that the word of god is sharper than any two-edged sword And I believe that the only way that we're going to see transformation in the future is by being faithful with the truth today And so I don't think we should approach this issue as the pro-life establishment has devoid of christ Divided the word of god devoid of god standards because we think we can just try to save some I think and this is sam. This is just a very personal part of me I think one of the reasons we've been dealing and i'll shut up here I'll shut up after this one of the reasons we've been dealing with the holocaust as long as we have in this nation Is because of precisely your position pragmatism Over against principle and I think that if we had been faithful from the beginning as the church speaking the truth Without compromise pointing people to god's word warning them of final judgment and standing on god's standards We would have seen much more fruit than we have now I think this holocaust is being extended because of pragmatism and the lack of faithfulness That's my thing Yeah, so I I strongly disagree with that because again, that's the The abolitionists have been saying that for a long time, but again, I think nations like canada proved that's not true Um, if what you were saying was true, then the abolitionist mindset that that that led to that pro-life bill Being vetoed 40 years ago if that was true, then you would be seeing abolitionism growing in canada You would see a massive change in canada, but it hasn't actually led to um the opposite Right now with that being said what I wanted to say the reason why I mentioned before this is very very important You've framed this as an issue over principle versus pratism pratism pratism. I can't even talk We'll end this after this. Yeah, um That's really important because here's the interesting thing we were forced was extremely pragmatic But I don't think anyone the two of us would say that he wasn't principled Right and um this this is why I'm I'm mentioning him to I guess now to end this um this conversation that I've enjoyed But here's the issue is that will be force Again, you abolitionists, you know revere him rightly so I at least immediate to revere him But he was an incrementalist he was a gradualist infamously He was because first of all his colleagues in the antislavery society were introduced to dub and act which reduced the number of slaves on a ship Right that he supported that was uh, um, it wasn't a la da equeno who who who introduced it and he supported it He I just had some very great words about it afterward as well too. He also supported I think was the foreign slave trade act. I think which basically um said that um british uh citizens could continue with the slave trade but just not on british soil And then especially his slave trade act again. Nobody would say that he's not principled. Nobody said that he does not truly care About um about slavery nobody I think would dare say that he had any role in extending The slavery to slave trade as some would accuse the pro-life movement as doing when it comes to the issue of abortion And yet his slave trade act included something called the um the uh, apprenticeship clause which basically said that it would ban All slavery well not slavery actually, but the slave trade he allows slavery to continue Which he was actually criticized for by I think it's elizabeth hayrick who claimed That because he was a gradualist that uh, he should repent and he disagreed he disagree with her but nevertheless um he he he allowed for the the Sorry, the the clause in the slave trade because he had no other alternative Right that he was he was forced to allow for the slave trade to continue in sirely own very few people talk about this But because he passed that bill it eventually led to the slave trade Being abolished also in sirely own as well, too If we're going to say that people like myself who support incrementalism that we are being Uh pragmatic over being principled then the same would have to be said about the very person that abolitionists are standing on Right if we're going to say that he is a pragmatic because he allowed for some exceptions For the ultimate goal of true abolition of of abolishing all the slave trade Then that is a problem Fibrillation is today not for me i'm not not not for me i the title for me abolitionists is definitional of what I want to happen There are a lot of bad abolitionists in history Um, there are people that I think are horrible that were quote-unquote abolitionists and I don't want to I don't I don't have any desire to be uh To be connected to the abolitionists of of of slavery in terms of I want to be just like them where they had failures They need to be called out if there were failures if there's failures of me and needs to be called out So I really have no affinity to say I really need to be seen among them Um, I think the issue is in terms of principle is something wrong in my methodology and I think that There's something severely wrong in in in you know, I love you, but I'll say it to you because we have to be true through each other I think there's something severely wrong in your methodology where you will um say things like it's just not possible So let's be pragmatic. I think scripture would say there's another way. There is a way we ought to do this with the word of god trusting in god We have to do it according to principle. I think we're called not to compromise over the truth and um I think that when you talk about What we have presented in these bills They are bills that are presented that are the regulation of abortion and they are bills of unequal weights and measures and they are bills of partiality That's what god would call them and in the end here's the main point in the end I called you a unicorn because you're saying you want abolition and equal protection and it to be a crime for everybody And I keep thinking when I hear these smash mouth incrementalists and brothers like you Where are you guys because you don't exist at the legislature? There's nobody like you at the legislature the people who are the legislature believe this Women are victims of abortion and require our compassion and support as well as ready access to counseling and social services in the days weeks months and years following an abortion As national and state pro-life organizations representing tens of millions of pro-life men women and children across the country. Let us be clear We state Unequivocally that we do not support any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women and we stand firmly Opposed to include such penalties and legislation. That's what they believe and so my point is Underneath this whole system this fight against abortion at the legislature is an industry that doesn't agree with you They don't want what you and I want That we want together and when they write the legislation they're writing they're writing it with Protections for the woman to do it with immunity and impunity and they're writing it with partiality kill these humans But not these humans. God abominates all of that And so my question is how do I live faithfully in the midst of a holocaust? Do I compromise with evil? Do I support something that God specifically hates and abominates Or do I just stand in the midst of that evil and adulterous generation with the word of God the truth without compromise And I speak prophetically against even those pro-life legislators that are writing these iniquitous decrees What I'm saying is and I read it at the beginning brother And I know you agree with it a hundred percent were brothers together on this in Isaiah chapter 10 The way that God speaks to people who write iniquitous decrees is the way that I think we should speak He threatens them with his justice He warns them of the judgment to come And I think that that's how we need to speak against this and I think that if we're faithful without compromise That's when we'll see transformation because people's hearts aren't going to change in this nation If we actually How do I put this people's hearts aren't going to change in this nation sam in my mind If we are training them that yes, there are certain humans you're allowed to kill And I think that if we stand boldly and firmly and consistently Their hearts will be changed because they're going to be hearing the truth consistently and without compromise We can't teach our culture that it's okay to kill certain humans And write that into legislation as pro-lifers And so brother, I think that's probably a good way to end the show today. We can talk again though. I don't mind you coming back Can I can I have a reply to that? Yeah, you have a last word there. Yes. Sorry. Yeah, okay so As you mentioned that you and I have the same end goal, but I think some of what you said is incorrect, right? I know you disagree, but I think Based on the scenario that I gave you before you've you've mentioned that you would compromise on a bill Um, you know to a certain degree, right? Not it's not some not some bills, but you would you would compromise on the bill that would um that would um that would ban um that would that would not allow for um a A woman to serve death penalty. I know you that you you believe the category error But I think again when it comes to the issue of justice or injustice Right that you have compromised in that way and I would say that it is a political compromise Not a moral compromise. I would say that and since you would say that you would speak against it But vote for it that you would agree with that. I think that when it comes to incremental bills, I disagree with what you said that I don't believe we're teaching society to be to think this is acceptable Just as well before it's not teach society to think that Uh banning the slave trade alone or banning the slave trade in uh everywhere except for certain areas in the world or the british empire Was also um how we're supposed to be rest. I'll disagree with you on that. Um, um But I think again this this conversation. I'm glad we've had this conversation I think this conversation is a matter of strategy right now Obviously we should care about justice and the bible is it does not uh the bible does not ignore That we should promote justice that we should hate what is evil and love what is good And I think that um again this conversation. I appreciate you, but you've not you've not convinced me that Um that an immediateist bill is is the only way to go Um, especially because again, I'm as I mentioned earlier. This has been my last word on this is that um, and abolitionist bill Worst case scenario. No babies gets um get saved a incremental bill Worst case scenario. Some babies get saved such as 32 000 babies annually since rovey weighed and I rejoice in that and I celebrate that All right, brother It's been great talking to you man. Love you man. Thanks for being with me today. All right, bless You brother. You owe me dinner. Sure. I do So I'll see when you come out again. We'll hang out together All right, all right. All right, gave you can disconnect that and I'll finish up with a couple of different things We got to do some housekeeping here um So I hope this has been a blessing everybody. I obviously we could do this in a number of different ways You know, we could do this in such a way where we do a formal debate setting and actually would be great I mean like I would love to do a formal public moderated debate with a brother like douglas wilson on this issue um and um I'd be willing to do that in a heartbeat. I think that would actually help in many ways in terms of having some moderation But I thought it'd be good actually to have this conversation with my brother Sam because I wanted to do in such a way that hopefully we can show that look we can have this conversation as brothers with respect with gentleness with love and We can even have moments of you know heated disagreement and still you know leave the the situation uh Loving each other and caring about each other and so Um, so anyway, that's all we did this way. We can obviously have more in the future um And uh, sorry just sending messages here. So, uh, okay final final thoughts from my perspective And I'm sure sam will maybe write something up and and and give his final thoughts um, I think that one of my the challenges in this discussion was uh When you know sam would ask me the question like he tried to give the scenario of of you know total criminalization equal protection But in the penology section over here, you've got the woman who's you know, she's uh, she's shown partiality in the judge in the judge in the justice Uh for the penology what I was saying was that I would speak prophetically against it I would I think I repeated that numerous times I would speak god's word against it. I would condemn that um and I said I would I would of course Um support the category over here of equal protection and making it a crime But the penology over here, I would be speaking against it and so I just didn't seem to connect with sam Um, and maybe I had a hard time articulating it. Uh, and that so I'll take the blame for that if that's true Uh, but I I do believe that as a category error to try to compare that scenario to the scenario over here Which we're actually dealing with and that is that the pro-life establishment doesn't even agree with sam and doesn't want what he wants They don't want abolition. They don't want equal protection. They fight against it They sit down against me at legislatures to fight against it. And so, uh, that's the real scenario We're actually dealing with they don't want that it's never going to happen in their minds. They don't it's not part of their worldview and When they're legislating they are legislating not to ultimately end it They want her to have impunity and immunity and so when they do legislate they legislate with pure partiality And that's what it is. It can't it can't be avoided. That's the definition of it You can kill these ones but not these ones and for these reasons because this one can feel pain And this one cannot feel pain or this one I can hear a heartbeat. I found one and uh, this one no heartbeat So, uh, this one can die This is what they write and sam admitted that that's an abomination And so the key issue here is in terms of are we going to let the bible Uh, tell us how to do this in terms of methodology Do we go to the bible to tell us how does this play out? How should we actually approach this? You know, whatever failures happen in the past or in the time of slavery with any particular abolitionists is ultimately irrelevant to me today Because what we're facing is a holocaust and what we have to say is how does god want us to end this Do we do it with pragmatism? Do we just sort of put the best minds together to say what's the best we can get and how can we use this? Maybe maybe what's what's a slogan campaign? We can use Should we do that? Should we try to change people's minds with slogans like a abortion kills love? abortion kills love Um, there are two victims in abortion the mother and the baby and these are the signs that are being held up in Ireland when we were in the republic of ireland, uh trying to Stop them from legalizing when it was considered a crime and murder Uh, the pro-life movement swooped in there with their slogans Abortion kills love there are two victims of abortion. Do we do that? Do we just put together the best minds to say? What's a good marketing strategy? Uh, how do we do this or do we go about it? As christians standing on the word of god saying god says you show not pervert justice God's word says you don't even delay justice. You don't distort justice. You show no partiality and judgment God says that unequal weights and measures are an abomination to him God says whoa to those who who make iniquitous decrees That's what god says and so do we want to approach this? Honoring and glorifying god and having clean hands before him in the midst of the conflict I think that's the goal of the christian abolitionists is to say I want my hands clean before god I want to glorify and honor him and I want to trust him in the midst of this holocaust And I want to do what he says to do. He says he abominates this So I ask myself the question Do I want to stand before him as a believer as his child? Um for reward or lack of reward Having uh supported something and pursued a methodology which he specifically says he hates and abominates He calls it detestable And I think when you think pragmatically as sam did numerous times in the conversation pragmatically rather than principle and biblically Pragmatically you will end up actually supporting things that god abominates calls evil and we're doing that We say in the name of the preservation of life and justice But do we do that? Do we do evil so that good may come is that how we're supposed to do this Or are we supposed to actually as christians stand on the truth and trust god Um, he brings up the scenario in canada and i'm i'm sorry. I have to just say and no sam's not here to you know Argue back about this, but you know, we don't we can only go for so long Um, I don't know much about the situation in canada, but i'll tell you right now It doesn't look like there's been a lot of abolitionists operating in canada And I wouldn't say that the people who had the abolitionist mindset were like, you know reigning and ruling in canada and it just totally failed I want to say that I think the problem with canada and what you have in canada is the pulpit itself and the lack of prophetic ministry in canada I think the problem in canada is the lack of prophetic ministry not that they had so much of it and it just didn't work It's that there's not been consistency either in canada or in this nation And that problem primarily and I said at the beginning of the show take responsibility where we can take Responsibility where we fail let's admit to the failure and let's fix it like if in the reform community People say hey you guys can be arrogant real jerks know it all's Loveless graceless cold. I'm gonna say you know I see that a lot of that too You know we should take responsibility for that and in this case on the issue of abortion Take responsibility where we can take responsibility the problem is the pulpit first and foremost the problem is the pulpit We're not teaching the truth on this issue from the pulpit. We're not speaking the truth with boldness in the pulpit and so the problem is also pastors not engaging in the public square on this issue and so the pulpit is the failure and I would say That's the problem in both canada and the united states of america the problem is the pulpit and that bleeds down into the congregations There's no faithfulness in the pulpit and so there's no faithfulness in the congregation And so that goes nowhere in the culture because there's no message coming out no boldness come out coming out And truth has fallen in the public square therefore there's injustice and unrighteousness as a 59 And so much more could be done. Look, I know and I'm looking forward to it. I hope it happens someday I you know, I've even challenged scott clusendorf to do a moderated public debate Which would be a much better setting and scenario to really get down to the issues and make sure that everything's timed You have to move fast and stay on topic. I know that Um, I'd love to deal with dug scott never responded. I've asked him numerous times and he he won't do this debate Um, I've I'd love to deal with dug Uh, but in this setting today wanted at least have an opportunity to have this discussion And sam has had it elsewhere And so we thought it would be good to do it in this way So I hope it was a blessing everybody much more could have been said and done Uh, but this was planned to be more like a discussion slash debate and hopefully it's been helpful to all of you guys Encourage everybody to go to apology of studios.com and uh sign up for all access partner with this ministry So we can do more and more and more uh, and please do go to end abortion now.com To go get your church signed up to go out to preach the gospel to save lives at the abortion mills You'll join almost a thousand churches globally that are out saving lives at the abortion mills If these ballot measures go through in these states across our union Um, we are only at the very beginning it seems of this unbelievable holocaust. It'll be the bloodiest and most brutal time Uh, we've ever seen, uh, and that's post row And so that's what's happening right now. We need your help. We need your help prayer for prayerfully We need your help. We also need your help financially Please go to end abortion now.com. Please go give we're working right now in state of arizona I count it. I can't right now announce everything that we're doing Uh, but let me just say we will announce it to you when the time comes, but we're working very very hard right now Against the ballot measure happening in our state Um, we are still trying to work to get a bill of equal protection back into the legislature here We have that still happening across the country with faithful Pastors and other ministries that we are helping and then they're helping us And so it's happening across the country, but brothers and sisters you need to know that the most damage in this fight is coming from the abolitionists It's the bills of consistency and equal protection that are happening across the country. That's what the most damage is Uh, but it's happening with organizations and ministries and churches like ours That have nothing in in terms of budget Compared to some of these massive organizations that are just going to get more and more financially inflated As a result of these ballot measures and all that's going on across on across the states We need your help. We need your help financially if you if you care about this issue Uh, please pray for us, but also give give it end abortion now.com Uh, it does cost a lot of money to do what we do when we go to these states Uh with these bills, we support other other ministries and other pastors and the work that they're doing Um, it does cost money to train up and raise churches Locally and around the country to go save lives of the abortion mill. We give everything away to the churches We expect nothing from them. We want nothing from them We just want to train them and give everything away so they can start saving lives But all of that takes money guys and so we need you guys to please help us help us if you can end abortion now.com please help and Uh, we'll catch you next week right here on apology or radio. Thanks for watching
