Marriage, Feminism and Abortion with Gloria Allred

Rutgers Health takes an integrated approach to educating students, providing clinical care for our communities, and conducting innovative research to create life -changing health for all.

As New Jersey's academic health center, Rutgers Health brings discoveries in the lab directly to patients across the state and around the world.

Our eight schools, behavioral health network, and four centers and institutes are located just outside New York City, in Newark and New Brunswick.

Together, we're breathing new life into health. With Luckyland Slots, you can get lucky just about anywhere.

This is your captain speaking. We've got clear runway and the weather's fine, but we're just going to circle up here a while and get lucky.

No, no, nothing like that. It's just these cash prizes add up quick, so I suggest you sit back, keep your tray table upright, and start getting lucky.

Play for free at Luckylandslots .com. Are you feeling lucky? No purchase necessary.

Void where prohibited by law. 18 plus terms and conditions apply. See website for details. I'm not willing to inflict that suffering and that danger.

Are you on the unborn child? On women. I mean, does the unborn child have any interest? I keep, it's the third time I've asked it. It's the third time you've asked because your priority is the fetus and not the life of the woman.

No, I've already acknowledged that I'm perfectly in favor. Okay, but words alone are not enough. No, I'm in favor of codifying that laws.

We need laws. Welcome to the

Wrap Report with Andrew Rappaport, where we provide biblical interpretations and applications.

This is a ministry of Striving for Eternity and the Christian podcast community. For more content or to request a speaker for your church, go to strivingforeternity .org.

All right, well, I am your host, Andrew Rappaport, and this is the Wrap Report.

Welcome to 2020. Wow, that sounds weird to say. I am joined with the man who used to have hair.

I actually saw a picture. Virgil Walker, you had hair. You know,

I'm just saying it was hard for me to recognize it. Yeah, yeah. I mean, yeah, definitely had hair at one point.

Yeah, I mean, I didn't come out well. Maybe I came out bald. I mean, but I've had hair. Yeah. As everyone's doing now, right, it's 2020.

Everyone's taking these pictures of where they were 10 years ago and how they looked. And, you know, there's some people you look at them from just 10 years and go, wow, wow,

I didn't recognize that at all. Some people don't seem to change.

And, you know, but I would like to think that I didn't change in 10 years, but let's be realistic.

Yeah, everybody changes to some degree. I think I did a 10 year and I had actually 10 years ago,

I weighed a lot more. So I had been on a weight loss journey. So I actually look a little bit younger.

Now, if you look at my face close, you can kind of see the wrinkles in the corners of the eyes. But other than that, you know,

I think I held up pretty good the last 10 years. Well, I was going to mention, you know, the fact that, yes, you looked much heavier 10 years ago.

It was something that you've been on a weight loss kick. Today's day one.

I'm going to do like you. I'm going to try to post a picture and motivate myself to start running again.

I was going to start first thing this morning. We're recording on January 1st. And so day one so far,

I'm a miss. But as our friend Dwayne Atkinson from the Bar podcast, you know, he may not make it out at four in the morning when he goes, which is insane.

But he'll say not missed, just delayed. So I still have time. There's still hours left in the day for me to get on a treadmill and get five minutes in.

All right. Just to say day one. Hey, listen, let's start off before we get into our topic.

We do have to mention that there was a shooting recently in Texas in a church.

And I do want to address this briefly for folks who unless you've had your head in the sand and don't know about this.

But most people have heard about this. But there was a Texas man that came into church, waited until communion, and he pulled out a shotgun.

There was a person who I think, if I remember correctly, he was a police officer, retired.

And he pulled out his service or his weapon. And he shot the man.

The man ended up killing one person. And Jack Wilson ended up killing him. There were actually seven people who pulled out guns, weapons at that church to protect the one man that was killed and then one that was injured.

Now, so we understand about this individual who did this shooting. He actually had an arrest record.

He in 2011, he was sentenced to 90 days in jail for misdemeanor and assault.

2012, he was charged with arson. Both those were in Oklahoma.

Actually, I missed in 2008. He had aggravated assault in Fort Worth. And then he was later sentenced to a year in jail for misdemeanor with property damage.

He ended up, so this is, 2016, arrest in New Jersey, where the police found him with a shotgun near an oil refinery.

Now, a gun in New Jersey, I mean, that's just like, sorry folks, this isn't America. This is the communist state of New Jersey.

We don't allow things like that there. But so this is the character of the man.

Now, what you end up seeing is that this guy came to the church. The pastor of church said that this guy was coming several times asking for food and was getting very upset when he wasn't being given money.

He wanted cash. And so he ends up taking it out on the church during communion. 71 -year -old former

Reserve Sheriff Deputy Jack Wilson ends up saying he said he did what he needed to do, which was to put an end to this individual who came in.

He was dressed in disguise. He had a wig and different things so that he wouldn't be recognized. He had baggy clothes and pulls out a shotgun.

Now, I find it interesting he does this during communion. This is a time where the church gathers together to celebrate not only what

Christ did on our behalf, but we do it at a time of communion where we corporately would do self -examination and publicly announce our union in one body of Christ.

And so this gentleman takes that opportunity to try to end people's lives because this church doesn't give them money.

Now, my church, every church I've been in where I've been in leadership, whether it be the pastors or years ago as a deacon, we always had a policy we don't give cash.

We don't give money. Now, Virgil, you're a pastor of a church. I don't know if you are because you have more staff than the churches than I've been in.

So I don't know if you actually get the calls. But as a pastor, I've gotten plenty of calls around this time of year where the government will send people to churches.

Oh, there's no, you know, they've got money for their, they need money for their kids. Oh, go to your local church.

Ask them for money. Ask them for food. And people would do that. And what

I've even found people doing, we would always give gift cards. And ever since the internet, now people will sell those gift cards online.

You give them a gift card to ShopRite and they'll go sell it for 90 % of the values because all they want is the cash.

And we've always had that policy. It's amazing the government will always tell people go to the church. They know who it is that has a concern for caring and providing for people.

But what I end up seeing is here you got someone that obviously this church must have had a similar policy. He's upset that he's not getting money because that's what he wanted.

And so he's going to take it out on them. And this is one, one reason why we don't have churches.

We shouldn't be giving money because this is a problem. There's people who just go to the churches and they pray on their churches for the sake of money and trying to get for themselves.

It's, I think this is something that is, we've got to be praying for those who were involved, whose lives were affected by this.

I unfortunately am sure that you can understand that now this guy who should be a hero will probably be a villain in the media.

I did see that he's being called, you know, he's being called out by the China. China is saying that because of him we need gun, you know, the

United States needs gun control laws. I'd like to, one person said, yeah, how about you get your human rights things in order first before you start telling us about gun laws.

Right, right. You know, if we, if we gave up the gun laws, we would have a country where we don't have the rights that, you know, of basic human needs like those in China, you know.

So let's get into the issue that we want to discuss.

Now for folks, maybe you've heard this, maybe you listened to Ben Shapiro, but on Ben Shapiro's Sunday show, episode 83, he had

Gloria Aldrich on, and I'll have the full link to that in the description so that you guys can listen and know that we're not taking anything out of context.

I'm going to, we have about 45 clips that we may or may not get through all of them. And so this is a very enlightening interview that they had on issues that ranged from feminism, marriage, abortion, gender issues, a lot of different things.

And I'll start off with this. There's a, and I'll put a link to this in the show notes, but discern that's

D I S R N .com. That's a Christian news site. They, they announced as so many people are doing with the end of the 2019, they announced that abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide in 2019 with 50 or 42 .4

million abortions. So that is the number one factor or leading thing if what's the cause of death.

Now, obviously we realized that the liberals don't want to count that number, but that far outseeds any other,

I think cancer was, was next up. And that was like, I think it's more than twice the number of actually let me read the arc.

He says 42 .4 million deaths from abortion in 2019 was more than twice the number of all worldwide deaths caused by cancer, smoking, alcohol, traffic, accidents, malaria, and HIV AIDS combined that more than twice all of those.

So it's a, it's a real problem. And what we're going to hear today is the way some try to argue and defend it.

So I want to play some of these clips. I'm going to play a long, the long ones. We can hear things in context. Then what

I want to do is break some of this up so that we can deal with it. But this is Gloria Eldridge on Ben Shapiro defining marriage.

And then Virgil Walker, and I should mention, I should have mentioned this already, but Virgil Walker is from the just thinking podcast.

If you are going to the G3 conference, you are going to get to see him and his, his cohort there.

He calls them Batman. But, but the problem is he uses a wrong translation of the

Bible. So I don't know if we can really call him a superhero. He uses that, that new

Armenian standard Bible where you and I prefer to use the elect standard Bible. And so I'm going to hear it if he listens to this podcast, but you're going to be doing a live podcast as you did at the truth matters conference.

You're doing that G3. Yeah. We're excited. We're really excited about that. Getting teed up.

In fact, he sent me notes and, and that's just one more, one more list of the, of the things that I've got to walk through in preparation for G3.

So yeah, which is coming up really soon. My wife just pointed me. She's like, we're leaving like a week from Saturday.

Yeah. Cause I head out early. I'll be preaching at a Ray Rhodes church down there in Georgia, which

I'm really looking forward to. And yeah, it's going to be good. I'm going to be dealing with the old

Testament, those passages that no one really focuses on, you know, but let's, let's deal with Gloria's definition of marriage.

And this was, this, this is going to really, it's going to blow people's minds in how the leftists who reject

God, this is their view of what marriage is and how it got started.

How should feminism view the institution of marriage? If you look at some of the more famous feminist writers, the Betty Friedans of the world, for example, they're very critical of the institution of marriage, seeing it as a sort of patriarchal imposition on women.

How should, how should feminists see marriage? Well, actually marriage, the institution of marriage was begun because men wanted to know who their children were because they didn't know if it was their children or somebody else's children, if the wife or the, their significant other became pregnant.

And this is when women were considered property. So, they made rules. Marriage, okay, then she's mine.

No other man better disturb her because if they do, you know, it might be that they would get her pregnant. He wouldn't know who his children were.

So, but in any event, people can get married or not get married.

I, that's up to them. I, I'm not going to criticize that. I do think that people should treat each other as equal partners if they are married, not a master -slave relationship, not one person dominating the other person.

And if people treat each other as best friends, as equal partners, and they have good communication and they are fair with each other and honest with each other, then it's going to work.

And if they're not, one person starts to lie or, you know, do things they shouldn't with someone else after they made a commitment, taken a vow for better, for worse.

A lot of people think it's just for better, but it's better or worse. And then ultimately, you know, it's probably going to work, but it's very difficult to be married these days because we live in a very mobile society where people move around.

They change careers. Sometimes they have other people in their life as, you know, as intimate partners.

It's, it's very challenging, but I think people generally start out with good intentions and sometimes it kind of deteriorates from there.

So that is her view. Let's break this up because there's some segments here. The one clip

I didn't, I didn't get that I meant to was where she says they took a vow.

I just think that's amazing because she acknowledges this is a religious issue because she's going to then give this argument.

But let's break this up and start with this first part, Virgil. This is a 30 second clip where she defines that how, how marriage started and why.

So let's play this again. Well, actually marriage, the institution of marriage was begun because men wanted to know who their children were because they didn't know if it was their children or somebody else's children, if the wife or the, their significant other became pregnant.

And this is when women were considered property. So they made rules marriage. Okay. Then she's mine.

No other man better to disturb her because if they do, you know, it might be that they would get her pregnant. He wouldn't know who his children are.

Okay. So that's very different than what we see in Genesis chapter one and chapter two, isn't it?

Quite a bit different. I mean, my initial thought was, I would have loved for her to, to give us an idea of how she was informed or from where she, she got her information that this was the foundation of institutional marriage, like cite a source, give us a background so that we could examine if that's actually true.

But man, this is, this is obviously a secular view, a feminist view of marriage.

I mean, this, this doesn't in any way, shape or form, uh, biblically inform us with regard to the issue of marriage.

Well, Virgil, Virgil, let me explain something to you. This is a liberal. She doesn't have to give sources.

The fact that she feels this way is enough of an authority for your life.

You know, I mean, but we do have an account like that. We can cite sources. We can cite what God, the one who actually created men and women, male, female, what he actually said.

And he gives it to us in Genesis chapter two. He said, he's the founder.

And he says, he created man and woman to be a created man as a headship, create woman as a helpmate.

That's what he did. And he did it. He has the right to tell us about it. And this is what we see that's missing this whole idea.

And you can see the underlying argument though, because she, we're going to get into this again in a moment, but her whole argument is this ownership issue that, that women are oppressed.

Now, anyone that listens to the just thinking podcast understands this whole issue of victim status and oppression and how it's used in critical race theory were actually now they dropped the race and it's just critical theory theory, right?

Because they want to use it for more than just race. And so you end up seeing this, and this is what's the underpinning here is to say somehow men are evil and that's going to justify everything else.

She's going to end up saying abortion is going to be justified. Feminism is going to be justified all because this view she has of marriage that's unfounded.

Right? Right. You, you, you, you, I think you stated it well, this, this already establishes from her definition of marriage and, and oppressed oppressor class, which are women and that they were to be owned by men on the basis of men's desire to know who, you know, who the, who the, who the child that they were that the woman was bearing actually belonged to it, that, that whole ideological position sets up everything to the point you made just moments ago, it sets up everything so that, so that all her other arguments can follow.

But again, earlier we stated, where's the source for this? Like, what can we go back to and point to objectively and say, oh, marriage started on that basis, the basis she's making the claim for, and here's the founding document by which we can ascertain that that's how and why any of this took place.

She sourced nothing. I mean, when you, when you began to define marriage, you defined it biblically, you sourced an objective document as a standard.

Anyone can go back and take a look and examine what you said to determine whether or not, whether or not the claim was, was true on that basis.

No one can do any of that with, with, with Gloria Aldridge, her, her statement, no one.

But okay, let's take the, for example, so you believe in evolution, you're going to try to go down that road, but let's think about that.

If her argument, because her argument is not based in anything, there's nothing for her to cite. But if her argument is that, well, this is the way evolution is, okay, evolution, why in the world would a man and a woman, they evolve, why would they, the man even care whose kids are his, right?

I mean, what makes the man feel like, oh, I got to have my kids and not raise someone else's kids?

No, you wouldn't care. You just, it would be sleep with whoever, and you have whoever many kids, who cares as long as you don't have to take care of them.

And in fact, I would argue that it may be the reverse. You, you, you want, you may have wanted more kids.

You don't care who's there from so that they can work the farms. Now you might want to give away the kids because you got to pay for college.

You know, it's a culture of, this is evolution. Right. And if, if, if the evil man who wanted to own women in the first place, really, you know, really walked out that, that, that ideological position, he, like you said, he would care less whose kids they were.

In fact, the, the woman having kids would be all the more reason for him to walk away and find the next woman that he could, you know, have, have intercourse with so that he could, you know, enjoy his freedom rather than having to worry about whose children they are in the first place.

And, but, but here's the thing, and this is the next clip is what she doesn't set in saying this is sets up for her master -slave relationship.

Listen to what she said in that clip. Let's listen. I do think that people should treat each other as equal partners if they are married, not a master -slave relationship, not one person dominating the other person.

Now that is essential. You have to understand something. Gloria Aldridge has said in the past that I don't have the clip of that, but she has said that all sex is rape.

Okay. This is her view. Now she's married. Like, so I don't know if there's any sexual relations she has with her husband, but is it always rape?

It's like, but this is the mindset that a marriage is by default in her mind, a master -slave relationship.

And somehow we have to change that. She defines it this way in that clip we played,

I'll play this clip where she, she defines how marriage could work well, and it's not a master -slave relationship.

And really the issue of master -slave relationship is an issue of differences in roles because the way that she's thinking a master is if you have one person that has headship over the family, that's what they're really against.

We see this countless times. You've dealt with this on your podcast. I've dealt with it on my podcast, the whole issue of women having equal, being completely equal as men, especially in the area of church leadership.

And they would say, no, they have to be completely equal. That's what she's arguing for marriage. Now it's going to be funny when we get to issues of transgenderism, we're going to see a little bit of a change in that.

She's going to see it. There should be some differences, but she has a hard time with it. But this is how she defines a marriage working.

And, um, if people treat each other as best friends, as equal partners, and they have good communication and they are fair with each other and honest with each other, then it's going to work.

And if they're not one person starts to lie or, you know, do things they shouldn't with someone else after they made a commitment, taking a vow, taking a vow.

Well, what's a vow? That's a religious thing. But, you know, the amazing thing with this

Virgil is you listen to what she's saying. Where does she get a standard to say that it should matter if one takes advantage of the other or if one lies to the other?

In fact, if her worldview is correct, shouldn't it be that we should try to take advantage of our spouses?

We should be trying to take advantage of everyone because it's all survival of the fittest. And the more fit I am, the better I can survive and the better my offspring should survive.

Therefore, I should do everything just for my own fitness. Right, right. This is the backwards.

This is the backwards view of a secularist in that they have no objective standard except for the subjective standard that they determine.

And when they establish any truth claims on that basis, they're expecting others to behave accordingly.

You know, they've created in their own mind that that vows are to be taken or that things shouldn't be held in a slave master dichotomy.

But at the same time, there's no objective basis for that. So I don't know how they can say that that should apply to anyone outside of themselves and their own relationships, because they're the ones who determined it.

And and no one is obligated, not by any moral standard or religious belief to to follow it.

Yeah. So they they set up a standard that they don't give citations for, can't support in any objective way and then say it applies for everyone.

Right. But your standard, when it comes to relying on what God, the creator said, no, we know that can't be the standard.

Right. Right. Now, it's interesting because I know you're going to get to this because what she'll what she will do for the most part, her

God becomes the law. And and the reality is laws change.

I mean, it was one time legal to hold slaves. Right. I mean, if her God is the law, that's an ever changing subjective standard that she holds herself to.

I mean, he Shapiro asked her a number of different questions and her response is always driven by by by a legal standard.

Well, she is she is a lawyer, so we can understand that. But he's even going to bring up, as we'll get to later, that abortion was illegal at one point and it changed.

So which is always the interesting thing. People want to say, but it's it's the law, but it wasn't always the law.

People are saying, well, we need to accept this whole thing with gender and, you know, people can identify whatever gender they are.

And that's only the last 10 years this has come up. So we should ignore 6000 years of history and and everything else and just say,

OK, now we suddenly are going to change and everyone else has to accept this. It's the insanity. Now, I want to play this longer because it's about two minutes.

And this is her explaining feminism, which, again, you're seeing this is her argument from the marriage.

But here's the thing, as I play this, we'll break it up. But I want you guys to listen to how she defines feminism.

This is basically a kind of a logical fallacy and it's the fallacy of equivocation.

The reason I say that is the term feminism. She's going to provide a dictionary definition that's so broad it encompasses every reasonable person.

But then what people actually use when they refer to feminism is a is very specific political definition.

And when she when she gives this definition, I almost thought, oh, that's that's biblical patriarchy. I mean, what she's.

Yes, that was exactly what I thought. And this is the thing. It's so broad.

But the interesting thing is Ben Shapiro even tried to bring out these different definitions.

She's like, I'm just going to sweep that all aside. I'm just going to go to this general one. Now, why do people do it? People do that so that you go, oh, well,

I agree with her. And then she says, OK, if you agree with me on this, then just slowly slide into the area you wouldn't have agreed.

But now she's going to she's actually going to say that Ben Shapiro is a feminist. Listen to this. There are various sort of definitions of feminism that float around.

I give you a simple one dictionary. I'd be happy to hear them because there's kind of first wave feminism, their second wave.

I don't get involved in how many waves I get involved in, how many injustices. All right. So a feminist is simply a person who believes in legal, economic, social and political.

Equality for women with men. Are you a feminist, Ben? By that definition, sure.

That's it. Thank you. I rest my case. OK, but the problem is that it's not quite as simple as all of that. I wish it were quite as simple as all of that.

Right. I mean, you'd be hard pressed to find many people in America who would say no to that question. But obviously, there's widespread disagreement about where the lines are drawn.

Well, it doesn't have to be a disagreement. Just go to the dictionary and then ask yourself, how would you want your daughter to be treated?

And most people, when they think, especially fathers, when they think about how they would like their daughter to be treated without going into, well, what's the definition of feminism?

They want their daughter to be treated with respect, with dignity, not to become a victim of gender violence, not to be paid less than men, not to be treated in a way that would constitute sexual harassment, not to be discriminated against if they become pregnant.

Well, that's really what feminists believe. So among other things, you know, not to have a problem collecting their child support if somehow the marriage breaks up or there is no marriage.

And so just think about it. If you had daughters or plan to have daughters, how you'd want them to be treated.

And then you're probably a feminist. I have fathers that come up to me all the time if I'm walking down the street or elsewhere and say, thank you.

We know you're doing this for our daughters. So I may not agree with everything you say, Gloria, but I know that's what you're trying to do.

And I appreciate that. See, that is such a general definition that everyone that is in favor of biblical justice, not social justice.

Those are two very different things. Right. But those that are in favor of biblical justice would agree with that definition that she laid out.

And as would anyone who claimed to be hold to biblical patriarchy or hold to complementarianism.

You could ask those same questions of her in the way that she did,

Ben, because of the generic nature of what we all agree upon. So do you think all people should be treated fairly and with respect, with dignity and respect?

Absolutely. Well, then welcome to biblical patriarchy, Gloria. I mean, that's the equivalent of what she did.

Well, and you saw this is a lawyer. This is someone who's like, case closed. She's just trying to argue.

But she does the emotional appeal. And they play these clips because you hear the emotional appeal in these three clips where she refers to daughters.

Yep. And then ask yourself, how would you want your daughter to be treated? They want their daughter to be treated with respect, with dignity.

Just think about it. If you had daughters or plan to have daughters, how you'd want them to be treated.

And then you're probably a feminist. Okay. So you're probably a feminist. Gloria, this is going to blow your mind.

If she's listening, I doubt. Someone send this to her. I'm sure someone out here knows her well.

Gloria, do you know that the majority of Muslims in Muslim countries want their daughters to be treated as second class citizens under their husband?

So if you're going to use that as your argumentation, just think about how you want your daughters to be treated.

Gloria, would you accept the Muslim man's definition of how he wants his daughter to be treated? Just think about that because that's your argumentation.

So your definition wasn't clear enough to be able to explain the real position that you have because you have other cultures that don't have the same view as you expect everyone to have for their daughters.

The only place that you get that right view is from God and his word, because God is the standard.

And this is what's absent from Gloria Aldridge. And because it's absent, she makes statements that show that they cannot be universal to all people of all time, all cultures.

She would not want to be subjected to the Muslim definition where a man can slap, hit whatever to his wife, and she has no recourse.

She wouldn't say that that's appropriate, but that's exactly what a father would expect of his daughter, because the father in Islam would expect the daughter to be subservient to the man, which is the whole thing that she really is against.

That is the master -slave relationship that she's saying shouldn't be, but yet that's what those fathers expect of their daughter.

You see, she's not saying the American father. She's saying fathers.

It's not a standard that would hold up in court, Gloria. They wouldn't.

And she knows that. Again, she recognizes where she's at. She recognizes the audience.

And so her goal was to appeal. And again, this is the mask worn by secularists.

One of the things that we do in Christian culture is we try to be very clear.

I mean, most of the folks that I know try to be very clear about what we believe and why we believe it, and hold an objective standard, which is the word of God.

Most secularists don't want you to know with specificity all that they truly believe.

So they'll tell you what they think you need to hear for you to side with them, and then you'll walk down this slippery slope that they'll have, this ideological trail that they'll have you on that will land you in pretty rough patches.

So Gloria Aldridge would not do well if she was to fit into the Just Thinking podcast model, where you guys deal with the term, you define the term, you walk through the

Bible giving the biblical definition and refutation of the things, and then give the application.

She would be stuck on that very first one with her definitions or lack thereof. Yeah, definitely.

She would be able to uphold the definition portion. Now she ends up saying that her goal, the goal of feminism is equality, right?

For the number of women. Let's listen to this. With regard to feminism, when it speaks for the equality of women, does that mean equality or does it mean the sameness between men and women?

It's equality. It's all about, that's why I said equal. It's about improving the condition status of women to help to bring women into the mainstream of American life in equal partnership with men.

Each and every aspect of life, we don't have an equal number of women elected to Congress or to the

United States Senate. Yeah, but we have more women than men going to law school and more women than men going to college. Okay, well, that's good for, you know, it's the beginning.

Okay, I'm going to stop it there, even though I had the clip longer, because do you see what just happened? I mean, she's talking equality, and what happens the moment some facts come into her argument that Ben brings up that don't work with her?

It's like, okay, that's nice for them. Let's move on. Right, right. I thought it was interesting when she said, that's a beginning.

I think she, I think she tipped her hand, right? Because what he stated was that there are more, she was talking about equality.

She should be fine at the point that there's parity when there are an equal number of women as men who are in law, you know, law positions or in law school, that should be sufficient.

Her statement after he said that there are more women was that's a good start. That's a start, right?

It wasn't. So again, it's the point that I was making earlier, they're not giving you what really is at the core of the ideological position that they hold.

I mean, they're holding things close to the vest. And then things leak out over time as as they begin as as their conversations become more emotionally based, you begin to see what's really at hand.

Well, as you and I have dealt with with a social justice issue, they say this is what they want, but it's never where they're going to stop.

They're always going to push it. She's arguing for equality, and she's defining it as the number of P of women.

Now, first off, she ended up saying, like, there needs to be, you know, to bring women into mainstream. Are you kidding me?

You like you really don't believe women are in the mainstream. I thought I thought that as well, when she said that, that was amazing.

I mean, what planet is she still stuck in the era when women couldn't, she, she's almost like anyone that listens to just thinking they're going to know this reference.

But she's no different than James H. Cone, who's still stuck in the period of slavery saying, well, you know,

African Americans are treated as subhuman. And, and they're not they're not equal in representation.

They're like, yeah, that was true in the past. For Gloria. Yes, some of these things were true in the past for women.

But you're dealing with now you're lecturing, this is just this past weekend. This was just 2019, which was only a week ago.

It seems like a whole year, but it was only a week. And so what you end up seeing is, when she's arguing, it's like, well, there's got to be equal number, but see, she doesn't want equal.

And you brought that out in areas where there's less men than, than women. That's fine.

In areas where there's less women than men, that's not okay. So really, what it is, is there has to be at a minimum, equality for the women, but exceeding for the women is okay.

Well, then she really doesn't want equality. She doesn't want equal rights for women.

She wants extra rights for women. Well, that that was the that was the case behind the whole argument for the same sex marriage issue.

When when when same sex marriage before Burgerfeld was was passed, the issue was we just want equality, right?

We just want to have equal access to marriage as everyone else does. We want our rights.

We want those rights to be equal. And the reality was they did have equal access.

Everyone had the access to marry someone of the opposite sex. So they had equal access.

What they were after were additional rights, right? They wanted opportunities to do something that the law did not yet provide for.

And so and they wanted them exclusive to those who had attractions to the same sex.

So they weren't they weren't asking no one in this instance or in any or in any of these instances where where the promotion of of a secularized worldview, whether it's feminism or same sex marriage or or other issues with with regard to equality on the basis of things that are that are mutable.

This is this is they're looking for something extra. Just just keep that in mind. Yeah. And this is why

I always say that it is not about homosexual marriage. It was never about that. Homosexuals are always allowed to get married.

It was about same sex marriage. Right. So let me for a second time, let me play let me play some of these other clips with the feminism issue.

This was her dealing with the issue of self -identity, which is was very interesting. They're going to get into the whole thing of women playing in men's sports.

So her views on this is quite interesting. We'll play a couple of clips here. Man who identifies as a woman because he believes he is a woman and he is competing with women as a feminist.

Is that something that you are pro or against? Not only believes for itself, identifies and perhaps should be and should be considered.

Well, now you're making a moral statement. No, I'm also making a legal drawing, a legal conclusion.

But OK, so let's just stop that there. Notice what she's doing. He's calling her out because she's making a moral argument and she wants to try.

Oh, no, it's just legal. It's just legal. Well, let's see what she does with the legal, because we're going to see, especially when it comes to some of the abortion things she's going to want to play fast and loose with what's legal when it's convenient for her.

It's legal. Therefore, we do it. And that's it because it's legal. It's a legal issue. It's every single law is a moral issue.

Don't let anyone fool you when they when she's saying it's a legal issue. A law is a morality.

It's saying you can do this or you can't do that. It is morality. Every law.

So it's not just a legal thing. He's absolutely right in calling her out for being a moral issue because every law is a moral issue.

Let's go on it back to the heart of your question. It's a challenging one. It's a difficult one.

The point is, it is very difficult where it comes to sports. But I just don't think anyone should be denied the opportunity to compete solely on account of their gender or because they are transgender.

And it's just difficult. But I think that's the way it is. So I don't want to deny anybody an opportunity.

So. So why does self -identity make a difference there? Meaning if a man just wants to compete in a female sport, why should he not be able to?

Why should the self -identity be the deciding factor? Well, again, that's a hard one.

I don't really have an answer. It's I'm kind of thinking about it myself. But I think, you know, in certain sports, it would give an advantage to the men and deny an opportunity to women.

OK, so it's very interesting because what you heard her say there is she doesn't want to deny anyone an opportunity.

Right. OK, when we get the abortion issue, just remember that. Remember, she said that she doesn't want to ever deny anyone an opportunity because my argument is going to be,

Gloria, you want to deny children in the womb the opportunity to live.

Yeah. OK. Yeah. But she knows this is a difficult issue because she's been fighting for women's rights for a long time now.

And here she's got this case where all of a sudden, who is a woman? What defines a woman?

And she's had to struggle with this because now you have men. And I think

Ben Stein, Ben Stein, Ben Shapiro is very smart in the way he does this. He brings up an issue that's going to be difficult for her.

He could bring up a whole lot of other issues where she could easily get around it and try to to escape the crux of the issue she's stuck in is when it comes to feminism.

It's what defines a woman. Now, you have to have that definition if you're going to be arguing for women's rights, because if anyone can just identify as a woman, she's she admits, yeah, it's probably bad in women's sports.

Listen to this clip where she's going to talk about women as being inferior. This is you're seeing the common thread, the victim status that Virgil mentioned, the whole idea with with the master slave relationship.

You're going to hear that come out in this clip, a similar question to be asked at this point. It may be that that it makes sense to deny a man to be in a woman's sport.

But you take public education, for example. I went to an all girls high school back in the cave age when

I went to an all boys high school, much younger. OK. And but that's a publicly funded high school.

It was in Philadelphia, still is. And we didn't have really there were men didn't want to be or boys didn't want to be in it at the time.

All girls high school, because women were considered of less value. Some of the girls decided they wanted to go to the all boys high school, also publicly funded.

Men being considered of more value, maybe having more programs there, maybe it was better funded because after all, they were men considered to be more important than women.

There have been court challenges. And since then, the courts have decided that, yes, boys should have the opportunity to go to girls high.

Girls should have the opportunity to go to central high school, which was the all boys high school in Philadelphia. Yeah. I don't know any guys that would be going, oh,

I don't want to go to an all girls school as a guy. I mean, where what planet is she now?

Now, notice the language. Maybe it's better. Maybe it's this reason. Maybe that's couching it.

So if Ben Shapiro decides to call her out on these things, as you saw, he did.

Well, I went to an all boys school. He's taking away the argument that she she would be having.

And so what you end up seeing is that what she's attempting to do is try to shut him down like, oh, yeah, that's

OK for you. You hear the moral superiority that she feels she has.

Right. But she doesn't have actual facts that this is anything that she's saying is actually true.

No. And you have to accept the fact that according to her, that the all girls school was inferior on the basis that the all boys school was superior.

Just just that was the standard thought process when she's provided. No, no, no source that states that there.

I can't imagine her attending a all women's school that was subpar.

Right. I think the very reason for the school was so that girls could not have to deal with the issues that that adding boys to their culture creates, that they could feel empowered in the classroom, that they could be as smart as they desired to be, that they could excel academically.

I mean, all of those things are were reasons. I'm certain that she was sent to the all girls school.

But we have to accept based upon the fact that she states it so that the all girls school was inferior and therefore some of the girls wanted to go to the all boys school.

I mean, it's just ridiculous. Well, and that's exactly what Ben is going to ask her as he asks, is there any place where we can have gender only spaces?

Listen here. So is there any area of American life where you believe that there should be the ability to have a female only space or a male only space in there?

There's pretty good evidence to suggest that, for example, women, girls tend to actually do better in girls only classes because thanks to, in many cases, sort of patriarchal view of boys, women actually perform better when they are not confronted with I think there's some evidence of that.

I would have to agree with you on that. And I would say if it's completely private, that they have the right to do it.

If, however, they accept any taxpayer funds, they don't have the right to do it. They don't have a right today to do it.

Right. We've already seen the right today because that's where it's OK for now. But we're going to keep pushing it.

That's what you end up seeing. And she has to admit, yes, there are benefits to this.

She was stuck there. Now, let's get into the real issue you and I want to address.

We've already been 45 minutes. This is going to be a long episode. I'm not even going to play the longer clips now because I have a bunch of it clipped up.

We want to deal with the issue of abortion. As we said, 42 million abortions just last year, 2019.

So she ends up making the argument here that, you know, government should not be making any laws against choice.

And let's deal with some of these and try to explain what we see going on.

So let me play this clip from her. I'm pro choice because I don't think that the

United States government or, for that matter, any government should be making laws which restrict or eliminate a woman's right to choose safe, legal, affordable, available abortions.

OK, so she's giving her view there. And actually, you know what? I do want to play the longer clip, Virgil, because I want to give the context.

So let's come back to that clip. Let me play the long clip for folks, because I want you to hear the context of everything we're going to deal with first before we chop it up.

Gloria Allred, I want to ask you about your perspective on abortion, because I've gotten a lot of people who want me to ask you that question. And I'd love to hear your perspective also.

OK, so obviously I'm very pro -life. You're very pro -choice. So I wanted to get your take. And I know obviously you have a deeply felt personal story about how you came to this conclusion.

But why are you pro -choice as opposed to pro -life? Well, I'm pro -choice because I don't think that the

United States government or for that matter, any government should be making laws which restrict or eliminate a woman's right to choose safe, legal, affordable, available abortions.

Because when government tries to restrict or eliminate a woman's right to choose, what they're saying is essentially that they think they're saying or maybe they purport to be saying that a woman should not be able to get an abortion.

But of course, women will still continue to get abortions, only they will be illegal, unsafe. And many women will die as they did before Roe v.

Wade, perhaps submerged to death, which I almost did because I had to have an abortion provided by someone who was not a licensed health care provider because it was not

I was not able because of the laws to be able to have access to a licensed health care provider like a doctor to perform an abortion.

So many women had what's called back alley abortions where they almost bled to death or were maimed or did die.

And I don't want that to happen to anybody else's daughter or sister or mama. And the people who are hurt by these laws attempting to restrict abortion are young women, poor women, rural women, and mainly women of color.

Maybe they can't afford the bus fare to go to another state where abortion is still legal. Maybe they can't even get there because they're working two jobs or three jobs or have other kids to support.

So in other words, I don't believe in mandatory motherhood, perhaps like you do, where women are forced to, you know, take a fetus to term and deliver.

I don't believe that a fertilized egg should have more rights than than an adult woman.

And I think this is all very dangerous to women's health. Okay, so there's so much there.

Let's now let's get back to the clip on the government laws, because I want to I do want to be fair. And so you guys don't say

I'm being you know, there's any liberals are listening to this. You're getting to hear the context.

That's something that you're not going to hear liberals do when they do things like that to Christians. Right. So now let's deal with this.

I play a clip again, 17 seconds on her view of government. We're going to chop all these up and get to as many as we can.

Here's what she said. I'm pro choice because I don't think that the

United States government or for that matter, any government should be making laws which restrict or eliminate a woman's right to choose safe, legal, affordable, available abortions.

Okay, so let's get to, you know, let me play what she where she should have stopped. Yes. They just play where she should have stopped.

Ready? I wonder if I wonder if we're gonna say the same thing. I wonder if we're gonna stop at the same point. Well, let's find out.

Here we go. Okay. I'm pro choice because I don't think should we hear that again?

I'm pro choice because I don't think so right there. That's it. I think that that should have been it.

I had a little different, I had a different space in mind, but yeah, that, that one actually works pretty good.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's the way she, but, but her whole thing is, well, okay.

Where did you think she should stop? I should, I should ask that right, right before, right before where, where she said,

I think a woman should have a right to choose. And what she should have said was to murder her unborn baby.

That's right. That's right. Because, and that's what we're going to get to is, and Ben Shapiro is going to press that issue.

You're going to hear, he's going to ask the same question like three times in, in a space of about 10 to 15 minutes, because he's pressing her to answer one issue about whose life it is.

And she will not answer that. You'll, you'll see her try to skate around it over and over and over again.

But you know, she's, this is the thing. There should be no government laws, none.

Right. So what's he going to do? He's going to point out, well, this, it was illegal at one time, right?

Um, but listen to the emotional appeal. She gives her whole argument is, well,

I had this, this happened to me and who, who in the world forced her to have an abortion? I want to know that what government law required her to have an abortion.

Cause that's what the argument, listen to this, listen to how she words it, listen to the, the, the emotionalism.

And you're going to hear her arguing as if someone had her a gunpoint from the government, forcing her to have this unhealthy abortion.

And she almost died and many others are going to die. Listen to what she says about many women. Many women will die as they did before Roe v.

Wade, perhaps hemorrhage to death, which I almost did because I had to have an abortion provided by someone who was not a licensed healthcare provider, because it was not,

I was not able because of the laws to be able to have access to a licensed healthcare provider, like a doctor to perform an abortion.

Okay. So let's, let's deal with this. This is kind of interesting because she's saying we, they can't have this life. You know, the, the lives are at risk.

Well, first off, let's deal with the elephant in the room, Gloria, every successful abortion ends a human life.

Right? Okay. Second, the thing that most people don't understand when people like Gloria make the arguments she makes is the fact that abortionists do not have to be licensed professionals.

No, this is the thing everyone forgets when it comes to abortion. They go into these clinics that do not have to fit under medical standards.

It's very interesting. I'm, I was on the board at a crisis pregnancy center and we were the only, the only center in all of New Jersey that did a full battery of STD testing.

And so, because of that, we actually had people that would refer patients to us and because the doctors don't do it, but here's the thing about the abortion clinics.

When we were doing this, we had to fit under more strict licensing to do

STD testing than an abortion clinic has to when they're putting someone under anesthesia and doing an operation on them.

So the whole argument she makes is unfounded because the people that do the abortions are not licensed medical professionals.

They don't need to be. Right. They may be, it's beneficial. I think, I think Planned Parenthood requires it, but they don't have to be.

No. Interestingly enough, I mean, if you listen to the language that she used, it's,

I had to have an abortion by someone who was unlicensed. No, no, no, you didn't.

She didn't have to have an abortion. I mean, there were other options that were available to her.

Those were, it's interesting when they abdicate their own choice and they begin to use language that they had to have, right?

She, she should have said, I chose to have an abortion with someone who was not licensed and it could put me at risk for death, put me at risk for hemorrhaging to death because of the choice that I made to end the life, to murder the child that was in my womb.

And that is a risk that you take. But that's the thing. She's arguing for choice. And this is what

I said before we played that clip, right? She's, she's arguing for this, but who forced her to have it?

It was her choice to have the abortion because she didn't want to choose to have a child.

Absolutely. And she says, people are hurt by this, but listen, here's the interesting thing. I want you to listen.

And Virgil, you're going to, I know zone in on this because I know, you know,

Margaret Sanger who started Planned Parenthood and what her goals were with it. Listen to who she says are going to be hurt by these laws.

Yeah. And the people who are hurt by these laws attempting to restrict abortion are young women, poor women, rural women, and mainly women of color.

Maybe they can't afford the bus fare to go to another state where abortion is still legal. Okay. So Virgil, what was the goal of Planned Parenthood?

Who, who did they target when they wanted to do abortions and why? They targeted people of color.

They targeted low income people of color. Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist and she desired to,

I mean, she, she, she was a racist to boot and she, she did not want to see African -Americans thriving.

And so it was her, it was her goal through that, through a project aimed and targeted at black

Americans to, to see them abort their children. And so, I mean, that's why you have numbers as staggering as 33 to 35 % of all abortions come from.

Well, if you, if you added, and I'm, I'm, I'm simply quoting figures from, for blacks. If you added

Hispanics, you'd be somewhere in the neighborhood of about 45 to 50%, almost half of abortions are from people of color.

If you add, add those who would be considered people of color. Which is amazing because she says, oh, those are the people are going to be hurt by it.

They're hurt by it because you're targeting them to eliminate their children. Absolutely. And you, we both brought up the fact of this, this, she, she was had to, she was forced to have an abortion, but look at her view.

Let's listen to her view of, of, of what she thinks Ben Shapiro's view is. She says she's of a position of choice.

Ben, you support forced motherhood. Listen to this. In other words, I don't believe in mandatory motherhood, perhaps like you do, where women are forced to, you know, take a fetus to term and deliver.

I don't believe that a fertilized egg should have more rights than, than an adult woman.

And I think this is all very dangerous to women's health. It's so dangerous. It's dangerous to have motherhood.

You know, she's, she talks about how many people are dying because of these, these abortions that are, aren't done by licensed professionals and, and all this stuff.

But you know what, Gloria people die when they get into cars accidents. Are you going to say that they should never get into cars?

Are you going to be consistent in your thinking? Are you going to say, well, people, people die when they have cancer, when they smoke cigarettes, are you going to outlaw cigarettes?

Are you going to say, well, that's the choice that they have and therefore it should be, it should be okay. And we should, we should understand.

No, you're not consistent on this. That's the thing. No one's being forced to be a mother before they make the choice to have sex.

Now they're going to make the case of rape. We're going to get to that later. But the, the, the real issue is that's a minor case.

And the majority of people aren't, it's not an issue of rape. They're doing it at a convenience just as she was.

And the thing is, is that when you argue for people who are doing it at a convenience, you, you can't sit here and say, well, it's my choice after I made the decision.

That's like me saying, you know, I robbed that bank, but I don't choose to go to jail. I don't choose to suffer the consequences of that.

Gloria, I want you to defend me in saying, look, I made my choice, but now I want to make a different choice.

I don't like the consequences of my choice. It's incredible.

Let me play the last long clip that we're going to play to get context. And that's going to be the one on abortion restrictions.

Then we're going to, I'll play a bunch of clips about the abortion, science, scientific arguments for abortion that they get into.

And it's interesting, but let me just play this, this longer clip. This is when Ben is going to ask her about restrictions on abortion.

Do you believe there should be any period based restrictions on abortion or abortion should be available up to point of birth?

I think that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision, which found that women have a fundamental constitutional right to choose abortion at certain stages of their pregnancy, which cannot be interfered with by the government or anyone else.

I think that is a decision which should remain, even though the anti -choice activists want to try to reverse

Roe v. Wade and allow states to make ridiculous and dangerous restrictions on abortion.

One state even trying to make an abortion illegal for a woman to try to get one, even because before she's even pregnant, no, she's pregnant.

It's just absurd. But worse than that, this is, I can't emphasize the word dangerous enough and it's wrong and we're going to fight against it.

Yes, I had an abortion when I almost, and I almost died when I was in my twenties.

So I know what it's like to be a young woman who doesn't know where to go, what to do. And, but, you know,

I, yes, I know I've seen pictures of the protests where there are a lot of men and teenage teenagers from certain religious schools out there protesting.

I know a fair number of women. Well, some women too. I'm not saying there are no women, but I'm saying I know they have religious beliefs about forcing women to take pregnancies to turn, to term.

They say they're pro -life and what about the life of the mother is my question, or the woman who's carrying the fetus.

Not aware that anybody's wanting to kill the mother. I just don't believe anybody should be able to impose their religious ideology on others who don't necessarily subscribe to that, those religious beliefs.

Everyone is entitled to be respected for their religious beliefs, but not to have the government weaponize those beliefs into law.

I wonder if she feels that the child in the womb has those same rights, but let's deal with it.

Let me deal with the first clip that we're going to play. And this is where she's trying to argue that abortion law should not be interfered with by the government.

I think that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision, which found that women have a fundamental constitutional right to choose abortion at certain stages of their pregnancy, which cannot be interfered with by the government or anyone else.

I think that is a decision which should remain. Okay, so you're going to see this later.

I almost want to play some of the clips later where they're dealing with, this was not always the law, Gloria. For you who are listening, realize this.

She's making an argument as if abortion was always the law. This was a law in 1973.

It was illegal before that. If she's going to be consistent, she should be against abortion.

We're going to get this later when she says lawmakers shouldn't be doing this. But she says that they shouldn't interfere because it's the law.

But was it always the law? No, it wasn't. And so if she's going to be consistent, then we shouldn't be changing any of the laws.

But what really gets me is, and I hope you're already seeing how much, and this is why Virgil and I break this down for you folks, is so that you can hear, we're stopping it.

We're playing it. We're showing, listen to the emotional appeal she makes. Listen to the language she makes.

Because when you hear this played in one shot, you could be taken in by this. But it's all language that she has learned from years of doing this, that this language works.

She's going to talk about how dangerous this is. What's the danger? You know who abortion is dangerous for?

The child in the womb. That's who it's dangerous for. Oh, it's dangerous for the mother, but not as much.

So if it's so dangerous, listen to her. Even though the anti -choice activists want to try to reverse

Roe v. Wade and allow states to make ridiculous and dangerous restrictions on abortion.

One state even trying to make an abortion illegal for a woman to try to get one, even before she's even pregnant, knows she's pregnant.

It's just absurd. But worse than that, I can't emphasize the word dangerous enough.

She can't emphasize the word dangerous enough. What is it that these pro -lifers want to do?

They want to give states a choice. Yeah. And notice the language that she used.

It was anti -choice activists. She used the language the anti -choice activists want to establish things in such a way that they make things dangerous.

And to the point you've made, it's dangerous for the child in the womb who loses their lives as a result of the abortion.

And it's interesting. Listen to how she defines who these activists are. This is where he's starting to not reason.

You listen. This is a 53 -minute interview. The first probably 40 minutes is very cordial.

He's letting her speak. But you could tell he's like, look, I can't let this stuff go. I just can't let you keep doing this.

And you're going hear this in this because she's trying to just say these claims without any citing of any sources, just saying it.

And he starts calling her out. Listen to this. Yes, I know. I've seen pictures of the protests where there are a lot of men and teenage teenagers from certain religious schools out there protesting.

I know a fair number of women. Well, some women, too. I'm not saying there are no women, but I'm saying I know they have 45 percent.

OK, so about 45 percent of women are pro -life, but she only wants to focus on the men in these religious these religious groups because she's going to make it a religious argument.

Right. Ben Shapiro does. And this is where he's going to start to turn it on her because, you know, her thing is it's about the life of the mother.

That's the only one that she's concerned with. Listen to this. About forcing women to take pregnancies to turn to term, they say they're pro -life and what about the life of the mother is my question or the woman who's carrying a fetus.

Not aware that anybody is wanting to kill. But, you know, I just don't believe anybody should be able to. Now, he slipped that in there.

But did you hear he's challenging that because her whole argument is, well, you say you're pro -life.

What about the life of the mother? Who's who's taking the life of the mother? I got news for you. The mothers who don't have an abortion.

Don't actually suffer any consequence of death from an abortion. Absolutely.

I mean, there's no one forcing notice the language, just being forced. This is forced.

No one's forcing her to go have sex to turn. Yeah. No one's forcing her to have the child.

Mm hmm. Right. The thing is, it's like, well, if you don't allow abortion, you're forcing this.

And the whole thing is the life of the mother. What about the life of the baby?

We're going to get to that. Hold on. But let's first deal with this issue she tries to make about religious ideology because she has a religious ideology as well.

Absolutely. She does. So now let's take this clip of hers and think about does this clip that when she says about religious ideology, does it apply to her?

I just don't believe anybody should be able to impose their religious ideology on others who don't necessarily subscribe to that.

Those religious beliefs. Everyone is entitled to be respected for their religious beliefs, but not to have the government weaponize those beliefs into law.

OK, so notice the language weaponize those beliefs. Those religious beliefs are being weaponized.

Oh, so evil. Those beliefs that have been held for six thousand years. Yeah, more like you're the ones weaponizing them against the children in the womb.

Here's what's here's what's interesting. The whole first part of the of the interview was established on the basis of her desire.

I mean, if we're going to if we're going to use her language, I mean, first of all, her religion is secular humanism.

OK, it's feminism. I mean, those that those are the religious that's the religious ideology that informs her worldview.

OK, she doesn't want to call it religious because it's, you know, in her mind, it's not. Well, no, no, she doesn't want to call religion, because if you do, it takes away this argument that works so well.

Absolutely. But what she's doing is she's using government and law to impose her worldview, her beliefs on everyone else.

And that's OK. It is not OK for those who have a view that that opposes hers to do so on any moral basis.

Yeah, and see, the thing that you end up hearing with it is by just saying it's a religious ideology, the term weaponizing, these are terms that are used specifically to to cause you as you listen to her to be like, oh, that's bad.

No, we shouldn't do that. No, that's a bad thing. You know, and that's that's the goal of it.

And so don't be fooled by it. OK, don't be fooled by this. Now, Ben is going to do something that I think was was very good.

And I mean, look, he's an experienced debater. He knows what he's doing. It's not like this is the first rodeo he's had.

He knows what she's trying to do. He is an Orthodox Jewish man. She's she's trying to make the religious argument so that, you know, that all of a sudden it's those that are nonreligious versus religion to get more people to side with her.

He's going to bypass all that and make it a scientific argument. And so let's play this clip, because he's going to point out that most of us don't argue from a religious position only.

We can. It's very easy. God, the creator, the one who created the universe and spoken into existence, that creator of everything who gave us life is the source of life, has said that in the womb, life begins, that in the womb, he forms that child.

And so he's the one that says that he's the one that has laws that say that if you injure a pregnant woman, you suffer a death penalty because you've taken a life.

That is, he makes it very clear. This is life even in the womb. OK, we can make that argument.

But Ben Shapiro, well, this may shock some folks, but Ben Shapiro. His authority is not the

Bible. I don't know if people that shocks folks, but it isn't. Listen to his arguments.

Listen to how he argues. Listen to how he tries to present these. He's arguing as a

Jewish man. But his ultimate authority is not God's word.

It is. It's going to be, in this case, science arguments. It's going to be his tradition, really, that is the authority for him.

But you're going to see him be able to make arguments that as Christians wouldn't be our first argument.

I wouldn't be arguing right out of the gate from the scientific argument, though there are scientific arguments that uphold the issue of life in the womb.

But we would start with God's word in the Bible, though we can also use science.

But here's the thing you're going to hear him say. You're going to hear him argue for a scientific argument.

Let's listen. What about the scientific life interest of the fetus? What I mean there is that the

I speak to pro -life groups, I'm sure, far more often than you do. I'm sure you speak to pro -choice groups far more often than I do by converse.

And the main argument that I articulate and that pro -lifers around me articulate is not a religiously based argument.

It's an argument based on the science of fetal development. The question that I'm asking is even

Roe versus Wade acknowledges that at a certain point in the pregnancy, there is a countervailing interest in the life of the child.

Do you acknowledge that there is a countervailing interest in the life of the child and the preservation thereof? And on what basis in the fetal development would you place that countervailing life?

Okay, that is the question he's going to ask her three times. And she never answers. Virgil, why do you think she doesn't answer that one question?

It destroys her argument. She's made the argument that all of her language surrounds the fact, at the end of the day, that the bottom line issue with regard to abortion is, is this a human life?

And if it is, that it is incumbent upon us to treat that human life with specific value, dignity, and worth.

It's the same argument she's been making for every other area of life from the beginning of this interview.

Now when it comes, and you pointed this out early on, now when it comes to the life in the womb, she's going to abdicate.

She's going to walk away from all of those arguments that she's been positing from the beginning of the interview, and they'll all be absent because now it doesn't serve her convenience.

Exactly. And that's what it is. The argument is just for her convenience. I like how you said that.

Because it is her religious ideology that she wants to force upon the rest of us.

Now this is where you're going to start hearing this heat up. If you listen to the last, say, 10 minutes of that podcast that they did, you'll hear her voice changes.

It's starting to get a little bit more agitated. You're going to start hearing that as he starts poking holes that she can't answer.

And I want to play these different clips because I want to show you the way she's going to argue because you're going to recognize this with other people.

You're going to see people that do this. And if you can recognize it with what Gloria is in exchange with Ben and what she does, then you're going to be able to see it when someone is doing this to you.

So let's look at some of this. First is going to be the care about the life of the mother. Um, this is the focus.

There's a big difference being played here. The question is Ben is asking about the life of the child in the womb and she's asking about the life of the mother.

And we've already established no one is trying to kill the mother. So we don't know what that life is that she's so worried about.

But listen to this argument. I mean, how much do you care about the life of the woman versus the life of the fetus or, you know, the future of the fetus?

Okay. So how much do you care about the life of the woman is the life of the woman in threat here,

Virgil? Most of the time, it's, it's not in threat. It's more in threat at the point at which he's at, she enters an abortion clinic.

Her, her life is in danger, but it's only at the point at which she enters the abortion clinic.

Prior to that, there's no threat to the woman's life. You know, there was that case with a Gosnell and he was interesting because the only reason they actually investigated him was because a woman died, right?

And they were all like, we do not want to touch this because it's abortion. So they were going to let a murderer continue to do what he was doing, even though he was like with everything going on, because they don't want to touch the abortion issue.

They don't want to make it about abortion, but they, they, the only way they got it across was because they made it about the person, the woman who died.

So one woman died. How many children died there? A whole lot. Okay. So, you know, but you're, you're just going to start to see,

Ben is going to turn up the heat. The life of the mother is, is not at, at risk.

The life of the child is exponentially at risk at the point at which she enters an abortion clinic.

That's, that's just fact. That's just fact. Yeah. Yeah. Listen to this clip. I'm not in favor of abortion.

And I'm not in favor of no abortions. Okay. So I'm in favor of choice.

Okay. Whose choice, whose choice here? Here's the question. She's in favor of choice, right? That's what she said.

I love this meme that I I'll probably put as the picture for this, the thumbnail of this podcast.

So you can look at it. There's a bunch of women protesters and they're saying not your body, not your decision.

And the meme says, ma 'am, this is the same thing. Your preborn baby is saying to you, right?

I mean, she's, she's not for abortion. She's not against abortion, but it's, it's just a question of choice.

Well, whose choice, who gets to choose? Because whether you like it or not, it is a bunch of government leaders that make that choice, whether it's legal or illegal.

And now we're going to hear how she feels about leaders, government officials making that decision.

This is where it gets interesting. I don't think that elected officials sitting in Washington or Sacramento or any other capital of any state who have never met any of these women who are getting pregnant should be making a decision for them that is going to affect their lives.

First off, just for the record, Gloria, I, I, you're very intelligent woman.

You're an excellent attorney, but do you not realize that every government official that makes a law makes it and it affects people's lives?

I mean, like, is this like a new thought for her? Right, right. I mean, it's, it's like they always, it's always going to affect that.

I mean, so when she makes this argument, you know, it's really an argument that men don't have a say in abortion.

Okay. So let me play this and I want to, you know, she's trying to say they have no right.

Well, this is, this is one of my, if you don't listen to the Andrew Rapport's daily rap report, it's a two minute podcast,

Monday through Friday. Here is my argument that I made against her argument that she says that these men who are far away shouldn't have a say, should men have a say when it comes to abortion?

This is what I said on that podcast. One of the common arguments to shut down discussion for men when it comes to the issue of abortion is to say that men have no say in abortion.

This is a woman's issue. However, do men have a say in abortion? Well, we would first say as Christians that both male and female had say before they committed the act that created life in the womb.

And therefore that is where the choice should have taken place. Once there is life, we don't murder the child for any reason.

Even if the child came about from some sinful act, it is never right to murder another human being.

And that's what abortion is. Now, do men have a say? Well, for those who want to argue that men should not have any say in abortion, if you're going to hold that consistently, then we better make abortion absolutely illegal until we have, well, nine women to vote on the courts.

Because what made abortion legal was nine men, nine men who chose in a court to say that abortion would be legal.

Therefore, if men have no say, we should immediately make abortion illegal until enough women vote for it.

And by the way, the majority of women in poll after poll always come out to say that they do not support abortion.

They are pro -life, so they would never have abortion legalized. And so there you have it.

I mean, her whole argument is that these leaders shouldn't have a say, but the thing that made it legal was a bunch of men far away.

Nine of them, in fact. So, you know, she's against the choice of governors and people who actually vote.

She doesn't want that. Now that it's legal, it has to stay this way, and these leaders should have no say in it.

Let me play this. This is with the definition of a fetus. They get into a fetus.

Now, this is interesting because you're going to start to hear her lose it. She's going to be losing the argument.

You're going to hear that because she's going to start to make arguments where she starts to try to turn the tables on Ben.

She's going to try to be like, well, you want to talk science, listen to this. So I'm really,

I really, I promise I'm only going to ask it one more time and then I know we have to run. Okay. Okay. I'll stop it there. He says,

I'm only going to ask this one more time. Ben lied. He didn't know he was going to lie because he asked it a third time and she never answers it.

But but listen to this. So I'm really, I promise I'm only going to ask it one more time and then I know we have to run.

Okay. The question, again, is about the life interest of the fetus. I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the life interest of the mother, which is why, again,

I'm in favor of the possibility of abortion when a mother's life's in danger. But do you acknowledge that? That's really big of you.

Because it's about the definition of life. It's not about the law. Okay. So it's just listen to what

Ben says there, because this is important, right? Because it's about the definition. It's about the definition of life, right?

That's what she doesn't want to deal with. She doesn't want to deal with that. That is the underlying issue in all of this.

I love what I first heard of it from We Stand to Reason. But Scott Klusendorf developed his whole thing.

And the first question you should ask is, what is it in the womb? Right, right. Absolutely. That's the fundamental question of this conversation.

What is in the womb? Is that a human life? And if it is, we all know, not because some book informs us, but we know based upon the fact that we are image bearers of God.

And as a result, we know, some old pastors say, you just know when you're nowhere, right?

You just know that this is a human life. And as a result, it deserves value, dignity, and worth.

Yeah. And so what you end up seeing here is, you know, she's starting to get, she's going to start getting hamstrung.

Listen to this, because this is where her whole argument so far has been, this is a law.

Like, now that it's law, we can't change it. Ben starts to answer that. It's about the law.

It's about what law? Well, it wasn't a law until 1973. Boom. I mean, that was the mic drop right there.

Mm -hmm. You know, this is the law. Yes. But the argument that those of us who believe in life in the womb are that we should not murder, we should not legalize murder of any kind.

And therefore, you should not be taking the life of a child in the womb.

The definition of life is essential to this. And the fact is, yes, it's a law today, and we want to change the law back to what it was before 1973.

We want to have it where states have the choice. The reason she's against Roe versus Wade and everything she's saying is because she does not want states to have the choice.

She wants to keep it at a federal level where it's federal for every state. She is against states making their own choices.

So is she really for choice? No. Only when it serves her interests. Correct. Right. And this is what you end up seeing.

I mean, she's going to talk about how women are forced to have abortion. Listen, states could criminalize abortion before that and and force women to have unsafe, illegal abortions.

Okay. What state was doing that before 1973? What state was forcing women to have illegal abortions?

None of them. None. Right now. Now, you know how I know, Virgil, that Ben Shapiro was getting under her skin.

How? Because this next clip, she starts the next two clips. I'll play them back to back.

She gets so self -righteous, like, I'm older than you, Sonny. You don't have the right to know this stuff.

You can't know it because I have experiences that you haven't had. And I know more than you. You don't believe me?

Just listen. And you are too young to remember what it was like. I'm old enough to know that there are a million abortions a year.

Some of them late term. You are too young to know, being that you're, what, 36, to know what it was like before 1973 in the

U .S. Supreme Court. And you don't know, and I do, how many women were had illegal abortions and who will never tell you.

They will tell me. And they suffered. And they suffered. And you don't know. You don't know.

I know. How do you know? I mean, he knows how many children are aborted, how many children's lives are killed, murdered.

He knows that. You don't need, like, this is one of the arguments, Virgil, you have dealt with on your podcast with Daryl, is the fact that, you know, these people make the argument, well, you have to live in my shoes before you can speak about these things.

It's two things. It's an emotional appeal that's based on an experience that's unique to the individual.

And so what those who are positing those kinds of arguments are trying to do is they're trying to eradicate, they're trying to get you away from making a sound argument on the basis of facts and truth.

It's anecdotal at best. It's gnosticism at worst.

She's got special knowledge that no one else can have. I mean, it's not difficult to go back and identify who women were prior to 73 and find their stories and find out what was actually taking place.

There will be some things that are true. And what will be true is that in those instances, when those women, whoever they were, who, quote, unquote, suffered, they if they were successful in having an abortion, obtaining abortion, they murdered the life of a child in their womb.

That we can know for with certainty and make decisions on that basis. Yeah. And this is the thing that you're seeing is she gets this self -righteous attitude because she's losing the argument.

Absolutely. Okay. And you'll hear that with people that do this. And now she's appealing to, you know, her knowledge and her experience.

But yet notice she can tell Ben Shapiro, you believe in forcing motherhood.

So she could speak for the man, but the man can't speak for her. If she was consistent, she'd be like, well, you know, do you believe this?

I think you believe this, but I can't really tell, but I'm not a man. So I can't understand what a man goes through.

In fact, I got news for you. Virgil is your life experience.

Does that match every single African American? No, you know that my life experience doesn't perfectly match every single

Jewish American boy. Yeah. Yeah. You know, we're all kind of individual and we all take things differently.

And the argument she makes is to group all women into one group and then say, no man has any right to speak on anything that a woman feels.

Absolutely. That's a problem. And we said this before, but Ben's going to bring this up.

The question is, what is the priority? The fetus or the woman? Listen, I'm not willing to inflict that suffering and that danger.

Are you on the unborn child on women? I mean, does the unborn child have any interest that I keep? It's the third time I've asked it. It's the third time you've asked because your priority is the fetus and not the life of the woman.

No, I've already acknowledged that I'm in perfectly in favor. OK, but we're the loner. Not enough. No, I mean, we need laws.

We need laws. Now that that is the best clip I think that I have because this shows so much this that one clip is really the whole part of the argument, because it's what is the priority?

He's saying, no, I'm in favor of laws, laws that protect both mother and child.

This is where she's really losing the argument. I mean, now it's starting to fall apart on her. And it comes out because after this, it's like it's almost all just emotional arguments and nothing that she does that is trying to support a logical argument where she builds up and she's lost it at this point.

You're hearing it in her voice. She's starting to get agitated. Let me play this again, because this is such an important clip.

I'm not willing to inflict that suffering and that danger. Are you on the unborn child? OK, so that that's suffering and that danger.

And so what does he do? He brings it about the child. I mean, does the mother's health have any interest that I keep?

It's the third time I've asked it. It's the third time you've asked because your priority. OK, she's upset that he keeps coming back to the same question.

She's tried to avoid it. This is the third time she's trying to avoid it. And she's like, will you just leave this alone?

I don't want to answer because I can't answer it and be consistent. Right. So she's getting annoyed with it.

Your priority is the fetus and not the life of the woman. No, I've already acknowledged that.

OK, so earlier in the interview, he acknowledged that they had that discussion. I didn't play it, but they acknowledge it.

And now she's she goes to exactly Virgil, as you said earlier, she goes to the law, the law, and she tries to make it she's she tried to make it about a religious argument.

He took that away by saying, let's talk science. She tried to argue it about the issue of suffering. He took that away and said, what about the suffering and the danger to the child?

So now she's got nothing left. She's going to go back to the law. And he's going, but I agree with the law. I want to change the law so that it protects both perfectly in favor.

OK, but we're alone are not enough. No, I mean, we need laws. We need laws. We need laws.

I'm agreeing with you. We need laws to protect the child. I want to codify that in law. Right.

Words are not enough. He's not arguing for words. He's arguing for law. Right. She's the one now arguing for words.

Don't change the law. So we've got so many more clips. All right.

This is definitely a long episode, bro. All right. Here's where she says we need laws to protect choice.

We need laws to protect the right of the woman to make that choice. OK, so we need. So I want you to remember that we need laws to protect the woman of that choice.

Right now, she's going to say and what place in order she's going to talk about not going to force people to, you know, she doesn't want to force people to make, uh, you know, women pregnant.

No one's forcing that. But listen, I'm not going to I'm not going to insist that every sperm of yours.

Be used, OK, to impregnate a woman, I'm not even ordering. I'm not going to force you.

I'm not going to force you to make women pregnant is what I'm saying. OK, now, if you listen to the clip, you're going to be like, where in the world is this coming from?

Right. Good, because it had absolutely nothing to do with their argument. This was her scrambling there live in studio cameras on them.

She's feeling the pressure and she's scrambling for any way to make any emotional appeal to get the people back on her side.

And she comes up with this. This is like a ridiculous argument that doesn't even fit in context.

Your thoughts, this is complete deflection. I mean, I have no idea where this is going.

I don't think she did either. So now let me let me play the clip that she said before this. And I want to play the one after because you're going to see now the contradiction.

We need laws to protect the right of the woman to make that choice. OK, we need laws to protect the right for the choice.

Right. And then she says this later on. I'm not in favor of laws which restrict you into choices you're going to make as long as they're legal in reference to your sexual activity.

So so we don't want to restrict anything, any laws that come to your sexual activity.

Right. But but did you hear that one clip that she said, listen, they're legal. Oh, what was that word?

Yeah. As long as they're legal. As long as it's legal. So in other words, Gloria, you should never been supporting abortion to be legalized because it was illegal.

That's exactly right. You see, this is where the whole thing breaks down because her whole argument is, but it's legal.

But when it was legal, when the law said you can't have abortion, you supported changing the law.

Right. And she said, well, as long as it's legal, any choice, as long as it's legal.

Gloria, do you support men having sex with animals or men having sex with their children?

I should hope you would say no. There's no law that makes it legal, but that's a choice, a sexual choice.

But you're saying, yeah, but it's not legal. But neither was abortion. And you fought for that and her.

And again, according to her worldview, that those those grotesque situations that you just articulated with having sex with children would be

OK in her mind if they were legal. I mean, if if they were legal, then that makes it moral.

That's that's the point that she's that she's that she's appealing to. That is absolutely absurd. Well, see, this is the whole thing.

This is why I bring this up, because that's where her whole argument breaks down. Because, as you said at the beginning, she defends depends on the law.

But the law is morality. We already said this. And so this is the the thing that you have to recognize.

She wants to change the laws when it doesn't go the way she wants. But she doesn't want you to change it back.

She should have the right to change the law. You shouldn't. And, you know, it's like she ends up saying, you know, about the laws that somehow it's like you want to force women to risk their lives.

Listen to this. But apparently you want to impose a whole set of laws on women, which is going to make them risk their lives.

So she knows she could speak for Ben Shapiro and Brian all pro -lifers, but she's not a pro -lifer in her.

If she's going to be consistent, she can't do that. And this is where it's going to start getting real heated.

This is where Ben is now going to say, but whose whose body is it basically? Thank you. I respect your right to want to advocate to restrict a woman's right to choose and what she does with her body.

She's not your body. No, it's the baby's body that's not a baby. If it's a fetus, it's a fetus.

You want to use scientific terms, use them. You want to use scientific terms, use them. The fetus is a human being.

It's a human being in the womb. That's what it is. That's what the word means. It's a human being that's in the womb.

Right. I mean, they have they've redefined it. They have to redefine it because they want to say it's something other than a human being in the womb.

Right. But that's what it is. And you're here. I want to play the beginning is because I want you to I want you to listen to how just how snotty she is.

You could tell that the truth is getting under her skin. Listen to this. Thank you.

I respect your right to want to advocate to restrict a woman's right to choose and what she does with her body.

You see that it's like, you know, and so they get into a quick discussion here.

What is a fetus? It's called a fetus. One one minute before birth. Actually, it's called a fertilized egg and other fertilized egg.

You're against birth control. Last system embryo than fetus. Are you are you against birth control? No. OK, so what is she doing right there?

She's she tried another argument. It failed and she's doing a red herring. She changes topics.

Are you against and she's going to go into trying to make that, you know, you know, to to to get try to get somewhere where she can get off this topic.

Now, here's the funniest part, I think, of the interview. We've already established three times he asked her the same question.

Right. She's upset because he doesn't answer one question about birth control.

Listen to this. In other words, even if a woman is raped, you want to restrict her ability to choose to have an abortion.

Is that correct? If you want to argue about the edge case in which I don't want to argue about I'm asking you a question which you've not answered.

Yes, I've asked you a question. You're not answered. You notice when she when she asked him the question, very straightforward.

Did he provide a straightforward answer? He sure did. One word. Yes. Could she do that three times?

Could she do that? No, not once. Not once. No. And she wants to use rape to justify all abortion.

And he calls her out on it. Listen, the answer is the answer is the answer is yes.

The rapist should be captured, killed, put in jail forever. And I'm not talking about the rapist.

I understand you're not talking about the woman and the rape victim. Does she have access to a morning after the case that you're making is that based on cases of rape, we should then legalize abortion for all other cases.

Rape represents an extraordinarily small number of abortions. Each one of those is a horrific situation, a tragedy.

We wouldn't have abortions. It's a horrific situation. Anytime a woman has to make a decision about whether she's going to have an abortion or not.

OK, so, you know, you're hearing her like this is the end of the argument. She's trying to like get some way to get back on better footing here because she's totally been lost.

She was demolished on every front. She never answered the fundamental question he was asking.

Not once. I mean, over and over again. You're seeing this. And what ends up happening? She just can't handle it now.

OK, now this last is the last clip, 30 seconds long, you know, dealing with the and this is important because she's going to be arguing for, you know, that the woman knows better than the government leaders.

OK, so I want to play this and I want you to think the whole time you're listening to it. I want you to think one thing. Did those nine judges know better than all the women when they made abortion legal?

Just think about that. Think about that while we play this. She's the one who gets to decide.

Why is that so hard for you? Because no. Why do you think a legislator knows better than she does?

Some elected officials she's never met, sitting thousands of miles away, has a right to decide what she can do in her own life, what that teenager has a right to do, what that woman living in a rural area has a right to do, what that woman of color has the right to do, what that poor woman has the right to do.

Because, again, you refuse to acknowledge that there is a countervailing interest in this equation. I'm not refusing to acknowledge that it's all about a balancing of interests.

OK, so it's all balancing of interests. Yeah, as long as it's her interest. She doesn't. Yeah, absolutely.

She doesn't even want him to speak in a way that that what he's saying can be clearly heard and understood.

And you see that countless times where she's over him so that none of his audience or really her audience who may be listening could be swayed.

Because this was the essential thing. And folks, if you're going to argue for abortion, now, Virgil, we didn't talk about this, but you you do abortion ministry, you go to abortion clinics on a regular basis.

You reach out to folks, you offer help for their choices, offer different choices than just abortion.

And the fundamental argument that Ben Shapiro tried to get to and that is essential to this is what is it in the womb?

That's the bottom line. And she can't answer that because if she says it's a human hurt, the rest of her argument goes away because then it's murder.

And she knows she can't win this legislative issue on a murder for choice issue.

Right. Absolutely. And that's what this comes down to, folks. That's the bottom line. And then, you know, staying on topic, you can see how unrailed she got.

I mean, toward the end, she's she really was getting snippy with him, talking over him, just wanting to shut him down and be like, you think that these legislators know better?

Well, these legislators have to basically make a law for the protection of human beings.

And those include human beings in the womb. So if they're going to be balanced, they should say, you know what, if the mother's life is not at risk, then we shouldn't take this child's life.

What did the child do to earn death? Even if it's if they were raped?

I'm sorry that that happened to you. But that doesn't justify killing someone else.

Right. Kill the rapist. And that's what Ben tried to argue. You punished the rapist for what he did wrong. You don't punish the child for what the father did.

Absolutely. Would any of you like to be punished for what your dad did? No, not a person. And there's no area of jurisprudence that allows for that.

None. Yeah. And so I think that this interview with Gloria Aldridge was very enlightening.

I think it was helpful for folks to see exactly what the argument from the left is. And it's a bad one.

And I think that folks need to be aware. I mean, recognize these behaviors.

You're going to see them. It's not going to be an unusual thing. Okay. This is the way people argue.

And I want you to be able to spot it when you see it, when people are doing this, because this is what the left has.

This is what those that reject God, they have no way to argue. They can't argue from an objective, absolute standard.

We can because we have the truth. Absolutely. So, brother, I'm looking forward to seeing you at G3 soon.

I hope so, man. God willing, we plan on being there. It's going to be an amazing, amazing time. Yeah. And it's going to be a lot of fun.

We're going to be maybe we'll maybe we'll try to see if we can get some some interviews and podcasts and done while we're there.

Well, you will. But right. You know, the rest of us will be down. I'm down for whatever. I'm hooking.

I'm ready to hook up with whoever. I'll be there. I know Darrell will be there. We're looking forward to it. A lot of folks.

It's almost like a family reunion at this point, man. I mean, I've been a number of years, number of times.

And so it's always good to see everybody there and reconnect and see what's going on in ministry and just all the folks that we connect within the social media space and social media platforms to see them live and in person.

It's a joy, not to mention the ridiculously phenomenal preaching we get to hear for a number of days.

So, folks, did you did you hear what he said? He's down with anything, right? OK, folks, this is it.

We're going to see. We're going to test this now. So we will know when we when I return from G3, if Virgil takes me out for sushi, then we know.

Let's do it. Let's do it. Hey, brother, it's always good to have you on and look forward to seeing you at G3.

You guys will be doing a live recording, which will be neat. And I do hope this was informative for folks.

I know it's a longer episode. We don't like to go this long, but be looking forward to some new things coming out.

We got a lot of new podcasts coming on the Christian podcast community, and we're going to be presenting some of those when we get down to G3.

We're up to 21 podcasts. We got one more we got to add, just waiting for a contract.

And we have about eight more in queue. So probably about five of them will probably make it through.

And so we're it's a growing community of podcasters, good Christian content. So go to just check them all out.

And you can go to christianpodcastcommunity .org. You see them all there. Do you want to give another plug?

You can look in the show notes for our podcast community giveaway. We have over $1 ,000 worth of resources we're giving away, theology and evangelism.

We just got some more stuff in that was sent to me from some of the other podcasts. So different podcasters from the community are sending stuff in, and we're just adding it to the list.

And you could go to podcasts .strivingforeternity .org slash contest, or go to bit .ly

.com slash CPC contest and get all the details.

Or just go to the show notes, because the link is there. And you can get all the details, all the different ways to enter.

We're going to run it through the end of February, so that we can catch G3. And it just helps to promote all the different podcasts, make you aware of all the podcasts we have that are in the community.

So hope that's something that you'd look forward to check it out and be part participating in.

So until next time, remember to strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God.

And guess what, Virgil? What's that, buddy? That's a wrap. This podcast is part of the Striving for Eternity ministry.

For more content, or to request a speaker or seminar to your church, go to strivingforeternity .org.

During Jeep Adventure Days, well qualified lessees get an ultra low mileage lease on the 2024 Jeep Wrangler Willys 4xe for $369 a month for 36 months with $4 ,949 due at signing.

Tax title, license extra. No security deposit required. Call 1 -888 -925 -JEEP for details.

Requires dealer contribution and lease through Stellantis Financial. Extra charge for miles over $22 ,500.

Includes 7 ,500 EV cap cost reduction. Not all customers will qualify. Residency restrictions apply.

Take delivery by 1023. Jeep is a registered trademark. With lucky landslides, you can get lucky just about anywhere.

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to... Has anyone seen the bride and groom? Sorry, sorry, we're here.

We were getting lucky in the limo and we lost track of time. No, Luckyland Casino, with cash prizes that add up quicker than a guest registry.

In that case, I pronounce you lucky. Play for free at luckylandslots .com.

Daily bonuses are waiting. No purchase necessary. Boydware prohibited by law. 18 plus. Terms and conditions apply.