Life Ethics - Abortion, Reproduction and Genetics

The Book as a Foundation for Ethics

Before class, somebody asked me what we read in the book doesn't have anything to do with abortion. And I said, that's right. The book is the foundation of law and the Christian and it won't tie into what we're doing in class.

It's giving you foundations for ethics and it's secondary to what we're doing in class. So just understand that. Don't don't don't worry that they're not connecting because they're not supposed to. It's a it's a secondary learning.

It's what you're doing on your own and it should influence how you answer these questions. But it's not always going to directly relate to the question at hand. So as I already mentioned, the subject tonight is abortion.

Life Ethics: Abortion, Reproduction, and Genetics

But let me back up for just a second and say this. The subject of tonight is life ethics. So that is the the name of of this lecture. And under the subject heading of life ethics, we are going to deal with abortion, reproduction and genetics.

Next week, we'll get to death ethics, which deals with things like suicide and other difficult things like euthanasia. And that'll all be next week. So just to give you an idea of how we're doing and what we're doing.

If you have the syllabus, you know these things. So let's begin with the subject of abortion. And I'm going to try to keep this in our time frame for tonight. We are all familiar with the scenario. A young woman just about to finish high school engages in a sexual encounter with her boyfriend and becomes pregnant.

She was already on the way to great success, having been accepted into a prestigious school and is looking forward to a very bright academic future. Upon finding out her boyfriend abandons her and to make matters worse, her parents are encouraging her to simply get it taken care of and get on with her promising life.

She feels alone, afraid and that if she has the baby, her life will be over. Before we begin to discuss the ethical dilemma of abortion, we must first admit that this scenario is an all too common occurrence.

I have friends who stand outside of abortion clinics and I have stood outside of abortion clinics and pleaded with women not to kill their babies. And often those women are being escorted by family members who are pressuring them to get it taken care of.

It's heart wrenching to see these young women being encouraged to destroy the life within them for the sake of convenience. There are two camps in the abortion debate. Most of this you may know, but I just want to say these things because I think they're important for us to address.

We understand that within the abortion debate, the two camps are typically known as the pro-choice and the pro-life camps. Ever since the legalization of abortion with the landmark Roe v. Wade decision was handed down in January of 1973, which essentially legalized abortion on demand, since then two groups have emerged.

The pro-life movement advocates belief that it is ethically wrong to terminate a pregnancy because the baby in the womb is a person and has the right to life. The pro-choice advocate believes that it is ethically wrong to demand a woman to keep the pregnancy which she does not want, and she should have the right to end the pregnancy.

And there is a sense in which both sides have varying degrees. Not all pro-life advocates would say abortion is always wrong. Most pro-life advocates say there are some extreme cases where they would allow for an abortion, such as rape or incest.

In fact, I would argue that you probably have not heard of any legislation that has tried to be passed in the last few years regarding abortion that did not include some form of exception, generally in the case of either rape or incest or some kind of genetic abnormality.

Almost every pro-life person, and again, I'm not saying every, I said almost. So we're going to get to the... I see the eyes already beginning to cross. Hang with me. I'm stating truth and facts as it is, not as it should be.

But in almost every case, even people who say they're pro-life will at some point bend and say, well, in that case, it would be allowed. Likewise, pro-choice advocates would say there is a point where abortion should no longer be an option, such as the case if the baby can survive outside the womb.

A lot of pro-choice advocates would say, well, that's the point at which it shouldn't be allowed. Now that's beginning to get less and less as more radical forms of pro... And they're not even really using the pro-choice moniker as much anymore.

Now it's just simply pro-abortion, and we've got abortion songs, and we've got abortion literature that's pro-abortion. And so it's actually becoming more aggressively pro-abortion, but we see that.

But the reason why I'm bringing this up is because just because someone says I am pro-life or someone says I am pro-choice does not mean that they have a monolithic or ubiquitous position upon which they stand.

There is differences in both camps depending on who you talk to. There are those who say abortion should never be allowed for any reason, and there are those who say abortion should be allowed at any time for any reason up to and even after birth.

There are people who believe that a child born, if it's unwanted, could be killed even if it comes out of the birth canal alive. Even though that's typically referred to as homicide, there are those who believe that the baby outside the womb is still worthy of death if the mother doesn't want it.

So it can become aggressively pro-abortion in that regard. But I want you to notice very quickly, just before we even really dig deep, is the use of language. The side which favors abortion has not gone by the term pro-abortion.

For the last 40 years, they have used the term pro-choice. Why would they use the term choice? Well, because abortion, even today for most people, has a negative connotation, but the word choice has a very positive and, might I add, a very American connotation.

What is more American than the ability to choose? What is more American than the ability to have the freedom to choose? Therefore, the idea that you are pro-life, they will say, no, no, you're not pro-life, you're anti-choice, and therefore anti-American.

It has been rightfully said that the one who defines the terms wins the argument, and that's what that is. It's an attempt to define the terms so to win the argument, because nobody wants to be anti-choice.

What are the arguments for the pro-choice side? Well, I have taken to compiling some of their arguments, and I just want to say from the outset, I'm pretty strong on this issue, and so my biases may come out at some point.

I really am trying to be honest and fair and genuine to at least try to see the other perspective, but this is a hard one for me. What I did was I went and I got quotes from pro-choice advocates stating their positions so as to at least allow them to speak for themselves.

I went to different places, but where I found some interesting were from MIT. You're familiar with MIT, a very prestigious school? This is their pro-choice campus group, and I pulled down some quotes from some of their students.

Now, the first one is an undergraduate student in chemistry, so not a dummy. Somebody who is at MIT is an undergraduate student of chemistry. This is somebody who at least should be articulate, so I'm going to allow this person to speak.

Quote, I am pro-choice because I don't think that there is any reason why a woman should have to face all the consequences from something she did not do alone. If a guy can get a woman pregnant and then run away, there's no reason why she should be the one responsible for everything.

Having more options puts a woman on more equal footing with men instead of being someone of whom they can take advantage. In addition, I believe that it is best for a child to not be born at all than to be born hated to a mother who is forced to have him because she had no choice and not because she wants the child.

So consider the foundations of the argument. One, I believe this is a girl, if I remember correctly this is a young lady. I didn't write their names down, I just put what their school, what their study was in.

But I believe this was a young lady. And her argument essentially is that the man can abandon his responsibility in the pregnancy. We know this does happen. No one would disagree that men impregnate women.

And what's amazing is a man can impregnate 10 women at a time or more. He can have sexual encounters every day for 30 days and get every one of those women pregnant and not give any responsibility to any of them.

He could leave every one of them. Leave the state, run away. Now they could all try to chase after him for child support, but we know how difficult that can be sometimes. But you understand what I'm saying.

It's possible that a man could just be out to impregnate and could very well do that. So it isn't as if she's speaking of something that isn't true. There are men who impregnate women and then abandon them, and oftentimes that's a reality that has to be considered.

Now I am not saying that I accept that as a reason for abortion. I'm simply saying let's consider what she's saying. She's saying that that gives the right to abortion in her mind. And she also went on to say that if the child was going to be born hated, it would be better to not be born.

Now I have even harder time justifying any type of thinking like that, but that is her argument. So we're just listening to the arguments at this point, not engaging with them. We're just hearing them.

I'll read another one. This is a graduate student, so someone who is at the master's level or higher, in biology. The single most important factor for women's advancement in society is our ability to control our fertility.

I'm pretty sure this one was a woman because she said our, and I'm only basing, you know, sounds as if. Without that, we are trapped by the realities of pregnancy, childbirth, and childrearing. Rather than a privilege and a gift, these aspects of being female become an unbearable burden.

Attempts to limit women's reproductive freedom are no more than a gambit to keep women in their place. A gambit in the guise of religious moralism. True, the guise can run deep, and many so-called pro-lifers genuinely believe that killing a fetus is equivalent to killing a human being, but such religious feeling has no place in the public policies of a country that claims to separate church and state.

In the words of Supreme Court Justice O 'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, quote, at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life, end quote.

No one wants to plan an abortion, but the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies through sex education, improved distribution of birth control, and general empowerment of women to shape our own individual lives.

All right, so that one was a little more pointed. Used a little bit more graphic language, saying women are shackled and bound almost as in a slavery condition, and even quoted three Supreme Court Justices about what it means to have the ability to choose one's own concept of existence, of meaning, and of the universe.

I will say this, as much as I disagree with all of this, there's one point that I want to really just simply mention. She says no one wants to plan an abortion. It's actually not true. There are people who now have been, it's been on the news, it's been in several articles, that there are people who are going and getting pregnant and having abortions on purpose.

And I'm not exaggerating, this isn't something I read in the Inquirer. What it is, is it's the newest line of sexual fetish. Because once a woman is pregnant, according to the article that I read, that I really wish I hadn't, she becomes more sexually active and now is no longer able to get pregnant or have a menstrual cycle, and therefore they have a wanton sexual time for several months, and then she goes and has an abortion.

Yeah, it's the sickest thing I've ever heard, and I'm sorry to even have to share it with you. I'm glad we're all adults and are mature enough to talk about things like this. So when she says no one wants an abortion, I say, well, some people are nuts.

Be careful with that universal negative, no one. It's pretty crazy. I think that's enough. I don't think I need to read any more. I have more, but I'm good. We've heard two arguments from two what I would consider to be somewhat well-educated young women.

I want to quote for you from the BBC. Now you know what the BBC is, the British Broadcasting Company. This is from their ethics guide. This is something they publish, and their ethics guide is in favor of abortion, and this is their reasoning why.

Number one, women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies. Number two, the right to abortion is vital for gender equality. Number three, the right to abortion is vital for individual women to achieve their full potential.

Number four, banning abortion puts women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists. And number five, the right to abortion should be part of a portfolio of pregnancy rights that enables women to make a truly free choice whether to end a pregnancy.

These arguments, these five, remind us that even in the abortion debate, we should regard women as a person and not just a container for a fetus. I'm still reading, by the way. I'm not making my own commentary.

I'm reading, continuing, just so you know. We should therefore give great consideration to her rights and needs as well as those of the unborn. Women's rights activists do not take a casual or callous attitude toward the fetus.

The opposite is usually true, and most of them acknowledge that choosing an abortion is usually a case of choosing the least bad of several bad courses of action. Now, just for a second, I want to take issue with that last part.

Why is it bad? Because they just said it. I just read the BBC's statement, right? And the last paragraph is, it's the least bad of many bad options. But why is it bad? According to them, if they're saying it must be a right and it must be allowed, then why is it bad?

I've heard abortion compared to the removing of a tumor or the removing of any number of types of cells inside of your body that may become aberrant. And so if that's all it is, then it's not bad. So they've sort of tipped their hat in this argument because they've said it should be allowed, but it's still bad.

Do you remember when Bill Clinton was in office? He said abortion should be three things. What were they? Safe. Well, it was safe. The second one means cheap, but I can't think of the word. Affordable.

Safe, affordable, and rare. That was the three words. It was safe, affordable, and rare was the argument from the Clintons during their 90s administration. And here's the issue. Why rare if it's not bad?

If there's nothing wrong with it, why does it matter if it's rare or not? So even in that statement, safe, affordable, and rare, there is some implicit acknowledgement that it is bad because no one would say that cancer treatment should be safe, affordable, and rare unless we're saying that cancer should be rare, and maybe that's the argument that's being made, but I don't think it is.

I think what they're saying is it's a last resort, rare. But why if it's not bad? So those are some of the pro-choice arguments, and I'm not going to, but I would like to go take a shower after having made them.

Now, again, I have a bias, and I have no shame in it. There will be times where I have no shame in saying I think this is a complete farce, and all of the arguments I've given you so far are easily responded to, and we are going to try to respond to some of them as we go tonight.

But I want to now present to you what is typically known as the pro-life position. Notice I haven't yet said what is the biblical position because that's still coming because the pro-life position tends to be more political than biblical.

In fact, we have had pro-life groups come to the church that said, well, we're willing to stand for life, but we're not willing to use the Bible. Well, we don't really want to partner with you then, and we've said that.

If we're not willing to use the scripture upon which to stand, we're not going to partner with your organization. We've had people get upset with us for that, but we start our argument with the scripture.

But again, having said that, I'm sort of jumping ahead of myself. We've looked at the pro-choice arguments, at least a few. I know there's a thousand more, but I think the main ones we've sort of checked off.

Women should have the right to choose, especially in the case where it's either a financial, emotional, or physical distress situation. And it limits a woman's ability to be successful because it creates for her a distress that it doesn't create for a man in causing her not only to have to have the baby, but also to have to deal with it once it's born, either through adoption or rearing the child herself.

So we understand what the arguments are. Now for the pro-life arguments. And again, when I say the pro-life arguments, I am speaking from more of the political pro-life. Pro-life advocates usually base their argument on personhood, the personhood of the child in the womb.

If the child is a person, then all rights to personhood ought to be maintained, including the right, the most fundamental right, the right to life. The problem is the concept of personhood is not easy to define.

What makes someone a person? Someone will say, well, personhood is based on sentience. So are you not a person if you're in a coma? Because you're sentient, but you're not when you're in a coma. So are you not a person anymore?

I mean, again, this argument can really begin to fall apart. How do you really understand personhood? When does personhood begin? And is life and personhood the same thing? Often pro-choice arguments are attempted to be based on scientifically quantifiable data.

Scientific advances, particularly in the past century, have given large volumes of information that are used by pro-life advocates to conclude when life begins. So the whole idea behind most of what you hear from the pro-life advocates are things like this.

Within 18 to 25 days, there's a heartbeat. You heard that. That's true. Within eight weeks, there's brain waves and fingerprints. That's true. Within 12 to 13 weeks, the fetus is sucking his thumb and recoiling from pain.

That's true. All of the genetic information, the entire genetic code that generates the particular characteristics of a human being is established at the very moment of conception. That's true. But none of that defines a person.

It just says it's a life. It is a life, a person. That's the argument that the politicians are trying to make. And where it becomes a real issue is the pro-choice side will say, yes, it has all of these things, but that doesn't make it a person.

How do you define personhood? Remember what I said earlier? He who defines the terms wins the debate. How do we define what is and what is not a person? This is really where the issue lies. Because if we believe that personhood begins at conception, because no one really denies that life begins at conception because that's scientifically quantifiable.

We know what life is. We know when it starts. We know how it starts. And we can actually see it under microscopic conditions starting. But does that make it person? That's the question, and that's the argument.

How many of you have ever seen the film The Silent Scream? Okay. I would encourage you, if you have the stomach for it, to look it up. It is not. And it's really, I only tell you to look it up because you might not even find it.

I have watched it. I did weep while watching it. The Silent Scream is a film. It is not altered. It is not CGI. It is actually a film which is an abortion taking place under a sonogram. So you can see it happening.

And the baby recoils in pain, seeks to move out of the way of the device that's doing the action, and it is proof that babies feel pain and have the wherewithal to try to protect themselves. But does that make them person?

Now, again, I would argue yes, but this is the question, right? The question is, what is personhood? What does it mean? If the ability to want to protect oneself is not at least a part of personhood, I don't really even know how we would define it.

And that's what we see. And that movie is considered propaganda by the pro-choice side because it is so damning to their position. It is a legitimate film, though. Look it up. Research it. And if I'm wrong, you tell me.

But I've done the research and I've seen it is what it is. And it is used to demonstrate that the babies can feel pain. One of the arguments that is often made by the pro-life side is known as SLED. SLED is an acronym.

How many of you know this? You've never heard of this? Okay. Okay. SLED is an acronym which is usually taught to pro-life advocates as a way to try to make the argument for the personhood of the child in the womb.

SLED stands for, number one, size. Here's the argument. Does the size of a person make them more or less of a person? No. A child is just as much a person as an adult. A small person is just as much a person as a large person.

And so we would never use size to determine a person's personhood. Therefore, a child in the womb, though they are much smaller, maintain all of the critical parts of what it means to be human. Therefore, their size cannot make them less of a person.

So that's the first argument. The second is level of development. Level of development, that is to say, does a person's level of development make them more or less of a person? For instance, a 13-year-old girl is more developed than an 8-year-old girl, and a 20-year-old woman is more developed than a 13-year-old girl, and a 50-year-old woman is more developed than any of them.

Does their level of development add to or subtract from their personhood? The answer is no. Therefore, they are persons. Again, I think this is a pretty decent argument. That's why I'm telling it to you.

But again, we're not using scripture yet. This is all the political stuff. The third one is environment. Does a person's environment make them more or less of a person? Ask the question. Let's consider it for a second.

If you are in a position where your life is very difficult and you can't make enough money to support yourself, you are poor and you don't have enough to eat, you don't have enough to drink, you are destitute, does that environment take away from your personhood?

No, not at all. In fact, we would say that your personhood, the dignity of personhood, would demand that such a person would receive aid and not their personhood removed. But I want you to consider it for a moment.

Recently, a presidential, I don't know if you call him a candidate, he's a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders, made the argument that we should encourage and even pay for abortions in countries where there are less facilities and less ability to provide for these children.

And therefore, because they're coming into a bad environment, they shouldn't live. They should be aborted. So at least they're consistent in that regard, even though I think such an argument is awful.

But you understand what I'm saying. Environment doesn't make a person. Good environment, bad environment, in the womb, doesn't matter. Doesn't change personhood. Environment doesn't change personhood.

The last one, and this is huge, is degree of dependency. The degree of dependency. And here's a good visual. We've all had family members who have grown old, who have, in their aged condition, had to receive care when they were unable to care for themselves.

Maybe they were in hospice or in an ICU facility where they had to be fed intravenously, where they had to be given breathing through the use of a respirator to keep their self alive. We would say they are tremendously dependent, would we not?

And yet, would we say they're not persons? No, we would not. In fact, the whole reason why we have invented the breathing machine, the whole reason why we have invented the feeding tube, the whole reason why we have invented all of these things to allow for such care is because we believe in the dignity of the person.

Therefore, degree of dependency cannot determine personhood. Now go backwards into the womb. In the womb is the most dependent a child will ever be. But does that make them not a person? Simply because they are dependent.

And this is an argument you might hear. Someone says, well, the baby is fully dependent on the mother, so the mother should have the choice to end the life of the baby. And I raise my hand and I simply say, at what point did the baby stop being dependent upon the mother?

The day it was born? No. The second day? I got a two-year-old that still wants mama every day. I got a five-year-old, or a four-year-old and a six-year-old, and my 21-year-old still needs mama.

But the level of dependency has changed, thankfully. But you understand, degree of dependency does not a person make. So this is the... Again, I'm not really saying this is bad at all. It's good to know.

It's a nice little easy-to-remember set of statements. But it's not Scripture, though. This is simply a... I hate to call it a worldly argument. It's an argument from logic and reason. And hey, all truth is God's truth.

So it's okay if we can have a logical argument and you want to use this, but I would just simply say this. Don't use this apart from Scripture. Don't replace Scripture with something like this. Because Scripture is the foundation.

This is just... If you want to argue what it means to be person, here's a good logical way to do that. But now let's ask the question, is the Bible clear on this issue? Is the Bible clear on this issue?

Because we're here to do Christian ethics, right? So far we've looked at pro-choice from the world's perspective. We've looked at pro-life from the more political, worldly perspective. Now we're going to ask the question, is the Bible pro-life or is the Bible pro-choice?

You may be surprised, may not be, I don't know, but you may be surprised to know that there are people who try to argue that the Bible is pro-choice. Pete Buttigieg is a mayor who is also on the Democratic slate of people who are running for the Democratic nomination for president, has recently made the argument publicly that the Bible says that we are not alive until we take our first breath.

And therefore, children in the womb do not breathe, and therefore, children in the womb are not alive from a biblical perspective. Well, just for a second, again, I'm not going to advocate his position, but let's at least try to understand his point.

He's going back to Genesis 2, where it says Adam was formed from the dust of the ground and God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and therefore, what constitutes life is breath. Now I think the Greek word for that is baloney, but you all know how I feel about that Greek word baloney.

That's what it is. But that's his argument. At least that's one person attempting. Now this guy, I don't know how much you know about Pete Buttigieg, and I don't want to get into his life, but he's got a lot of other issues, biblically and personally speaking.

But the point of the matter is, he makes the argument that breath is the beginning of life because babies don't take a breath until they're born, therefore, a child should be able to be aborted because they are not true life up until the moment they take their first breath.

Partial birth abortion is that very thing. The child is big enough to survive outside of the womb, so the baby is forced into a preemptive labor. The arms and legs are brought out, but the head remains inside the womb where a pair of forceps are introduced into the cervix and snaps the spinal cord of the child before it can be removed and take its first breath.

And that would be what he's advocating by saying without a breath, there's no life. Another argument that seeks to make a biblical argument... I have a hard time... I've got stomach problems just doing this.

Another argument that seeks to make this point is that babies in Scripture are not seen as people, but property. This one I'll invite you to open your Bibles and look at because this is a pretty creative one, if I should say so myself.

This is in Exodus 21, verse 22. It's eisegetical. There's an issue of interpretation here that I'm going to explain because depending on how you translate one word, it does lay one side or the other. But the idea that they argue is that Exodus 21, 22 -25 proves that babies in the womb are not considered people, but they're considered property.

Therefore, they're not life. They're not persons. So let's read the text. Exodus 21, 22 says, When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judge has determined.

But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, and stripe for stripe. All right. So here's the argument they make.

In verse 22, it says, When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman so that her children come out, that word children come out could be translated miscarriage. And in some Bibles, it is translated miscarriage.

So now hear it that way. When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman so that she miscarries, but there is no harm, and in that sense it would be to her, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judge has determined.

So here's the argument. The baby in that sense dies, and yet there's no punishment except a fine, and therefore the baby is a piece of property while it's in the womb, not a person. Now here's the response.

If you'd like a response to that. The word translated child come out, no word is to be translated outside of the context, and the word is not normally translated miscarry, and there is another word which does mean miscarry that is not the word that is used here.

The word that is used here typically means simply to give birth, but in the sense of giving birth in distress, so the idea is a premature birth, but I believe based on the context the baby is not dead, because it says there is no harm.

You have to interject, or as you said brother, you have to isogy the phrase no harm to her. That's introducing something into the text that isn't in the text. The text says no harm, and I think that it means no harm, and in that sense it becomes an argument for the pro-life position, because what it's saying is if a woman is struck, and she gives premature birth, but the baby is okay, he still owes a fine, but if somebody dies, if there is harm, whether it be to her or the baby, life for life, and that's again, but you see now where it depends on how you translate the word, children come out in ESV, whether it should be translated, and hey if you want to take a job this week, an extra bit of work, I'm sure you'd love a little bit of extra work, go look up the word, see where you come out on it.

I am fully convinced that the child is prematurely born, but is not dead, based on the context. Yeah, exactly, he used the word prematurely, which is still, it's implied in the word, and I think that's a good way to translate it.

This text in the long hand,.

Means you strap a bomb on your chest, you go run into a clinic though. Oh yes, now,.

Let's leave that there, or forget about the chest, just throw a grenade, you don't have to die. Yeah, the, my, I don't know, well, well, there's a lot to discuss in that, it's sort of personal for me, my first family doctor, that I ever remember going to as a child, it turned out later that he was an abortion doctor, and somebody did murder him.

So, it kind of hits close to home, the first guy to ever give me a physical, was later killed, because he was an abortion doctor. And so yeah, it do happen. So, the person who did take his life, felt justified in doing so.

That's another conversation, and I really don't want to open the door to that,.

Because that could lead, some place I don't really want to go. I've got a quick question. Where do most other countries, just out of curiosity, where do most other countries stand on abortion?

It varies widely, but there are new legislations that are coming out, and a lot of countries that used to forbid, because a lot of countries are Catholic, like Ireland and places like that, are governed a lot by their leaders that are Catholic, and therefore were anti-abortion, but are now allowing for it.

I believe I saw something, I was actually going to share an article this week, and I want to say it was in Australia, but I could be wrong, so forgive me if I am, but has just introduced new abortion legislation up to the point of birth, allowing for abortion.

It's just like America, it changes. Even though the legislation in 1973 for the Roe v. Wade, that's not where it ended. There has been legislation and different things changing all along, and there are still places in America where it's very difficult, because the city councils have stood up and said, we're not going to allow this here.

It might be allowed by the Supreme Court, but we're not going to allow it in our city. We're not going to allow them to have places to do it. And I kind of believe that's the answer. If you want to know from a political perspective, I believe that cities should be taking stands, and I believe the pastors should be leading the charge to say, we're not going to do it here, because that can happen, and it can happen in a legal way.