December 4, 2023 Show with Scott Klusendorf on “The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture”

Live from historic downtown Carlisle, Pennsylvania, home of founding father James Wilson, 19th century hymn writer

George Duffield, 19th century gospel minister George Norcross, and sports legend

Jim Thorpe, it's Iron Sharpens Iron. This is a radio platform in which pastors,

Christian scholars, and theologians address the burning issues facing the church and the world today.

Proverbs chapter 27 verse 17 tells us iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.

Matthew Henry said that in this passage, we are cautioned to take heed with whom we converse and directed to have in view in conversation to make one another wiser and better.

It is our hope that this goal will be accomplished over the next two hours, and we hope to hear from you, the listener, with your own questions.

And now, here's your host, Chris Arnzen. Good afternoon,

Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Lake City, Florida, and the rest of humanity living on the planet

Earth who are listening via live streaming at ironsharpensironradio .com.

This is Chris Arnzen, your host of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio, wishing you all a happy Monday on this fourth day of December, 2023, and today we have a returning guest to the program to discuss very important matters, one of the most important matters that anyone can discuss, and that is the sanctity of human life and the prevention of having babies murdered in their mother's womb.

And today's guest to conduct that conversation with me is Scott Klusendorf.

He should be no stranger, especially to those who love and regularly watch or listen to Todd Friel's programs,

Wretched TV and Wretched Radio, and today we are going to discuss, uh, even more specifically, the new expanded second edition of The Case for Life, Equipping Christians to Engage the

Culture. Welcome back to Iron Sharpens Iron Radio, Scott Klusendorf. Always a delight to be with you.

Great. And as Scott knows, there will be a point in the program where I give him some brotherly pushback because Scott identifies himself as a pro -life incrementalist, and I have come to identify myself as an abolitionist, but I will bring that up later on towards the end of the program where he makes the distinction in his book in one of the later chapters.

But first of all, Scott, tell our listeners about this organization where you have labored for a number of years on a mission to rescue children from murder, torturous murder, in the abortion mills.

Yeah. Life Training Institute was formed in 2004 with the express purpose of equipping

Christians to make a persuasive case for the pro -life view in the public square. So we're a little bit different than other pro -life groups.

For example, we don't do presentations on abstinence or on post -abortion testimonies, though we support those ministries.

Rather, we are about equipping believers with reasons why the pro -life position is true and reasonable to believe.

So we go into Catholic and Protestant high schools. We do assemblies where we give students the case for the pro -life view.

And by the way, Chris, for the vast majority of them, they've never heard it. The most common response we get is, we've never heard a case for the pro -life view.

You're the first person to do it. And that's sad because a lot of pro -lifers wrongly assume that our problem is messaging, that we need a more market -friendly, more seeker -friendly driven pro -life message.

The real problem is students haven't heard the message. The gatekeepers have prevented them from hearing it.

And so when they hear it from us, they're just shocked that there is a rational case for the pro -life view.

And as far as your book is concerned, the first edition had been out for a number of years.

What have you added to it that compelled the second edition, the second larger edition?

Yeah, you're right. It's larger. In fact, it's almost twice as big as the original. And no, we didn't use larger type and thicker paper.

There are three main additions to the book. The first edition is, there's a whole section in there on what are the worldviews that are driving the abortion debate.

So we look at worldviews like naturalism, the belief that the universe came from nothing and was caused by nothing.

How does that worldview impact the abortion debate? We look at postmodernism, the belief that reality can't be known because we're all trapped behind our own sense perceptions.

And we look at the new kid on the block, wokeness or critical theory. And how does that impact the abortion debate?

And in a post -Roe world like ours, Chris, what tends to happen is we start talking to people about abortion and we think to ourselves, why aren't they getting what

I'm saying? And it's a good chance that we're talking to a worldview there that if we don't address that worldview, we're going to talk right past the person we're speaking with.

So I thought it would be helpful if we understood what the competing worldviews are.

And then I make a case why Christian theism provides the best explanation for human rights, human equality, and human dignity.

And then the second big addition on this, I survey the major players on the other side.

Who are the pro -abortion thinkers in academia that are driving the idea debate and making abortion plausible to millions of our fellow citizens?

So we survey Michael Tooley, Peter Singer, Kate Griesley, who's a newcomer, but boy, she's a force to be reckoned with.

David Boonen, for example, and Giubilino Minerva, who argued for after -birth abortion. So I updated the book by taking the latest arguments from academia and surveying those, giving the reader an overview of the larger contours of their argument, and then going into how we might provide some initial responses.

The third thing I do that's new is I decided I was going to give my readers marching orders.

I don't want them to just read a book and stuff the knowledge. So I give the reader a plan for reaching his or her community with a pro -life message.

And I tell them how to go about contacting schools to get in to make talks and how to get into church groups.

And then I talk about what your pro -life presentation should look like, the content, how you should structure it.

And then finally, I go into what does a pro -life church look like? That's important because I think a lot of us as pro -lifers, we go, you know, we're disappointed in our churches.

They're not doing enough. And I agree, they're not. But it's not enough to just say, hey, pastor, you've got blood on your hands because you're not talking about abortion.

We ought to be able to say, here's what a pro -life church looks like and give that pastor a plan so he can turnkey it and help save lives.

So those are the big additions. Well, it seems to me when

I watch discussions about abortion on television and you hear leftists defend abortion, you very rarely, in fact,

I never these days, I don't even know when the last time I actually heard this, but, you know, back in the 80s and the 90s perhaps, you would frequently hear from leftists and pro -abortionists, or should

I say pro -infanticide advocates, that, well, nobody knows for a fact when life begins.

I never hear that anymore. To me, the arguments, the rhetoric, the apologetic that I hear from pro -infanticide representatives, advocates, is that that isn't even an issue.

That doesn't really matter. It is the enthroned choice of a woman for whatever reason she does not want to have a child.

She may end this life, and it could be as insignificant a reason as she doesn't want to interrupt her career.

She doesn't want to gain weight. She doesn't want to go through mood swings. I mean, it could be anything that would, you know, when they say the health of the mother and they give it other candy -coated labels to make it more palatable to the general public and also to further salve their own consciences, they really don't seem to care whether that is a child, a baby, a human being within the womb of the mother.

And what made it even more vividly crystal clear was when the former governor of Virginia very calmly described the afterbirth abortion, so -called, where when a child was born accidentally, quote, quote, during an attempt to murder this child, what are we going to do now?

And basically, we're going to make this child comfortable, perhaps in a box somewhere, until the mother and doctor make the ultimate decision.

And of course, it would be the mother ultimately, even over the doctor, on whether or not this baby is going to be fed and nurtured and kept alive or just allowed to die.

That just makes it even more vividly clear that the question of when life begins doesn't even come into the argument anymore, does it?

It does and it doesn't. You're right that merely pointing out that life begins at conception is no longer, in many cases, a sufficient argument for our critics, but it's still a necessary one.

And the reason we know that is, at the street level, over and over again, what we hear are people who don't make an argument that the unborn aren't human.

They simply assume the unborn aren't human. It would be like me knocking on your door, Chris, and saying, hey,

Chris, when did you start stealing my computer equipment? And you protest and say,

I didn't steal your equipment. And I reply, I didn't ask you that, Chris. I asked you, when did you start?

Well, you would rightly say, wait a minute, you're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove. And we still hear all the arguments at the street level about choice and who decides, trusting women to make their own decisions, economic hardship, rape and incest, all these arguments that assume the unborn aren't human.

And the reason we know they're assuming that, they would never make those arguments if we were talking about killing two -year -olds or five -year -olds.

They only make those arguments when we're talking about killing the unborn, which means they're assuming something about the unborn.

They're not assuming about the two -year -old. So you're right that it's no longer sufficient to merely talk about when life begins, but it's still necessary to make that case as our cumulative case of evidence that we're presenting to a secular culture.

Among the names that you were listing earlier of the academics that are in the forefront of the apologetics to defend infanticide,

I was almost certain, and I could be wrong, I'm not going to mention his name because I'm not certain I was correct in my memory, but wasn't one of those individuals that you mentioned an

Ivy League professor who actually believes that women should have the legal right to murder a young child years after it was born?

Well, Peter Singer and Michael Tooley both are honest about where the implications of their argument lead.

Both say that if we're going to argue that cognitive awareness, meaning what they term mental continuity, the ability to see yourself existing over time, if that is the threshold that we all have to cross before we have a right to life, you can't limit the right to kill to abortion.

You've got to be consistent and apply it to newborns and cognitively disabled persons as well.

Their conclusions are absolutely horrific, but Chris, they follow in line consistently once you grant the premise that what gives us our value is not our intrinsic nature as human beings, which as Christians we know bears the image of God, but rather you ground human equality and dignity in a performance view that says you only have value when you have certain functions that you can fulfill cognitively.

Once you buy into that performance mindset, you cannot limit your victim class to the unborn.

You've got to be consistent. So Peter Singer, Michael Tooley, Marianne Warren, and others candidly admit that their positions allow for infanticide.

Now, are there any so -called pro -choice advocates of note that are responding with disgust and outrage and protest against their so -called fellow pro -choice advocates, but who have gone beyond any reasonable idea of what that is into this satanic,

Hitlerian concept that you've described? Well, a thinker like Kate Griesley, for example, at Oxford in the

UK argues that birth is the decisive threshold. Now, I don't agree with her, and in the book

I explain why, but she does draw the line at birth. David Boonin wants to draw the line at birth.

He wants to say that you and I are identical to the embryos and fetuses we once were, but just because we're identical to the embryos and fetuses we once were, it doesn't follow we have the same right to life then as we do now.

So Boonin differs from guys like Tooley and Singer in that he doesn't say that wasn't you back then the way that Singer and Tooley do.

Singer and Tooley say you didn't even exist as an embryo, fetus, or newborn. A physical body existed, but you didn't show up until your cognitive self showed up.

Boonin says no, that's ridiculous. You and I are identical to the embryos we once were, but we don't have the same right to life then as we do now.

So he tries to draw the line at birth. Kate Griesley tries to draw the line at birth, and both are unsuccessful, as I point out in the book.

But how vociferous are these pro -choice advocates in their denunciation of the advocates of murdering children years after they were born?

Well, they can turn on each other. For example, Kate Griesley does a great job absolutely destroying the bodily rights argument that was first put forward by Judith Jarvis Thompson and that David Boonin now tries to use.

The idea that even if the unborn are human in persons with a right to life, we can still kill them in the name of bodily autonomy.

Kate Griesley, to her credit, says no, that's not going to work. You cannot intentionally kill an innocent human being in the name of withholding support.

You first have to demonstrate that that's not a person to begin with, and if you don't do that, you don't have grounds for intentionally killing an innocent human being.

So I salute her for that, though her conclusions are still deeply problematic. Well, why don't we begin to have you unfold the most prominent arguments in defense of infanticide that these leading academics have presented to society in efforts to further equip their advocates in keeping legal the murder of unborn children?

Yeah, and to make it easier for your listeners to track with this so they don't think, oh no, we're going to get lost in the academic weeds here and I need to pull over and take notes, there's really two types of arguments that are used to disqualify the unborn from having a right to life.

There are those that ground the right to an abortion in identity and those that ground it in performance, and they're not the same argument.

For example, Michael Tooley, as I mentioned a moment ago, and Peter Singer and Giubillini Minerva, who argued for afterbirth abortion, all say that you did not exist as an

There was no you there. You didn't exist at all. And you even didn't exist once you were born.

You did not exist until you had what they refer to as mental continuity. You're not a rational agent with a right to life until you can desire yourself existing over time.

And since fetuses and newborns cannot do that, they are not present. Therefore, if they are killed, there's no person killed because there's no subject there to kill.

David Boonin is going to take a different approach. Boonin is going to say, no, that's not right. We did exist as fetuses and embryos.

However, as I mentioned a moment ago, he says we didn't have the same right to life then as we do now.

We only have it once we can immediately exercise desires for something. And until we have immediately exercisable desires, we don't have a right to life.

And both of those views, though, notice that both of them are parallel in that they both assume a performance view of human value.

And what I mean by that, Chris, is this. They both assume and assert, I should say, that what gives us a right to life is our ability to immediately perform or exercise certain cognitive functions.

We're not equal and valuable by nature, which is the biblical view. We're equal and valuable only to the extent that we perform at certain levels of cognitive proficiency.

So once you lose that or before you gain that cognitive proficiency, you're not a person with a right to life.

You may exist in the case of David Boonin or not exist in the case of Singer and Tooley. But nevertheless, you don't have a right to life until you can have that cognitive performance achievement.

So that's the big picture. That's the way to simplify this for listeners. And please explain in detail, how do we respond to those arguments?

Well, let's take Peter Singer and Michael Tooley first. The first thing to point out is notice that we can always ask guys like Peter Singer and Michael Tooley, why is having self -awareness over time value giving in the first place?

And the big mistake a lot of pro -lifers make, Chris, when Singer brings up these topics or Tooley or other pro -abortion advocates, when they say to us, oh, that unborn fetus isn't even self -aware.

The first thing we do is we go to fetal development and we say things like, well, that child in the womb has brainwaves by week 13 and is dreaming and asleep by week 20.

Wrong answer. You just conceded the premise that cognitive awareness is what gives us value.

Don't concede the premise. Push back against it. How self -aware do I have to be not to be killed?

And why that level of self -awareness and not something else? In other words, these thinkers are tossing out arbitrary standards and thresholds that they need to defend as being value giving, and they don't do it.

They just throw them out. The second thing I would point out is their argument results in savage inequality.

If our right to life is based on something that none of us shares equally, like self -awareness or viability or physical development, if Singer is right that cognitive awareness is what gives us value, and you have more of it than me, you have a greater right to life than me, and human equality is out the window.

In addition, I think we can point out that this raises troubling counterexamples. Let's say, for example, we grant

David Boonen's thesis that having present desires is what gives us a right to life.

Suppose a doctor, to borrow an example from my friend Francis Beckwith, suppose an enterprising physician alters the brain of a developing fetus in utero so that it never has desires.

He surgically removes that part of the child's brain. The child is then born, and then when the child is 10 years old, he's killed so his body parts can be used for harvesting organs for other ill people.

Do we think that's wrong? Well, if we do, something else other than having present desires is what's giving value here.

Wouldn't it be the nature of the being? Human beings by nature should not be treated that way.

So for Boonen to even oppose that terrible counterexample I just gave you, he can only do it by borrowing from the pro -life worldview that says humans are valuable by nature, not function.

And this is where the biblical worldview is so much superior to the secular explanations that are out there.

The biblical worldview says each and every human being has value because he bears the image of his maker, and she as well.

But the point being that our value is based in our nature as endowed entities, not based in our performance.

It's grounded in our nature, which as Christians we know bears the image of God. And if we ground human equality in our common human nature that all of us share equally, that doesn't come in degrees like self -awareness does, like physical development does, we have a good foundation for human equality.

And what, in your opinion, in your experience, is the most, or should

I say are the most common arguments that women use, or any pro -infanticide advocate may use, to defend killing an unborn child?

The average lay person that may not be as in -depth in their explanation to defend themselves.

What, over the years, the many years that you've been seeking to rescue unborn children from infanticide, what are the most common things people say, and what are your responses to them?

At the street level, the three biggies are dangers from illegal abortion, that if we restrict abortion, women are going to die in the back alleys of America, and blood's going to flow in the streets, rape and incest.

And then a third one that is not quite as common, but it does come up, is economic hardship.

You're going to force poor women to bring another child into this world that they can't afford to feed.

That's cruel and inhumane punishment. Now notice, at the street level, all three of those objections assume the unborn aren't human.

And I want your listeners to get in the habit of every time they hear an argument for abortion, they ask themselves this question.

Would this work as a good argument for killing a toddler? If not, the objector is assuming the unborn aren't human.

So I want to point that assumption out to them, that they're assuming the unborn aren't human. Would anybody kill a toddler because his mother can't afford to feed him?

I mean, the homeless are unwanted and they cost money, but we don't intentionally kill them. If the unborn are human beings, they too should not be killed simply because they're costly.

When human beings get expensive, that's not a good reason to intentionally butcher them. I would also point out that when it comes to back alley abortions, we as pro -lifers need to be very careful here.

We are in a culture today that is absolutely convinced that the pro -life movement hates women and wants them to die, especially on the heels of the

Dobbs decision. Now, listen, don't get me wrong. Reversing Roe v. Wade was absolutely a good thing.

We should all be glad about that. But since then, our opponents have worked overtime not to advance academic arguments necessarily, but to scare the public into believing that we hate women and want them to die.

And so what they will do is say things like, well, you don't care about that poor woman and you don't care about the woman who gets an illegal abortion.

You just want her to die. So the first thing I'm going to do when someone raises the objection of illegal abortion,

I'm going to show some empathy. I'm going to say, you know what? It's a tragedy when any woman dies from an abortion, legal or illegal.

And I'm going to show a little empathy there to show I have some heart. But then I'm going to point out to them that their objection assumes the unborn aren't human.

What's wrong with a law that says you can't intentionally kill an innocent human being and we're not going to make it legal for you to do it just so other people who want to do the killing can get away with it?

I get that. And that's a question they need to answer. But I'm also going to point out that we don't fault the law for restricting bank robbery, even if it would make it safer for felons.

We recognize that when innocent human life is involved, we're not going to make it legal for you to intentionally go kill another innocent human being in the name of safety for the people who want to do the killing.

And then the third thing I'm going to point out is statistics. And this is, again, where pro -lifers can sometimes misstep.

They hear about the illegal abortion objection and right away they go to statistics and they say things like, well, most women prior to Roe v.

Wade who got illegal abortions did not die. In fact, they say it's not true that five to 10 ,000 women a year died from illegal abortion prior to Roe v.

Wade. They're right about that. But before you show some empathy, you don't want to just go to statistics.

But once you have shown empathy and shown how the argument assumes the unborn aren't human, it's perfectly acceptable to point out the faulty statistics here.

There is no credible evidence that five to 10 ,000 women a year died from illegal abortion.

And very quickly, Chris, I'm going to give you four pro -abortion sources for that. These are not pro -life sources.

They are pro -abortion sources. Source number one, Dr. Christopher Tietz, who was a

Planned Parenthood statistician in the 1960s. During the time when people like Barbara Boxer and other abortion advocates were trying to convince us that thousands of women died every year from illegal abortion,

Christopher Tietz said this. That claim is, quote, unmitigated nonsense.

That's not a pro -life source. That's a pro -abortion source. Source number two, Dr. Mary Calderon, Planned Parenthood's medical director during the 60s and 70s.

Again, when all these illegal abortions were allegedly happening, she writes in the American Journal of Public Health that the claim of high legal abortion numbers is falsely wrong, grossly wrong, and that if truth be told, the death number from illegal abortion is so low, it's not even worth commenting on.

She gave two reasons why. Number one, with a widespread introduction of penicillin in the late 1940s, all surgical procedures became safer, including abortion.

Women weren't dying from post -op infections the way they were prior to the introduction of penicillin.

The second reason why women weren't dying, she says, is that most illegal abortions were not being done by a rego in a back alley with a rusty coat hanger.

Rather, illegal abortions were being performed safely by doctors in good standing in their community who simply skirted the law.

Source number three, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who later became pro -life, but while he was still an abortionist, admitted to the

New York Times that he presided over 60 ,000 deaths and that the numbers that he and others made up about 5 ,000 to 10 ,000 deaths a year from illegal abortion were made up out of thin air.

Those are his words, not mine. A fourth source is Dr. Daniel Callahan, who was head of the

Hastings Institute before he retired from that, and in his book, Abortion Law, Morality, and Choice, Callahan writes that the claim of 5 ,000 to 10 ,000 deaths a year is not even feasible from a mathematical standpoint because he points out that only 35 ,000 women a year of childbearing age die from all causes.

To say that one cause accounts for 5 ,000 to 10 ,000 deaths a year, that being illegal abortion, stretches credulity to the breaking point, he says.

Notice I didn't cite any pro -life sources, though. Those are all pro -abortion sources making that claim, and I think we're wise to use those sources.

Well, we are going to our first commercial break right now, and I would like to say right away, for those of you who happen to identify as abolitionists, you can rest assured that we will have a representative of that position tomorrow on Iron Sharpens Iron Radio.

His name is Pastor Brian Gunter of the First Baptist Church of Livingston, Louisiana, so you don't have to complain that your side is not being heard, which, by the way, is my side.

And also, my guest today, Scott Klusendorf, has graciously accepted an invitation to debate

Jason Storms, the National Director of Operations for Operation Save America.

He is an abolitionist, and the two have agreed to debate one another on Wednesday, the 21st of February, 2024, so you might want to mark your calendars for that.

But if you have any questions for Scott Klusendorf, our email address is chrisarnsen at gmail .com,

c -h -r -i -s -a -r -n -z -e -n at gmail .com. Give us your first name, at least, your city and state of residence, and your country of residence, if you live outside the

USA. Only remain anonymous if your question involves a personal and private matter, and I can readily understand whenever a conversation about abortion is the topic at hand, there will likely be people listening who have very private, personal, and painful stories that they want to ask about.

So you can feel free to remain anonymous, but please, if it's a general question, give us your first name, at least, city and state, and country of residence.

Don't go away, we're going to be right back, right after these messages from our sponsor.

I'm Pastor Keith Allen of Linbrook Baptist Church, a Christ -centered, gospel -driven church looking to spread the gospel in the southwest portion of Long Island, New York, and play our role in fulfilling the

Great Commission, supporting and sending for the spread of the gospel to the earth. We're delighted to be a part of Chris Arnzen's Iron Sharpens Iron radio advertising family.

At Linbrook Baptist Church, we believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired word of God, inherent in the original writings, complete as the revelation of God's will for salvation and the supreme and final authority in all matters to which they speak.

We believe in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. This salvation is based upon the sovereign grace of God, was purchased by Christ on the cross, and is received through faith alone, apart from any human merit, works, or ritual.

Salvation in Christ also results in righteous living, good works, and appropriate respect and concern to all who bear

God's image. If you live near Linbrook, Long Island, or if you're just passing through on the

Lord's Day, we'd love to have you come and join us in worship. For details, visit linbrookbaptist .org,

that's l -y -n -brookbaptist .org. This is Pastor Keith Allen of Linbrook Baptist Church reminding you that by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves.

It is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast of the

Lord's blessing in the knowledge of himself. Hello, I'm Phil Johnson, Executive Director of Grace to You with John MacArthur.

I've been a frequent guest on Iron Sharpens Iron Radio, and I highly recommend this show. But today

I want to tell you about one of its advertisers, Rare Document Traders, far and away my favorite source for quality

Charles Spurgeon memorabilia. Are you looking for that special, unique Christmas gift for your pastor or missionary friend or a loved one?

Why not purchase a piece of church history that any believer would cherish? Rare Document Traders is your one -step source for Spurgeon's handwritten manuscripts and letters, as well as other rare books and collectible items from church history.

In 15 years that they've been in business, they've earned a stellar reputation in the Reformed community with thousands of satisfied customers all around the world, including me.

Visit RareDocTraders .com today. That's RareDocTraders .com.

And look for their upcoming Cyber Monday sales. Don't forget to mention you heard about them on Iron Sharpens Iron Radio.

That's RareDocTraders .com. I'm Brian McLaughlin, President of the

SecureCom Group and an enthusiastic supporter of Chris Arnson's Iron Sharpens Iron Radio Program.

The SecureCom Group provides the highest level of security, closed -circuit television, access control, and communication systems for Manhattan's top residential buildings, as well as churches, commercial properties, municipalities, and more.

We custom install exactly what you need to protect yourself, including digital recording, off -site viewing, and connectivity from most smart devices.

From simple code -activated systems to the latest technology using facial recognition, the

SecureCom Group has it. We also provide the latest in intercom and IP telephone systems.

In addition, we provide superior networking platforms. We'll create, maintain, and secure your local network.

Whether it's a Wi -Fi or hardwire network, we'll implement the latest secured firewall, endpoint solutions, and cloud backup.

I would love to have the honor and privilege of helping protect the lives and property of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio listeners and their associates.

For more details on how the SecureCom Group may be of service to you with the very latest in security innovations, call 718 -353 -3355.

That's 718 -353 -3355. Or visit securecomgroup .com.

That's securecomgroup .com. This is Brian McLaughlin of the SecureCom Group, joining

Chris Arnzen's family of advertisers to keep Iron Sharpens Iron Radio on the air.

We here at Iron Sharpens Iron Radio praise God for the generous monthly financial support of Royal Diadem Jewelers, educated by and affiliated with the

American Gem Society, Jewelers of America, and the Gemological Institute of America.

For the perfect custom -designed engagement ring or any one -of -a -kind piece of jewelry created exactly according to your imagination and specifications,

Royal Diadem Jewelers has you covered. No matter where you are in the world, Royal Diadem will walk you step -by -step through every stage of the process and even hold a high -tech internet virtual visit using state -of -the -art jewelry design technology to serve you.

They start by listening carefully to determine your needs. They're interested in making what you want, not what they want to sell you.

From rough design to digital model to photorealistic image to wax prototype model to the finished product, they are continually listening to your input, likes and dislikes, making any changes necessary along the way.

This will ensure that your custom jewelry will turn out exactly as you dreamed and well beyond your expectations.

Visit royaldiadem .com, that's royaldiadem .com today.

Sterling Vandewerker, owner of Royal Diadem Jewelers, his wife Bronnie, his business partner and manager

Brian Wilson, and the entire family thank you all for listening to, praying for, and supporting the work of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio.

And don't forget folks, royaldiadem .com is still offering

Iron Sharpens Iron Radio this mind -blowing opportunity. Anyone in our audience who purchases jewelry from royaldiadem .com

and mentions that they heard about royaldiadem .com on Iron Sharpens Iron Radio will ensure that we here at Iron Sharpens Iron Radio get 100 % of the profits from that sale.

Yes, I said 100 % of the profits from that sale. And this is a limited time offer, I should say.

So if you have any intention on purchasing jewelry for yourself or someone you love, whether it's jewelry that they already have in stock at royaldiadem .com

or if you want something custom designed, well please go to royaldiadem .com

as soon as possible and mention Iron Sharpens Iron Radio because we have no idea when they're going to pull the plug on this offer.

So the sooner the better. And please always remember to mention Chris Arnson of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio.

That's royaldiadem .com. We are now back with Scott Klusendorf. We were discussing his new second edition, the larger version of the

Case for Life, equipping Christians to engage the culture. And our email address again is chrisarnson at gmail .com.

If you have any questions for Scott, chrisarnson at gmail .com.

Give us your first name at least, your city and state of residence, and your country of residence if you live outside of the

USA. And we have, I was going to wait a while to take listener questions, but I think this will help further solidify your position,

Scott. We have Benson in Casey County, Kentucky. And Benson asks, can you clarify, do you believe that a baby is a true human from the very second of conception in the mother's womb?

Yes. The science of embryology is clear that from the earliest stages of development, from the one cell stage, the unborn are distinct living and whole human beings.

They're not part of another human being like skin cells on the back of my hand. They are already whole living members of the human family.

They just have yet to grow and mature, but they are clearly one of us. They count as one of us.

Yes. And they have different DNA than the mother, correct? That's correct.

Different blood type. It can even be a different gender than the mother, at least half the time.

Yes. So we know that the unborn are not part of the mother's body because we could take an

IVF embryo that was conceived in utero by two black parents, put that embryo in the body of a surrogate that's white, and that baby is going to be born black.

We know conclusively that the unborn are not merely part of the mother's body. Right. Yeah.

The argument, a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body.

Number one, that's not even true. Suicide is not legal.

If you are known to have attempted suicide, you will be taken to a psychiatric institution involuntarily.

And so this myth that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body is not true, but it's not her own body we're talking about.

It's a separate human being. You're correct. And there's two types of people who bring up this bodily autonomy argument.

The street level activist who simply says, well, I have a right to my own body. How dare you tell me what

I can and can't do? And you're right. What you just said is enough to refute that the unborn aren't part of the mother's body.

They are distinct, living, whole human beings. But there's an academic version of this argument that I cash out in the book first put forward by Judith Jarvis Thompson.

It's a little more nuanced. It's no more persuasive, but it's helpful if your listeners at know the genesis of this argument.

And the argument goes like this. Let's grant the unborn are human from conception. Let's further grant, says

Thompson, that they are persons with a right to life. Abortion is still justified even if they are persons with a right to life, because you cannot force one person to use their body to sustain the life of another human being, even if that victim or even if that other person is undeniably human with a right to life.

And she uses a little example to try to make her point. She says, imagine you wake up one morning and find yourself surgically connected to a world famous violinist that's been put there by the

Society of Music Lovers. And this world famous violinist has a kidney ailment. He is going to die if he can't use your body to sustain his own life for nine months.

And you're waking up in the hospital. You're groggy. You're trying to figure out what happened. And as you're waking up, you're trying to disconnect from the violinist.

And the chief surgeon appears at your bedside and says, Hal, I know this is an inconvenience for you.

I know you don't like being hooked up to this violinist. But he has a kidney ailment.

And if you disconnect, he's going to die. So although this is an inconvenience to you, too bad for nine months, because he's a person with a right to life, he gets to use your body.

And then Thompson poses this question. It would be nice if you let your body be used that way.

But must you? And for many people, this is a persuasive argument because they think to themselves, wait a minute, you can't force me to give someone else a blood transfusion against my will, even if it will save their life.

Therefore, abortion is certainly permissible. The fetus cannot demand use of the woman's body if she wants to withhold that support.

And that's what abortion is, according to this argument, the justifiable withholding of support.

But I think right away, Chris, some of your listeners can see problems with this argument. In order for it to work, a woman being hooked up to her own child must be parallel to you being hooked up to the stranger violinist in morally relevant ways.

And of course, the parallels start collapsing all over the place. And here's the biggest problem. Abortion is much more than merely withholding support.

Suppose, Chris, that I have a form of blood cancer and I need your blood to sustain my life.

Let's say you withhold that support. That doesn't give you the right to slit my throat in the name of withholding support.

Right. And therein lies the problem. Abortion is much more than withholding support.

It's intentionally killing another innocent human being. I think Francis Beckwith puts it real well.

He says calling abortion merely the withholding of support is kind of like suffocating someone with a pillow and calling it the withdrawing of oxygen.

There's a whole lot more going on here than merely withholding support. So that's the primary weakness with Thompson's bodily rights academic argument, a weakness that pro -abortion advocate

Kate Griesley, that I mentioned earlier, points out in very clear detail in her argument.

In her article, she wrote critiquing Thompson is just brutal in showing that you can't get from a right to withhold support to a right to intentionally kill.

Griesley says you got to prove the unborn are not persons. And if you don't do that, the case against abortion stands.

Yes. And by the way, Benson in Casey County, Kentucky, please give us your last name and your full mailing address because you have just won a free copy of The Case for Life, the second larger edition by our guest

Scott Klusendorf. And we'll have Cumberland Valley Bible Book Service, cvbbs .com,

ship that out to you as soon as possible. And we want to thank Crossway for providing us with these free copies.

Also, let us know whether or not you're a first time questioner, because you will also receive a brand new

New American Standard Bible, as we always give away to our first time questioners.

And the left, the pro -infanticide crowd are very schizophrenic when it comes to whether or not to recognize the unborn as babies, because you will frequently hear from the lips of leftists in the major media, when they learn someone is pregnant, they will refer to that baby as a baby, as long as that woman is thrilled to death that she is carrying this baby.

And on top of that, it's quite interesting that on most occasions that I've heard, if a pregnant woman is murdered, the perpetrator, the murderer, is typically charged with double homicide.

And I heard on one occasion a major feminist organization,

NOW, I don't even know if NOW exists anymore, some of the feminists seem to have gone into the closet and hiding now that the transgendered issues seem to have wiped out the concerns of feminists, but I believe that the

NOW organization protested the charge of double homicide against a notorious husband who murdered his pregnant wife, but then

I think because of the outcry against them, they kind of backed away from that opposition, if I'm not mistaken.

But can you imagine, here they are feminists, and this man murders his wife, a woman, and they want the husband to receive a less severe charge?

Yeah, you're right, that's the case of Scott Peterson, and even in a liberal state like California, I mean it's hard to imagine you can get more liberal and leftist than California, the jury convicted him of two charges, killing her and killing the child.

So he got convicted on both of those, and that's the kind of mental schizophrenia that you're talking about here that we see in our culture today.

Here's another example. A woman is pregnant and she's driving to the abortion clinic to have an abortion.

Let's say she has an accident on the way and the doctor that's going to perform the abortion collides with her vehicle and kills her unborn child.

In the majority of states, he's going to get ripped for vehicular manslaughter at a minimum, but if she gets to the clinic and he kills the child there, everything is okay.

So you can see how crazy this is. You end up creating great cognitive dissonance when you put these kinds of examples to people who want to straddle the fence like this.

Right, and in your experience also, uh, well let me preface this by saying my friends that I know personally who are very passionate, active, uh, individuals seeking to rescue children from murder at the abortion mills, those that are right in the front lines, those that are actively, uh, frequently, weekly, if not daily, uh, at abortion mills, uh, proclaiming the gospel and, and warning women not to murder their babies, uh, they have all told me that in their experience, every woman that they've encountered knows that she's killing her baby.

There is no excuse about we don't know when life begins or anything like that. Is that your experience?

There are different levels of knowing. I think every woman knows through the witness that is in there that Paul spoke of in Romans one and two, they know that's written in the law of their hearts.

There is a God given sense of right and wrong. They don't necessarily know at the same level the abortion doctor does a point

I'm sure we'll get to in a minute, but they do know that it's wrong in many cases.

But does their knowledge of wrongness matched out of the guy killing the child?

And I would argue, no. Well, we have to go to our midway break right now. And if you have a question, please submit it to Chris Arnzen at gmail .com.

As I've always said, give us your first name, at least city and state residents and country residents, and only remain anonymous if it's a personal and private question.

And on top of that, please be patient with us because the midway break is always a bit longer than the other breaks in the show because Grace Life Radio 90 .1

FM in Lake City, Florida requires of us a longer break in the middle of the show because the

FCC requires of them to localize Iron Sharpener's Iron Radio to Lake City, Florida where the radio station is located.

So please be patient and use this time wisely. I would ask of you to please write down as much of the contact information as you possibly can provided by as many of our advertisers as you possibly can so that you can more frequently and successfully respond to our advertisers.

While Grace Life Radio is airing their own public service announcements, we are simultaneously airing our globally heard commercials.

So I would hope that as many of you as possible will respond to our advertisers as often as possible.

I hope that means you'll very often buy their products, use their services, visit their churches.

But when you cannot do any of those things, there's one thing every single Iron Sharpener's Iron Radio listener can do.

If you love the show and are grateful that there are people and also organizations that think so highly of the show that they share their wealth with us, the monies that God, with which

God has blessed them, they share with us because they want us to remain on the air. If you're really grateful for that, do one simple thing.

Contact our advertisers and say thank you for sponsoring Iron Sharpener's Iron Radio and perhaps add why specifically this show means so much to you.

Don't go away. We will be right back after these messages. It's such a blessing to hear from Iron Sharpener's Iron Radio listeners from all over the world.

Here's Joe Riley, a listener in Ireland who wants you to know about a guest on the show he really loves hearing interviewed,

Dr. Joe Moorcraft. I'm Joe Riley, a faithful Iron Sharpener's Iron Radio listener here in Atai in County Kildare, Ireland.

Going back to 2005, one of my very favorite guests on Iron Sharpener's Iron is

Dr. Joe Moorcraft. If you've been blessed by Iron Sharpener's Iron Radio, Dr. Moorcraft and Heritage Presbyterian Church of Cumming, Georgia are largely to thank since they are one of the program's largest financial supporters.

Heritage Presbyterian Church of Cumming is in Forsyth County, a part of the Atlanta metropolitan area.

Heritage is a thoroughly biblical church unwaveringly committed to Westminster standards and Dr.

Joe Moorcraft is the author of an eight -volume commentary on the larger catechism. Heritage is a member of the

Hanover Presbytery built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone and tracing its roots and heritage back to the great protestant reformation of the 16th century.

Heritage maintains and follows the biblical truth and principles proclaimed by the reformers, scripture alone, grace alone, faith alone,

Christ alone and God's glory alone. Their primary goal is the worship of the Triune God that continues in eternity.

For more details on Heritage Presbyterian Church of Cumming, Georgia visit heritagepresbyterianchurch .com.

That's heritagepresbyterianchurch .com or call 678 -954 -7831.

That's 678 -954 -7831. If you visit, tell them

Joe O 'Reilly, an Iron Sharpens Iron radio listener from a tie in County Kildare, Ireland sent you.

Oh hail the power of Jesus' name.

This is Pastor Bill Sousa, Grace Church at Franklin here in the beautiful state of Tennessee.

Our congregation is one of a growing number of churches who love and support

Iron Sharpens Iron radio financially. Grace Church at Franklin is an independent autonomous body of believers which strives to clearly declare the whole counsel of God as revealed in scripture through the person and work of our

Lord Jesus Christ. And of course the end of which we strive is the glory of God.

If you live near Franklin, Tennessee, and Franklin is just south of Nashville, maybe 10 minutes, or you are visiting this area, or you have friends and loved ones nearby, we hope you will join us on Lord's Day in worshiping our

God and Savior. Please feel free to contact me if you have more questions about Grace Church at Franklin.

Our website is gracechurchatfranklin .org. That's gracechurchatfranklin .org.

This is Pastor Bill Sousa wishing you all the richest blessings of our

Sovereign Lord God Savior and King Jesus Christ today and always.

When Iron Sharpens Iron Radio first launched in 2005, the publishers of the

New American Standard Bible were among my very first sponsors. It gives me joy knowing that many scholars and pastors in the

Iron Sharpens Iron Radio audience have been sticking with or switching to the

NASB. I'm Dr. Joseph Piper, President and Professor of Systematic and Homiletical Theology at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Taylors, South Carolina, and the

NASB is my Bible of choice. I'm Pastor Chuck White of the

First Trinity Lutheran Church in Tonawanda, New York, and the NASB is my Bible of choice.

I'm Pastor Anthony Methenia of Christ Church in Radford, Virginia, and the NASB is my

Bible of choice. I'm Pastor Jesse Miller of Damascus Road Christian Church in Gardenville, Nevada, and the

NASB is my Bible of choice. I'm Pastor Bruce Bennett of Word of Truth Church in Farmerville, Long Island, New York, and the

NASB is my Bible of choice. I'm Pastor Rodney Brown of Metro Bible Church in South Lake, Texas, and the

NASB is my Bible of choice. I'm Pastor Jim Harrison of Red Mills Baptist Church in Mayapac Falls, New York, and the

NASB is my Bible of choice. Here's a great way for your church to help keep

Iron Sharpens Iron Radio on the air. Pastors, are your pew Bibles tattered and falling apart?

Consider restocking your pews with the NASB, and tell the publishers you heard about them from Chris Arnzen on Iron Sharpens Iron Radio.

Go to nasbible .com, that's nasbible .com to place your order.

Getting a driver's license, running a cash register, flipping burgers, passing sixth grade.

Do you know what they all have in common? They all require training, assessments, and certifications. But do you know what requires no training at all?

Becoming a parent. My name is A .M. Brewster. I'm the president of Truth, Love, Parent, and host of its award -winning podcast.

I've been a biblical family counselor since the early 2000s, and what I've discovered is that the majority of Christian parents have never been biblically equipped to do the work of the ministry in their homes.

That's why Truth, Love, Parent exists. We serve God by equipping dads and moms to be the ambassador parents

God called and created them to be. We produce free parenting resources, train church leaders, and offer biblical counseling so that the next generation of dads and moms can use the scriptures to parent their children for life and godliness.

Please visit us at truthloveparent .com. Every day at thousands of community centers, high schools, middle schools, juvenile institutions, coffee shops, and local hangouts,

Long Island Youth for Christ staff and volunteers meet with young people who need Jesus. We are rural and urban, and we are always about the message of Jesus.

Our mission is to have a noticeable spiritual impact on Long Island, New York by engaging young people in the lifelong journey of following Christ.

Long Island Youth for Christ has been a stalwart bedrock ministry since 1959. We have a world -class staff and a proven track record of bringing consistent love and encouragement to youths in need all over the country and around the world.

Help honor our history by becoming a part of our future. Volunteer, donate, pray, or all of the above.

For details, call Long Island Youth for Christ at 631 -385 -8333.

That's 631 -385 -8333. Or visit liyfc .org.

That's liyfc .org. Puritan Reformed is a

Bible -believing, kingdom -building, devil -fighting church. We are devoted to upholding the apostolic doctrine and practice preserved in Scripture alone.

Puritan Reformed teaches men to rule and lead as image -bearing prophets, priests, and kings.

We teach families to worship together as families. Puritan is committed to teaching the whole counsel of God so that the earth will be filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea.

We sing the Psalms, teach the law, proclaim the gospel, make disciples, maintain discipline, and exalt

Christ. This is Pastor David Reis of Puritan Reformed in Phoenix, Arizona.

Join us in the glorious cause of advancing Christ's crown and covenant over the kings of the earth.

Puritan Reformed Church. Believe. Build. Fight. PuritanPHX .com.

Hello. My name is Anthony Uvino, and I'm one of the pastors at Hope Reformed Baptist Church in Quorum, New York, and also the host of the

ReformRookie .com website. I want you to know that if you enjoy listening to the Iron Sharpens Iron radio show like I do, you can now find it on Apple's iTunes app by typing

Iron Sharpens Iron radio in the search bar. You no longer have to worry about missing a show or a special guest because you're in your car or still at work.

Just subscribe on the iTunes app and listen to the Iron Sharpens Iron radio show at any time, day or night.

Please be sure to also give it a good review and pass it along to anyone who would benefit from the teaching and the many solidly reformed guests that Chris Arnzen has on the show.

Truth is so hard to come by these days, so don't waste your time with fluff or fake news. Subscribe to the

Iron Sharpens Iron radio podcast right now. And while you're at it, you can also sign up for the ReformRookie .com

podcast and visit our website and the YouTube page. We are dedicated to teaching Christian theology from a

Reformed Baptist perspective to beginners in the faith as well as seasoned believers. From Keech's Catechism and the

Leviticus, the Reform Rookie podcast and YouTube channel is sure to have something to offer everyone seeking biblical truth.

And finally, if you're looking to worship in a Reformed church that holds to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, please join us at Hope Reform Baptist Church in Coram, New York.

Again, I'm Pastor Anthony Iovineo and thanks for listening. Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said,

Give yourself unto reading. The man who never reads will never be read.

He who never quotes will never be quoted. He who will not use the thoughts of other men's brains proves he has no brains of his own.

You need to read. Solid Ground Christian Books is a publisher and book distributor who takes these words of the

Prince of Preachers to heart. The mission of Solid Ground Christian Books is to bring back treasures of the past to minister to Christians in the present and future and to publish new titles that address burning issues in the church and the world.

Since its beginning in 2001, Solid Ground has been committed to publish God -centered, Christ -exalting books for all ages.

We invite you to go treasure hunting at solid -ground -books .com.

That's solid -ground -books .com and see what priceless literary gems from the past to present you can unearth from Solid Ground.

Solid Ground Christian Books is honored to be a weekly sponsor of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio. And please don't forget folks, my dear friends at solid -ground -books .com

are experiencing a very dramatic and serious sales slump when it comes to books.

So I'm urging you please, if you love Iron Sharpens Iron Radio, please seek to rescue one of its most vital sponsors from this slump.

Go to solid -ground -books .com and if you've never purchased from them before, make your first purchase of books today.

And if you've purchased from them many times, maybe you're even a monthly or weekly purchaser of books from solid -ground -books .com,

well please make today your largest purchase ever if you can afford to do so. And keep in mind, you're not only going to be doing solid -ground -books .com

a favor by purchasing books from them, and you're not only going to be doing Iron Sharpens Iron Radio a favor by keeping one of our most important advertisers happy, you're going to be doing yourself and anyone for whom you are purchasing books from solid -ground -books .com

an enormous favor of incalculable value because they bring back into print lost literary treasures from history that have been often hidden for centuries and unearthed by solid -ground -books .com

and brought them back into print. And they also publish brand new books that have been written by some world -renowned current authors such as my dear friend

Dr. James R. White of Alpha Omega Ministries. So please go to solid -ground -books .com

frequently and purchase generously, always mentioning that you heard about them from Chris Arnson of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio.

Before I return to Scott Klusendorf as we continue our discussion on his second edition of the book

The Case for Life, which is not only the second edition but a much larger edition, before we continue that discussion

I have some important announcements to make. If you love this show folks and you don't want it to disappear from the airwaves, please go to ironsharpensironradio .com,

click support, then click, click to donate now. You can donate instantly with a debit or credit card in that fashion.

If you prefer a snail mail sending in a physical check to a physical address through your local post office, well there will be a physical address that appears on your screen as well when you click support at ironsharpensironradio .com

where you can mail your checks, may be able to mail them to your local post office. If you want to advertise with us, whether it's your church, parachurch ministry, your business, your private practice like a law firm or a medical firm, or even just a special event you want to promote, whatever it is, as long as it's compatible with my beliefs,

I would love to help you launch an ad campaign because we're just as much in urgent need of your advertising dollars as we are into your donations.

So go to solid -ground, I'm sorry, go to ironsharpensironradio .com, click support, then click, click to donate now.

And also keep in mind, I never want anybody who is donating to ironsharpensironradio to give your own church where you're a member less money than what you normally give them on the

Lord's Day in order to bless us financially. Never do that. And also, if you're really struggling to survive and make ends meet, wait until you're back on your feet financially and more stable before you send us a financial gift.

The Bible is very clear that we're primarily to use our finances to support our church and our family.

Supporting my radio show is not a command of God, but if you love the show and you don't want it to disappear and you have extra money above and beyond your ability to provide for church and family, you have extra money for benevolent, recreational, and trivial purposes, please use some of that money to help us to continue to exist if you really love the show.

ironsharpensironradio .com, click support, then click, click to donate now. Last but not least, if you are not a member of a

Christ -honoring, biblically faithful, theologically sound, doctrinally solid church, no matter where in the world you live,

I may be able to help you find a church, as I have done with many people in the Ironsharpensironradio audience globally.

So send me an email to chrisarnson at gmail .com and put I need a church in the subject line. That's also the email address where you could send in a question to Scott Klusendorf on The Case for Life, and our email address is chrisarnson at gmail .com,

chrisarnson at gmail .com. And before you go on to, as you had mentioned before the break, you were going to do the fact that physicians so -called know exactly what they're doing when they're murdering a baby.

Going back to the hypocrisy or the schizophrenia of the left is that even if you are watching a news program on an obviously left -leaning television station, when a young girl gives birth to a baby, murders it, and throws it in a dumpster, the anchor person, whether it's a man or a woman, always speaks of this as a horrible, wicked thing.

They may not use the term wicked, but they are speaking of this with emotion, and are typically describing it as an utter and horrible tragedy, and are fully supporting, it seems, any kind of arrest of this girl for doing that.

Isn't that a bit schizophrenic, where they could be just gleefully supportive of a so -called woman's right to have an abortion, yet if a girl instantly, after giving birth, kills the baby, that's a horrible thing?

Well, you're right, Chris, there is schizophrenia there, but keep in mind the worldview that's driving that.

It's a performance view of human value that says human nature is not what gives us our value.

These attributed traits we have, that none of us share equally, is what gives us value. So in their mind, and they're mistaken, but in their mind they say it's horrible a newborn was killed, but a pre -born child is not a human person with a right to life, only the born is, because it can't function a certain way yet.

So in their worldview, there's not an inconsistency. You and I see it immediately.

It's very easy to say, wait a minute, what's the difference between the child in the womb and the one outside that justifies intentionally killing him?

And of course there is no good reason for saying it's okay to kill that child in the womb. But in their mind, in their worldview, the born child is a human person with a right to life, the unborn one is not.

So that's why they can juggle this in their own minds. They're wrong. We see the inconsistency, but oftentimes they do not.

And now delve into what you hinted at earlier about the reason physicians have absolutely no excuse to defend themselves from murdering unborn babies.

Well, for example, I'll give you some examples of this. Dr. Warren Hearn, who's written the book

Abortion Practice, which is the medical teaching text that teaches abortion procedures worldwide.

I've got two copies of it here. If you ever want to read something that will churn your gut, read that before bed at night.

He goes into detail about how dismemberment abortions are performed. But Dr. Warren Hearn himself at a

Planned Parenthood conference told attendees that it was no longer possible to deny that second trimester abortion is an act of destruction.

In fact, he went so far as to say the following, and I'll quote him directly. We have reached a particular point in this technology, meaning second trimester dismemberment abortion, where there is no possible act of denial that this is the death of a living human being.

And he puts it this way. He says the sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.

That's pretty graphic. That's not a pro -life advocate. That's Warren Hearn. If you go back as far as 1970, there's a journal article in the

American, or I'm sorry, in the California Journal of Public Health, that says that everyone in medicine and philosophy knows that abortion involves intentional killing, but we've got to use deliberate language to try to fool the public into believing it's not.

And the interesting thing about this editorial, the authors admit that this is intellectually dishonest, but they also admit that if we don't use language to fool the public, it's going to be very hard to talk them out of their ingrown belief that abortion is anything but intentional killing of an innocent human being.

Okay, we have Beauregard in Duck, North Carolina.

And Beauregard says, speaking of schizophrenia in the public eye, can you name anyone on the left who opposed the arrest and incarceration of Kermit Gosnell?

And perhaps you should explain to our listeners who might be unfamiliar with that name who that is.

Yeah. Kermit Gosnell was a late -term abortionist in Philadelphia who was convicted of killing children that survived his abortion procedures.

There were cases where the child survived and was born alive, and he intentionally killed them, and the evidence that was corroborated proved that he had done that, and he got prosecuted for that.

This happened in Philadelphia going back about a decade now, and if you want more on that, you can

Google an article I wrote for the Christian Research Journal about Gosnell. But in terms of the press, all you heard was crickets.

You didn't hear anything about this. They covered it up. They just refused to talk about it.

And they certainly didn't show the results of the fetal parts that were stored throughout his facility, very grotesque, rotting fetal parts that were found in refrigerators, buried in his own backyard in some cases.

And all of this, the media covered up, and I'm not aware of any journalist on the left that came clean and said, hey, let's call this what it is.

Let's at least show it to the public. No, they covered it up. They covered it up, but they also did not oppose his arrest and incarceration either.

No, they were, you know, it's interesting. The abortion industry will eat its own if it helps its

PR machine. We saw that with Gosnell. We saw that with other abortionists who have done the same thing like Willie Parker.

Willie Parker was considered God's abortionist. He was the hero of feminists up until about five years ago when

Dr. Mike Adams debated him and destroyed him at the University of North Carolina Wilmington.

And after that debate, Willie Parker's stock just plummeted. In fact, your viewers ought to watch that debate.

It's a tremendous example of how to take out an abortionist who unapologetically wants to defend child killing.

And Mike just did a great job dismantling the guy's argument. In fact, it was interesting.

Mike knew Willie Parker's book better than Willie Parker knew his own book. But the abortion industry will eat its own and toss you under the bus if you're no longer serving its purposes.

And that certainly happened with Gosnell. It happened with Willie Parker, and it's happened with others too.

And by the way, Beauregard, please give us your full mailing address and last name so that we could have

Carmelin Valley Bible Book Service, cvbbs .com, ship you a free copy of the book,

You Just Won the Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf. This is the second larger edition.

And we thank Crossway once again for providing us a limited number of these free giveaway copies.

We have an anonymous listener in Syracuse, New York, who asks if a child, specifically a daughter, is hellbent on having an abortion, would you as a

Christian permit that child to still live under your roof after committing murder?

I don't believe we should ever cut off our children, whatever they do, because if we do that, we take away the most obvious way we can convert and witness to them.

So I wouldn't cut the child off, but I would certainly do everything I could to stop that, including move the child to another city if I needed to, to get them away from that choice.

I would go to whatever lengths it took. But you know, it's apparent to say, I'm going to cut my child off and just break relationship with him.

I'm severing the one tie that might be the thing that brings them back to Christ. I mean, parents are very influential, even in their adult children's lives.

I'm learning that with adult children today. I still have a role to play. I certainly am not going to condone that.

I'm going to literally crawl over my dead body to get to that abortion clinic.

That's what's going to happen. I'm going to make it incredibly difficult for that. But to say I'm going to cut off my own child, no,

I'm not going to do that. Now, asking or insisting that a child, at least one old enough to fend for itself, insisting that they leave your house is not necessarily cutting them off, though.

For instance, I have heard Christian pastors counsel people that if a child refuses to stop having promiscuous sex and things like that, that they're no longer welcome in that house.

If you are able to somehow maintain connection with your child and say, you refuse to abide by my rules, you're going to need to live elsewhere, so be it.

But I thought the question was frame more along the lines of a needy child.

I was thinking more along the lines of a teenager. I wasn't thinking necessarily only adult children, but I'm certainly not going to sever relationship and I'm also not going to condone what they do.

I'm going to oppose it with everything in me. Will Anonymous please provide for us your full name and mailing address?

We obviously won't disclose that information on the air. And we will have

Cumberland Valley Bible Book Service, cvbbs .com, ship you a copy of The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf.

And we thank Crossway once again for providing us these free copies that we have been giving away.

And if you could, before I go on to any more listener questions, move on to some other primary examples of how you defend a pro -life position and the prevention of having children murdered in their mother's womb.

Well, one of the things I like to do is use visual imagery to depict abortion. At virtually every talk

I give and any talk our team gives, whether it's a school or a church or worldview conference where we speak often, we show graphic imagery of abortion.

And there's a reason for that, Chris. It's controversial. Some people don't like it. But it is important to change how people feel about abortion as a predicate to changing how they think and ultimately behave on the issue.

Pictures change how people think. I'd rather picture change how people feel.

And we know this. A lot of us have paid money to go to the theaters to watch movies like Saving Private Ryan, The Passion of the

Christ, Hacksaw Ridge, or we've seen miniseries like Band of Brothers or other series that depict graphically horrific things.

But we watch them and sometimes encourage our older children to watch them because those images, though gruesome, convey truth in a way that words never can.

What is going to be more effective? If I walk into an auditorium of non -pro -lifers and simply assert the conclusion, abortion is murder, or is it going to be more effective for me to show them that it's murder?

And this is something that we have found to be very effective, that once we show the pictures of abortion, as Greg Cunningham points out, abortion protests itself.

It's one thing to shout a conclusion, abortion is murder. It's quite another to confront the audience with the actual evidence and make them defend what is indefensible.

So I would rather work less hard defending my claim that abortion is murder and simply show the pictures and defy my audience to come to any conclusion other than this is a terrible injustice.

And so when you're talking about visual images, you're not only talking about enlarged still photographs, but films.

Are there any specific films that you can recommend? Yeah, I use film. Yeah, we have one on our website at thecaseforlife .com.

We show a short 55 -second video called This is Abortion. And I have shown this at pregnancy center banquets.

I show it at churches. Because, Chris, I'm convinced that even pro -lifers may be only attitudinally opposed to abortion, they're not behaviorally opposed.

How do I know that? Because that's where I was. In 1990, I was an associate pastor at a church.

If you had asked me, Scott, are you pro -life? I would have said yes. But here's the thing, Chris, I wasn't lifting a finger to stop the killing.

And I happened to go to a presentation that the local pregnancy center director, Lois Cunningham, put together.

And she invited a whole bunch of pastors to come hear a speaker that would make a case for the pro -life view.

I went expecting to see a hundred of my fellow colleagues. I got there. It was me, four other pastors, and their wives.

And thankfully, the speaker, Greg Cunningham, that morning, what he did is he gave a very persuasive defense of the pro -life view.

And I thought to myself, I like this guy. He doesn't hurt the brain to listen to. He's logical.

He's a lawyer. He laid out his arguments very well. But then he did something that changed my life forever.

He showed an eight -minute video depicting abortion. And I sat there and wept, Chris. I thought,

I am no different than the priest and the Levite who passed by on the other side. I say I care about this, but I'm not lifting a finger to stop it.

And that day, I went home from that breakfast and I took that VHS tape that he showed.

By the way, for any of your listeners wondering what VHS tapes are, they were these rectangular things we used to watch movies from.

And go look at an old VeggieTales VHS or find one somewhere. You'll know what

I mean. Google it. But I showed that tape to my wife, Stephanie, and she said, hey, whatever. I'm with you.

And bottom line, six months later, with the blessing of my church, where I served as an associate pastor,

I left that profession to begin exploring how I could equip believers to make a persuasive case for life in the public square.

And it was the images that moved me from attitudinal opposition to abortion to behavioral opposition.

And I think one of the things that happens, Chris, it's very tempting for pro -life advocates to shout conclusions rather than establishing facts.

And when you show videos like what I'm talking about here, you don't even have to use the word murder.

The video speaks for itself. As Greg says, it protests itself. And this creates tremendous cognitive dissonance in the minds of the viewers, where they now have to justify the indefensible.

So I'm assuming that our listeners who want to utilize this as a tool don't have to get their own copy of or—

They can download it. Right from your website. Yeah, caseforlife .com.

Just go to the Vimeo link in the corner of the video and they can download it. At caseforlife .com.

Okay. In fact, I encourage them to do that because then they can use that video and they don't have to go spend money to buy it.

It's right there. Now, we use the video carefully. We warn audiences. We scan the audience for young children to make sure that parents have either removed them or are covering their eyes during the 55 seconds.

And we use this video as a tremendous opportunity to share the good news of the gospel. The good news of the gospel makes a whole lot more sense against the bad news of what abortion is.

When you talk about sin in concrete terms, and then give people the bad news of how they are guilty of this, and then point them to the remedy, you've got a winning combination for helping them understand their need for the gospel.

Yeah, I can recall, speaking of visual images, I can recall years ago, this would have been back in the 80s, the woman who led me to Christ, dear friend of mine,

Susan, she had a friend, she developed a friendship with this woman,

I don't even remember where, might have been a hairdresser or something. And this woman was pregnant and she was determined to have an abortion because she was a crack addict and her doctor told her the best thing for you to do is have an abortion because this baby is likely going to be born with some very serious birth defects and problems.

So my friend Susan sat down with her with a very large coffee table book that contained full -color photographs of every stage of development in human life in the womb.

And the woman was shocked and did not have the abortion and she gave birth to a completely healthy baby, which shows you the doctor.

And sometimes, Chris, that's enough. Sometimes just seeing the nice pictures is enough, but there are other times it's not.

And this is where the images really play a role because they break through people's denial and it confronts them with the truth and they can't rationalize it away.

Well, let me ask you a question that I've brought up on this program before, speaking of the dramatic films that clearly are revealing that abortion is the torturous and brutal murder of a baby.

Years ago, this would have been the early to mid -90s, I suppose,

Pat Buchanan was running for president for the Reform Party. Yes.

And he was being interviewed by a fundamentalist

Baptist who had a program called the Fundamental Baptist Forum.

And it's interesting that this fundamentalist Baptist had the Catholic Pat Buchanan on the show.

But anyway, it was a live call -in show. This is before I had my own show.

And I called in and I said, Pat, I have an idea.

And I was wondering what your thoughts are on it. I think that we should demand and do everything we can to make happen before every election cycle.

We have to have televised a film of an actual abortion so that the public can be educated on what exactly they are voting for.

And I was shocked that Pat Buchanan, the poster boy for conservativism at the time, said, oh, we wouldn't want to do that.

I said, excuse me? Oh, that would be horrible. He said, that would be horrible. And I said, what do you mean?

He said, that would be like televising an execution. I said, exactly. That's my point.

I was shocked that Mr. Conservative was totally opposed to this idea that I had.

Well, Chris, you and I both know there are politicians and pastors that say they're pro -life, but when it comes to doing something that will actually save lives, they buckle and run.

And people ask me, what's the one thing that bothers you the most about the abortion debate?

It's really not Peter Singer. It's not David Boonen. It's not my opponents on the other side.

It's not people in the pro -life movement that oppose me. What bothers me the most are gatekeepers who claim to be on our side, and they participate with Planned Parenthood in covering up the very evil we're trying to expose.

And this goes against scripture on multiple levels. I mean, I'll just cite one example, Ephesians 5.

We're not to cover up evil, we're to expose it. And I could go on and on. But the point here is we cannot win a social reform cause if we're going to participate in covering up the very evil we are opposing.

And a lot of pro -lifers have no stomach for giving the public what it needs, and that is the truth on what abortion is.

It's the intentional killing of an innocent human being. And they're running away from this, and it's not going to serve us well.

Now, just out of curiosity, these films you have, do you have films of the baby being murdered at different stages of development?

Yeah, the 55 -second clip that I referenced on our page shows a first -trimester sequence where you see severed hands and severed feet.

It shows a second -trimester sequence where you see the limbs dismembered.

And then it shows a third -trimester child that is being delivered intact but clearly has been killed.

So you see all three trimesters represented in that video. And what are the most common stages of development that a baby has reached when it is murdered through abortion?

The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed first trimester, but our opponents love to point that out.

They say that, oh, the overwhelming majority are performed in the first trimester, only 10 % are late -term abortions.

Okay, but when you're talking a million abortions a year, 10 % is a sizable number.

And they downplay these numbers. Imagine somebody saying, you know, most rapes are not included in sexual assault.

The woman doesn't get fully raped. That only happens maybe 10 % of the time, so let's not concern ourselves with it.

Well, if you were a politician and said something like that, you'd be run out of town with a pitchfork. The fact that most abortions are early -term does not mean they're justifiable, nor does it mean the remaining late -term abortions are not a big deal.

And I just recently saw, I can't remember who it was, but some female leftist pro -infanticide advocate scoffed at the idea that women are having late -term abortions even up to the ninth month.

Oh, that doesn't happen, she said. So there is actually more than just a refocusing on first trimester as being the most common.

There is downright deceit happening with people. Well, there is. And before phone books became obsolete, because now we have

Google, all you had to do was open the phone book in a big city and you would see late -term abortions advertised up to 28 weeks in some cases.

So this claim that they're not happening is bogus. They do happen. Admittedly, they don't happen at the same level as early -term abortions, but they are happening.

Now, I wish I could find, I have tried to find on YouTube, a clip of The View, that wonderful program.

That bastion of conservative thought, yeah. But I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears on one of the occasions when

Ron Paul was interviewed, not Rand, his son, but Ron Paul.

He was talking about late -term abortions and describing it in at least a limited detail, but he was providing a description of what was going on.

And all the while before then, Joy Behart was obviously defending abortion and, you know, giving negative feedback to Ron.

But when he mentioned the late -term abortion at the ninth month, a partial birth abortion,

I think specifically he was talking about, she said, well, that's different. That would be murder. I wish

I could find that because I don't think you would ever hear her admit that today. Yeah, that's quite a remarkable concession from anybody on the other side.

In fact, they have worked overtime to downplay partial birth abortion. They do it two ways.

They say it rarely happens. And when that doesn't fly, they come back with, well, you're using imprecise language.

It's not partial birth abortion. It's DNX, as if somehow our language determines what something is.

This is a thoroughly postmodern attempt to change the subject. Look, with partial birth abortion, the child is delivered breach.

With only the head left in the birth canal, we puncture the skull and suck out the child's brain. That's a good description of what's happening, partial birth abortion.

So our critics can try to say it's not a big deal, but we know it is. And by the way, when they try to tell us that late -term abortions don't happen, here's a copy of Warren Hearn's book,

Abortion Practice, which I mentioned to you earlier. Your audience can't see it, but you can see it, Chris.

And I've read this book through and through, and I'm here to tell you that this book describes in excruciating detail, nauseating detail, how you go about dismembering a late -term fetus.

So people who say this isn't happening need to consult their own medical textbooks, and they'll get a different picture altogether.

Well, I think now's about time for me to bring up my little pushback that I had mentioned earlier.

And this is not going to be exhaustive. First of all, as I said before, we have Brian Gunter, who is an abolitionist, on the program tomorrow.

And my guest, Scott Klusendorf, is going to be, God willing, debating Jason Storms, another abolitionist, on February 21st of 2024 on this program.

But I was an abolitionist, really, before the term came into vogue.

Early on in my Christian life, when I became pro -life, because that was really the only word that was used to describe somebody who was against abortion, or at least the most popular one,

I always had an unsettled attitude or response to the attitudes of most, if not all, pro -lifers that I had any kind of connection with, or to whom

I was a witness to their explanations of their worldview and so on.

I very rarely saw, if ever, a consistency, a logical consistency in their view that abortion is murder, because it seemed to, on one level or another, always be some kind of a lesser degree of murder in the way that they were responding to how to come up with a solution and a prevention to this.

And one of the things that seems to be at the core of the divide between abolitionists and those who describe themselves as pro -life, like you, is the issue of making abortion across the board a crime where the guilty parties, whether it be the mother who is voluntarily having the baby murdered, or the boyfriend that coerced her to do it, or the husband or the father that coerced her to do it, and to me that doesn't seem to be logically consistent.

If you're viewing a baby, recognizing that a baby, no matter what stage of development, even at conception, is a human and to abort it is murdering it, why wouldn't you have a desire to see that outlawed in every single way, shape, and form?

And even the abortifacient, I believe they're called, the pills that kill babies in the womb, that women can do comfortably, they can partake in these or consume these in the comfort of their own home.

So if you could respond to that. Yeah, well here's what I would say, what's wrong with a law that says you can't intentionally kill an innocent human being, and if you do there will be consequences?

I agree, there should be consequences. However, what those consequences should be will depend on a number of factors that don't necessarily mean that pro -lifers are compromising.

For example, to pin the murder charge on the mother the way you might want to pin it on the abortionist, you're going to have to meet a number of legal thresholds that are very, very tough to overcome.

First, you've got to meet the meeting of the minds threshold. In other words, to convict the mother of co -conspiracy and co -cooperation with the abortion doctor to commit murder, you have to prove that her knowledge of the abortion act matches his exactly.

That is almost an impossible threshold to meet, Chris. In fact, could you pick up right where you left off, because we have to go to our final break.

Yeah, sure. Please don't forget where you left off. Nope. We'll be right back folks, so please do not go away.

James White of Alpha Omega Ministries here.

If you've watched my Dividing Line webcast often enough, you know I have a great love for getting Bibles and other documents vital to my ministry rebound to preserve and ensure their longevity.

And besides that, they feel so good. I'm so delighted I discovered post -Tenebrous Lux Bible rebinding.

No radio ad will be long enough to sing their praises sufficiently, but I'll give it a shot. Jeffrey Rice of Post -Tenebrous

Lux is a remarkably gifted craftsman and artisan. All his work is done by hand, from the cutting, to the pleating of corners, to the perimeter stitching.

Jeffrey uses the finest in buttery soft imported leathers in a wide variety of gorgeous colors, like the turquoise goat skin tanned in Italy used for my

Nestle All in 28th edition, with a navy blue goat skin inside liner, and the electric blue goat skin from a

French tannery used to rebind a Reformation study Bible I used as a gift. The silver gilding he added on the page edges has a stunning mirror finish resembling highly polished chrome.

Jeffrey will customize your rebinding to your specifications, and even emboss your logo into the leather, making whatever he rebinds a one -of -a -kind work of art.

For more details on post -Tenebrous Lux Bible rebinding, go to ptlbiblerebinding .com.

That's ptlbiblerebinding .com. I'm Dr.

Joseph Piper, President Emeritus and Professor of Systematic and Applied Theology at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

Every Christian who's serious about the Deformed Faith and the Westminster Standards should have and use the eight -volume commentary on the

Theology and Ethics of the Westminster Larger Catechism, titled Authentic Christianity by Dr.

Joseph Moorcraft. It is much more than an exposition of the Larger Catechism. It is a thoroughly researched work that utilizes biblical exegesis as well as historical and systematic theology.

Dr. Moorcraft is pastor of Heritage Presbyterian Church of Cumming, Georgia, and I urge everyone looking for a biblically faithful church in that area to visit that congregation.

For details on the eight -volume commentary, go to westminstercommentary .com, westminstercommentary .com.

For details on Heritage Presbyterian Church of Cumming, Georgia, visit heritagepresbyterianchurch .com,

heritagepresbyterianchurch .com. Please tell Dr. Moorcraft and the saints at Heritage Presbyterian Church of Cumming, Georgia that Dr.

Joseph Paipa of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary sends you. I'm Dr.

Tony Costa, Professor of Apologetics and Islam at Toronto Baptist Seminary. I'm thrilled to introduce to you a church where I've been invited to speak and have grown to love,

Hope Reformed Baptist Church in Coram, Long Island, New York, pastored by Rich Jensen and Christopher McDowell.

It's such a joy to witness and experience fellowship with people of God like the dear saints at Hope Reformed Baptist Church in Coram, who have an intensely passionate desire to continue digging deeper and deeper into the unfathomable riches of Christ in His Holy Word, and to enthusiastically proclaim

Christ Jesus the King and His doctrines of sovereign grace in Suffolk County, Long Island, and beyond.

I hope you also have the privilege of discovering this precious congregation and receive the blessing of being showered by their love, as I have.

For more information on Hope Reformed Baptist Church, go to hopereformedli .net, that's hopereformedli .net,

or call 631 -696 -5711, that's 631 -696 -5711.

Tell the folks at Hope Reformed Baptist Church of Coram, Long Island, New York, that you heard about them from Tony Costa on Iron Sharpens Iron.

I've been a biblical family counselor since the early 2000s, and what I've discovered is that the majority of Christian parents have never been biblically equipped to do the work of the ministry in their homes.

That's why Truth. Love. Parent exists. We serve God by equipping dads and moms to be the ambassador parents

God called and created them to be. We produce free parenting resources, train church leaders, and offer biblical counseling so that the next generation of dads and moms can use the scriptures to parent their children for life and godliness.

Please visit us at truthloveparent .com. Welcome back, and if you could,

Scott, pick up where you left off on those items in response to my seeing inconsistency amongst pro -life folk in not treating abortion as a crime as they would with the mother throwing the baby in the dumpster after it's born and any other murder that may take place.

Right, and I'll do this quick because I know we're short, but the thing you've got to realize is pro -lifers are not necessarily compromising morally because they propose a lesser penalty for the mother than they do the doctor who does the direct killing, and the reason for that is this.

Legally, to convict the mother as a co -conspirator in murder the way you want to convict the doctor or the abortionist, you have to prove there's been a meeting of the minds.

You have to prove that her knowledge of what's taking place matches his, and I already mentioned

Dr. Warren Hearn's book, Abortion Practice. In that book, he talks about turning the ultrasound machine away from the woman so she does not see what's happening with abortion.

He also talks about hooking up a fetal monitor, a doppler to measure fetal heartbeat, but making sure the mother doesn't hear it.

Obviously, the mother does not know everything the doctor knows. You also have to prove premeditation, willfulness, and deliberation, in other words, cold -blooded intention.

That's going to be very hard to prove against the mother, and pro -lifers recognizing that the primary way to stop abortion is to cut it off at its source, which means nail the medical establishment that's doing it, wants to make sure the doctor gets prosecuted to cut off the supply, and you're going to need the mother's testimony to convict that doctor as well, and you're not going to get it if you're going to charge her exactly the way you charge him.

So pro -lifers have come up with other things. They said, well, wait a minute. Maybe instead of a murder charge, what we need here is a charge of solicitation to do an illegal act.

That's a lesser penalty, but it still is a consequential one, and starts the process of re -educating the public.

We've had 50 years, Chris, of women being told abortion's a positive good, and now we've thrown the car in reverse and to just jump right there to, oh, abortion's great.

Go have as many as you want to. Do it. We're prosecuting you for murder. No DA, no jury in the country is going to prosecute a woman if there's a law that says you get convicted of murder if you have an abortion.

It's going to become an unenforceable law, much like our current border is under the

Biden administration, where the Biden administration refuses to enforce the laws we have, and our laws become a laughingstock.

So I think we need to recognize the ultimate purpose here is to protect children. Let's pass laws that say unborn children are human beings from conception, and you're not allowed to kill them.

And let's protect children from conception and hash out the consequences of what that looks like in terms of penalty as the culture becomes progressively more pro -life.

Okay, I'm going to read half of, or should I say the second question of Virginia in Viroqua, Wisconsin, because you, her first question is really the same

I asked. Do you agree with the sentiments expressed by the 1970s pro -life organizations that women are always victims of abortion and should not be held accountable even if it is able to be proven that they are willingly with knowledge committing murder against their own child?

And who should be held accountable in your view? Obviously, there are women who brag about having abortions.

There are women who brag about even calling it murdering their children. So how do you respond to that?

Well, again, coming back to this, I do believe there should be consequences. I have not said there should be no consequences.

What I'm saying is there are hurdles to prosecuting an aborting mother for murder.

You're going to have to overcome the hurdle of the meeting of the minds. You're going to have to overcome the whole problem with proving that she knows what the doctor knows.

And if you can't do that, the case against her and the doctor collapses and he walks too.

So if we really want to get at the source, let's prosecute the source. We do this with drugs all the time.

With drug enforcement, we prosecute the dealer at a different level than we do the single pot user.

Although I would argue both have done wrong. There's a harsher penalty for the dealer than there is for the end user who smokes a joint.

And nobody gets bothered by that. But with abortion, all of a sudden, we've got to prosecute both the same.

But keep in mind, too, culturally, women have been told this is a good thing. They're being pressured by boyfriends.

They're being pressured by authority figures to get abortions. Do we prosecute the counselors the same way we prosecute the doctor?

I mean, shouldn't we prosecute everybody that's involved in forcing or moving this woman toward an abortion?

I think, to be consistent, if we're going to take the view we have to prosecute for murder, all of them should be, too.

And that creates a legal mess. How do you determine who's culpable in this decision?

That becomes a big problem, too. So pragmatically, it is a deep problem.

And if we really want to end abortion, we should work at protecting the children. Let's protect them right now.

One of the questions I love to put out there is, if a law were passed protecting children from conception, but specifically stated women would not be prosecuted for murder, will you support that bill?

Or will you let those children die because we can't prosecute the mothers for murder? I think we need to work prudentially, which isn't compromised.

It's just being wise as we try to work in the real world we live in. We live in a constitutional republic, and there are people who disagree with us on this issue, and they vote.

We don't have legal power. And to protect all unborn children and get the society we want, we have to have legal power to go with our moral power.

And right now, we don't have that. Alan from Tulsa, Oklahoma, please explain why you believe that a pregnant woman who knowingly and deliberately purchases and swallows an abortion pill to murder her child should be totally immune, even from prosecution.

Okay, Alan, as I said a moment ago, I do believe there should be consequences.

I gave the reasons why pro -lifers historically have chosen not to prosecute for murder, because of the hurdle of the meeting of the minds, and because no

DA is going to enforce that after 50 years of legalized abortion. And so pro -lifers, recognizing our primary goal is to save children, have focused on that, rather than saying, let's just automatically prosecute women for murder.

We're going to try to stop abortion at the supply. I do think women who take RU46, there should be legal consequences for that.

But if you're going to say it's co -conspiracy to murder, you're going to have to overcome that meeting of the minds hurdle, and I'd like to know how we're going to do that legally.

It's near impossible. And thank you, Shane, from Louisville, Kentucky, for sending in a question, but it's already been answered, as you heard.

Last question from me. What is your reaction to so -called pro -life, so -called conservatives, like Sean Hannity of Fox News and others, who are actually urging, almost begging, or even demanding, that Republicans running for office start at least including rape and incest and the life of the mother in their reasons why abortion should be legal?

Well, I think Sean Hannity is a morally untutored pro -lifer. He does not argue consistently.

Look, if the unborn are human and have a right to life, you don't get to kill them just because you don't like the situation that caused their conception.

Children conceived through rape are human beings just like you and I. They are image bearers.

Now, that does raise the question, if you have a chance to ban all abortions but rape, and you don't have the votes to protect all children, are you compromising in voting to protect as many as you can, provided you keep coming back to protect all of them?

And I would argue that you should always do, as a pro -life Christian, you must always do the greatest moral good you can, given the constraints upon you, and that means working legislatively to protect as many humans as we can and never giving up until all are protected.

And the problem I have with Hannity, that's not an incremental approach, that's a permanent compromise approach.

In other words, Hannity is saying, we should allow rape. The pro -lifer is saying,

I don't accept rape, but I will protect as many children as I can while I remain committed to my principle that all be protected.

And Chris, one thing that I think is generating a lot of confusion, all pro -lifers that I work with, and I include myself in this, we are all abolitionists in principle.

If there were a button on my desk right now that said, press this and all abortions become illegal and all unborn children become protected,

I would push that button. The question is, what do we do when we don't have that button? What do we do in practice when we don't have the votes to protect all children?

And the answer is, we must never settle until all are protected. And in the meantime, though in principle

I'm an abolitionist, in practice I will work incrementally to protect as many kids as I can.

And don't forget folks, tomorrow I do have abolitionist Brian Gunter, a pastor in Louisiana, to also provide his views, his worldview as an abolitionist.

So please don't think that your side is not going to be represented. If you could,

Scott, provide our listeners with all of your contact information. Sure.

You can visit us at social media at caseforlife .com or you can visit us at scottklusendorf .com.

A lot of my podcasts are there. I would also recommend prolifetraining .com where you can get written apologetics articles where I've written case defending the pro -life view.

You can look at that case there. And of course, I would encourage all of your listeners to pick up the new copy of the

Case for Life second edition. If they bought the first copy, I promise you we did way more than just put a new cover on this thing.

As you noted, Chris, this thing is a lot thicker than the previous one. Well, thank you so much,

Scott, for agreeing to be on the program today. I want to thank everybody who listened. I want you all to always remember for the rest of your lives that Jesus Christ is a far greater