Live: Abolition Debate w/Jeff Durbin & Samuel Sey

When the scribes and Pharisees asked our Lord about the greatest commandment, he replied, you shall love the

Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.

So why do we hear some of today's most prominent pastors saying things like this? It had everything to do with how we talk about the

Bible and specifically or along with that, what we point to as the foundation of faith, which for most

Christians, unfortunately is the Bible. And face the work of building a life -giving,

God -honoring culture. Join us for four days at the Cultural Leadership Academy as we consider how the gospel influences all of life and culture and the role that we have to play in applying foundational

Christian thinking to every area of life. Rock a boat, must stop.

I don't want to rock the boat, I want to sink it. Are you going to bark all day, little doggie?

Or are you going to bite? We're being delusional. Delusional, yeah. Delusional is okay in your worldview.

I'm an animal. You don't chastise chickens for being delusional. You don't chastise pigs for being delusional. So you calling me delusional using your worldview is perfectly okay.

It doesn't really hurt. Is he hung up on me? Yeah! I got it.

What? What? Desperate times call for faithful men and not for careful men.

The careful men come later and write the biographies of the faithful men, lauding them for their courage.

Go into all the world and make disciples. Not go into the world and make buddies. Not to make brosives. Right. Don't go into the world and make homies.

Right. Disciples. I got a bit of a jiggle neck. That's a joke, pastor.

When we have the real message of truth, we cannot let somebody say they're speaking truth when they're not.

Take a look. Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees and the writers who keep writing oppression to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil and that they may make the fatherless their prey.

What's up, everybody? Welcome back to another episode of Apologia Radio. This is the gospel heard around the world.

You guys can get more at apologiastudios .com. That's A -P -O -L -O -G -I -A studios .com.

Be sure to go there after the episode today. Go to apologiastudios .com.

When you go there, you can sign up for your Bonson U account. It is totally for free. It's a gift to you through us from the

Bonson family. We are so grateful to have Dr. Greg Bonson's life, life's work there.

You have whole courses on philosophy, Christian apologetics, church history, books of the

Bible. I mean, seminary level education, because many of the courses are from his seminary where he was teaching these courses.

They're all up there. So you get the best education all for free from one of the best, one of the giants of,

I believe, Christian history, Dr. Greg Bonson, and that's at BonsonU at apologiastudios .com.

Make sure you guys are doing that. Get ahold of that. Also, you guys can get all the past episodes of Apologia Radio, Provoked, Cultish, Sheologians, everything is there.

And if you're part of this ministry with us, if you're a partner in this ministry with us, you make everything we do possible, and you do that at Apologia's all access.

When you guys are all access, not only do you help us to produce what you've even seen over the last couple of weeks at Apologia Studios, the on the street evangelism, the engagement, the training in evangelism, all the videos that are there, whether even it's related to what we're talking about today and abortion now, you make all that possible and you do it at all access.

And when you do, you get a bunch of extra content. We just finished, well, it's in production right now, being cut, a new

Apologia Academy with Dr. Kenneth Gentry on the book of Revelation. We're very excited about that. His commentary is finally out.

I just got my copy two days ago, actual hard copy. I had it in PDF long time ago, but I just don't do well with PDF and electronic stuff.

And so I have the physical copy in my hands now. His commentary in the book of Revelation is finally out and that works perfectly with now the

Academy we have for you guys. So there's tons there, all kinds of extra content for our ministry partners.

And we wanna say always, as we always do, we're so thankful for all of you guys who pray for this ministry and are part of this ministry with us.

So we are having an interesting show today. Obviously it's a little different than Apologia Radio normally. Luke the bear is not here,

Conover's not here. It's just me under these lights and have the privilege of having a conversation today with a very good brother, a man that I love and respect greatly.

His name is Samuel Say. You guys, I'm sure many of you guys are aware of him. You know him, you know some of his work.

His website is Slow2Write. Make sure I get this exactly right here. Slow, it's slow2write .com.

And he's got some great stuff there. And you may have in a, fairly recently you've seen

Sam doing a couple of programs where he's talked about the issue of abolition versus pro -life.

And so Sam's a friend, love Sam, he loves me. We respect each other. We're brothers in the

Lord. But we have some differences on the issue of like, how do we get to the abolition of abortion and provide equal protection for all human beings from fertilization?

And so I'm just gonna, we're just gonna thrust everyone into it. And the way that Sam and I decided to do this was just really to have this as a conversation between brothers.

And I'm sure we're gonna have things we completely agree on and then other areas where we disagree.

But we wanted to do that in a way that glorifies God, loves one another, and helps to get this conversation moving better than it has in the past.

And so Sam, you'll say, thank you for joining us on Apology Radio, brother. It's a real honor.

And thank you for your very kind words. You're being so kind that, you know, don't make me become an abolitionist, sir.

Just from your kindness, don't do that. Well, yeah, I mean, well, no, go ahead, go ahead. No, I was joking around with some mutual friends of ours that I'm so starstruck that just by seeing you mentioning my name,

I'm like, you know what? All right, I'm an abolitionist already, so. I'm just joking around.

No, okay, so let's do this this way. So there's, I think

I want to give you a chance to explain to everybody where you're at on this issue because, and it relates to something

I've heard you say often when I've listened to some of the programs you've done and the conversations you've had about this.

And you even talk about in terms of the kindness and the love and affection we have between one another. It's one of the things that in the past has bothered you about many of the abolitionists you've had a run in with.

Just the behavior, the unchristlike behavior, those sorts of things. Now, obviously that can be demonstrated both sides, right?

Oh, yeah. But it is something that I think we have to be critical about and I think you're right in terms of like, this is wrong, the behavior, the abuse, the uncharitable behavior that you might see coming.

Because I put it this way, I want to take ownership, right? In terms of, even as a

Calvinist, as someone who's reformed. If someone points out a flaw in the reformed community, I want to take ownership of it and say, you know what?

That's actually a good critique. That's a problem in the reformed community. We need to make that right. And so, going into it,

I think that we want to demonstrate to people that we can love one another and actually do this as Christians. Yeah.

And I would like for you to tell everybody where you're at on this issue so that there's no confusion.

Yeah. And go ahead. Yeah, that's really, really helpful way to start off. Before I share my views on this, to continue your point.

And of course, not surprisingly, I was very humble and gracious of you. But that's something that I've addressed before and some dismiss, but I think they don't get the point.

The point is not because I'm used to addressing woke ideologies, controversial things.

So, sinful words, unrighteous words are not new to me. What bothers me about, unfortunately, this issue is, this is an issue of babies being murdered.

Babies are being dismembered and decapitated. And if someone is passionate about this issue because they hate sin and love

God, or as the Bible says, I think in Amos 5, 6, I think, where it says, we should hold fast to what is good, love justice and abhor evil.

Well, if we're gonna abhor evil, if we're gonna hate abortion, we have to hate all unrighteousness. We have to hate the slander, false accusations and the unwholesome words that are so common.

Because I'll tell you this, we'll share, I guess I'll share soon my agreements with abolitionists.

But for a lot of people, when they hear, for a lot of people who may call themselves pro -life, when they hear that abolitionists wanna penalize women, when they hear, when they associate that with unwholesome words and anger, and truly seeing people who may even be close to agreeing with abolitionists, hearing them say, seeing them say horrible things about each other, it's gonna be hard for them to associate penalizing women with loving

God and loving justice. They're going to associate that with, oh, well, they're just mean -spirited, which is not true, right?

Because that's, well, we'll get to that soon. That's a biblical. But when there is poor character, when there is unrighteous character, people are going to use that as a reason to reject some of the good things that abolitionists have.

I don't think they get it. To me, it's very frustrating that so many abolitionists dismiss this, which is why

I'm grateful that you acknowledge it. And of course, too, I know pro -life people who have also said some horrible things about abolitionists, too.

I mean, some of them have said horrible things about me, so it's not really a surprise, right? So unfortunately, there's sin on both camps.

But too often, in my own personal life, too often, I've seen too many abolitionists hurting their own arguments by just, frankly, poor character at times.

And I'm sure I've been guilty of that, too, right? So that's not to say that I'm better than anybody else, but I think too often, this is something that people would characterize abolitionists as being guilty of.

Well, and I'm going to get you to explain that point, but I think the reason I bring it up is I think that this issue needs to be about the principle issues.

We have to stick to the issues, right? Not make it about attacking the personality. It's what are you saying?

And is that consistent with God's revelation? Is it consistent? Is it reasonable? Is it logical?

Those sorts of things. We need to stick to those and not make it about personalities. But at the same time, I will start with saying that one of the things that I have tried to communicate to fellow abolitionists and just Christians on this issue is the

Proverbs says in chapter six, verse 16, it says, there are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him, haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood.

Now we love to seize on that as Christians. Let's just forget abolitionists. We'd love to seize on that as Christians on this issue of abortion.

God hates the hands that shed innocent blood because it's true, he does. And so we should feel the weight of that.

And we love to draw on that versus as Christians with regard to the issue of abortion. However, the text goes on to say a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run evil, a false witness who breathes out lies and one who sows discord among brothers.

He hates all those things. And so it's important for us, if you wanna be consistent to say, yes,

God hates the hands that shed innocent blood, but he also hates the one who sows discord among brothers and breathes out lies.

And so if it's a corrective that's needed on either side, I think we need to use it and we need to apply it and appeal to it and say, let's be consistent, right?

Let's avoid slander. Let's avoid lying about one another. Let's use equal weights and measures in our personal relationships with one another.

Like it doesn't do any good for us to like shout equal protection and decry unequal weights and measures, but we don't actually do that in our personal relationships with one another.

Amen. Yeah. And so I think that's the key issue, I think, is stepping into this to say, it's not about personalities in terms of our discussion, but if there's a corrective needed period for us in the body of Christ in this issue, that's a corrective we should all listen to.

Yeah. And this is something that I'm, the reason why I call myself slow to write, it's not because I am slow to write, although I'm a very slow writer, truly, technically, but in terms of character,

I wanna be, I'm not saying I'm there yet, but I wanna be slow to read or quick to listen.

So I wanna be quick to read, quick to listen, and then slow to write or slow to speak, right? But a part of that means being slow to anger.

Now, of course, we should be angered by what is happening with the abortion issue, babies being murdered, we should be angry about that, but we should not sin, right?

And too often there's so much sin involved and it just hurts what we're trying to do to honor God and to save babies.

Yeah. We need to avoid those pitfalls because we're not advancing the cause of justice if we're having to wade through all of that muck at the same time.

Has to be about the issues, the principal issues, make it about that. And you know, look, and on this issue,

I think we need to be humble enough to say there's things that I'm right about and wrong about, you're things you're right about, wrong about. What we're trying to do as brothers here is discover what does

God say about this so that we can be changed. And that's the key issue here is to say, as brothers in Christ, as members of the body of Christ, as people who are part of the church, let's get to the scriptures, let's make it about what does

God say about this so we can be changed so that we can glorify God by establishing justice. That's the key issue.

Exactly. Yeah. And, you know, in addressing that, and also getting to one of the things you asked me earlier is

I would hope, one of the reasons, I would hope that, I hope that by the grace of God, it is me wanting to be humble and wanting to be quick to listen and slow to speak that has led me to agreeing with abolitionists on certain things.

Right. Now, it wasn't, there weren't things that I really was, were rejecting necessarily, but I hadn't considered until several years ago when

I heard abolitionists talking about it. Frankly, people like you. And I was like, huh, I didn't consider that. So now to get to what is my view.

So I think actually, I, you know, I, in a sense, I don't like the term pro -life, not because I'm not pro -life,

I am pro -life, but when it comes to this debate or this discussion, I think the word pro -life is not helpful.

In my view, I think the most helpful terms are immediatist and incrementalist, or to go back to the original words, gradual abolition and immediate abolition.

Because I would say that I am an abolitionist, just not in agreement with those who normally call themselves abolitionists today in strategy.

I'm an abolitionist in the sense that, of course, I want to abolish abortion. And I would say that every true, sincere pro -life person, or to be more specific, pro -life

Christian wants to abolish abortion. They just have different views on how it should end.

And then also when it comes to a major part, which is of course equal protection. But to share my views,

I absolutely believe that, of course, abortion should be abolished with zero exceptions. I do believe that women should be penalized with the abortion or with the abortionist or anybody plays any role in the abortion because it's murder.

And it's very clear in the scriptures that you murder, then you must be charged for that.

There's no debate over that. Many of my quote unquote pro -life or incrementalist friends disagree.

And I think they're wrong. And I think there are many who are starting to, frankly, like me before, many had not considered that issue until recently.

And I've had talks with people. I'm like, hey guys, have you considered? I'll tell you this. I had a conversation with,

I'll mention her name, with Christian Hawkins. She's the president of Student for Life, I think, or Student Rights for Life, I'm forgetting exactly the official name, but she had an interview with me and she did not know my views on this.

And live, she assumed, because I wrote an article about abolitionism and then she reached out to me, but I guess she hadn't read everything

I said. And she was like, yeah, well, they believe in penalizing women and that's wrong. I'm like, well, let's talk about this, right?

So I made the point that, well, when slavery was abolished, you would, of course, agree that anybody then who would illegally own a slave, well, should be penalized for that.

She's like, yeah, well, what's the difference then with the preborn child? Because the pro -life movement rightly has said that we are this generation's versions of the abolitionist, right?

The abortion issue is just as, or even worse than the issue of slavery in the past, or even as it still exists in some places today, even illegally.

So anyways, my view is that, yes, women should be penalized because, of course, I do agree with equal protection.

So I think that covers generally where I'm in agreement with. Yeah, yeah. Of course, no exceptions in abortion and equal protection.

And let's do this. I actually had to pull up here because I thought this was an important part of that conversation you had with Kristen Hawkins.

I'll just play a little portion of that so people can hear what you said. Killing a baby is just like killing a five -year -old person.

And I think then we need to say then that people who have abortions then, once abortion is illegal, should be penalized for that.

Well, that was a lot. And you certainly did say something a lot of people disagree with, especially when you talked about penalties for, and seeking criminal punishment for women who've undergone an abortion.

I would say that view is largely opposed to about 95 % of the pro -life movement in America, who says we can't offer a helping hand one day and slap women with penalties the next.

So I think you're right in that there are always going to be, and there are women today, any of us know, who have gone out to pray in front of an abortion facility or sidewalk council in front of an abortion facility.

There are women who truly do not know what it is they're doing. There's women who are so steeped in a crisis and have a tunnel vision of the crisis of the pregnancy that they refuse to consider any other information about the development of their child, the fundamental, unique, whole human being living inside of them, who was also created in the image of our

God. But there are women who do know what abortion is and still choose abortion.

I think though your policy prescription of punishing women, of saying that you would be in favor of laws that criminalize women,

I would deeply disagree with that, especially at a moment where you have for 50 years a country that has told women killing a child is okay, and in fact is empowerment.

So I thought you did a fine job in responding to this, and everyone can go look that up themselves to see how

Sam handled that objection. I think you did a really fine job, and I'm going to use that in the future in terms of relating it to the issue of slavery and the culture that was developed at that time, and just what many of them had just sort of adopted.

This is fine, we can dehumanize them, they're not persons, they're property, those sorts of things. You brought up a fine point, like when slavery was abolished and it was criminalized, it was abolished and criminalized, and anybody involved in it would have been punished, and there's no excuse on day two.

The person can't say, well, I've been a part of this environment and this culture, and I can't help it how

I've thought about this. You would say, no, this is a crime. You've dehumanized this person, that's not allowed. They will be treated as equals, and if you engage in this, you will be punished.

And I would say that she probably fully accepts that. Yeah, that's exactly how it should have gone down. Anybody who would have enslaved a black person after that should have immediately been penalized.

But she has a worldview, and I think this is a key issue, brother, as we spring into this.

This is, I think, the key issue. The thing, because you bring up the point that, okay, so what everyone heard from Sam is that he loves

Jesus, he loves God's word, he wants justice, he wants equal protection. He does not hold to the position that Kristen illustrated that, and I think she's exactly right.

I think it's higher than 95%. But when you talk about the pro -life movement or the pro -life industry, this whole machine, when she says that this is against 95 % of the pro -life movement, we don't agree women should be penalized.

Sam doesn't hold to that position. He holds to the position like, no, if we're gonna be consistent, it's a human being from fertilization, and every human being deserves equal protection, and that it needs to be criminalized, and anybody involved in that process needs to be criminalized.

So Sam's in full agreement on that. And so in that sense, that's where, Sam, that's where you're going.

You're going the way that we're saying this needs to land. It needs to land in equal protection and justice that is equal justice, equal weights and measures.

That's where you're saying you wanna land, but you're saying that you think that the dispute is between incrementalism and immediatism.

Tell me what you would say to this. I've tried to argue that I think that that is not a helpful way for us to have this discussion, because I don't think it's actually true.

And I've said this to Doug. Doug, he promotes smash -mouth incrementalism. Would you say,

Sam, by the way, would you say that that's kind of where you're at, smash -mouth incrementalism? I am, but I just use a different term.

I use biblical incrementalism. Okay, all right. That's helpful. Well, so when I've addressed publicly, Doug, on this issue,

I've said this repeatedly, and like I said, I'd like to hear what you would say to this. I've said, I don't think that the categories of immediatism versus incrementalism is actually helpful, because when you and I have this discussion, we are having it as brothers who have a mind and eye on abolition and equal protection as the end goal.

When we're having this discussion with the pro -life movement, they don't actually have the categories that you and I are reasoning within.

And I think you already understand this in terms of even talking to Kristen here. And what I mean by that is this. I don't think it's incrementalism versus immediatism.

I think it's an issue of justice versus injustice in terms of methodology.

And the reason I say that is because the pro -life establishment has gone on record, and I know you're aware of this.

They've gone on record. They've put their name on a dotted line. They've killed our bills. They've sat next to me at legislatures killing our bills of equal protection, because they don't actually have your goal.

They would consider themselves incrementalists, but they don't actually have your goal of actual equal protection and abolition.

So that's why I think that those categories aren't helpful, because the pro -life industry isn't thinking like you and I.

They aren't thinking in terms of the abolition of abortion, because they don't actually want equal protection. They're never even aiming at that.

And a good example of that would, I would give a number of examples, but in every legislature that I've either been in and got a bill in, or I've sat before and testified on behalf of a bill of equal protection, the people fighting against that bill are the people who are saying, we don't ever want this child to receive equal protection from the mother.

We think she's not guilty and she's a victim as well. And so we're never aiming towards criminalizing the mom who willfully takes the life of her child.

And so tell me what you think about that, because that's what I think is not helpful in terms of the discussion, because I think you and I are thinking like Christians in terms of the end goal, but Kristen and others like her in the pro -life establishment, they don't want equal protection.

They're never working to abolish this. Yeah, I think I would disagree in a sense.

I definitely, many, most pro -lifers do not support complete equal protection.

I think that's an important thing to address. I think too often abolitionists ignore an important part.

So just before I say what I'm gonna say, to be clear, I do believe that everybody involved in an abortion should be penalized.

But I think too often abolitionists or immediatists make it seem as if pro -lifers do not want anyone to be penalized.

And I think that's unhelpful because they do believe in a version or form of equal protection.

When I say they, I'm referring to my counterparts who would disagree with me on women being penalized. They believe that abortionists should be penalized.

And I think if we're being honest, that is a version of equal protection. Is it complete?

Absolutely not. And it's not sufficient. And I would say that if the goal remains the same, it's unjust because every single person who murders a child needs to be penalized.

But I think it's still wrong to suggest that as if the pro -life movement does not want anyone to be held accountable for that.

Do you, Sam, that's helpful to hear you say that. Can you illustrate that? Do you know anybody who is an abolitionist that says that the pro -lifers don't want anyone to be punished?

Because I'm not aware of anybody like that. Well, I think so often when they talk about equal protection, they solely focus on the women.

So no one has said they don't believe that no one should be held accountable. But so often when they talk about it,

I think it's implied when they say, when they always focus on women being penalized without addressing that the pro -life movement, because I wanna represent abolitionists as fair as possible.

And I think it's important that abolitionists also represent the pro -life movement or those who, yeah, the pro -life movement as fair as possible by saying that, look, they do believe that someone should be held accountable.

And very, very, most of the time that's never mentioned. And I followed abolitionists, I followed you guys,

I follow a lot of other people, and that's rarely mentioned from what I've seen. It's usually just that they don't want equal protection.

Well, that mentioned the context of they don't want equal protection for women, but, or I mean, as in penalizing the women, but they do believe in it for the abortionists.

Like I've said, I think that view is unjust. I don't think that's right. But I think it's important to still mention that.

Yeah, no, that's helpful. So I think that what we would say is that equal protection means equal protection.

And if there's not, if you're showing partiality and somebody is being protected to actually do this crime, then it's not equal protection by any definition.

Somebody has been afforded protection under law to do it. And I think that's one of the things that we've tried to illustrate.

And I think you know this, you've seen this, is that the pro -life movement, actually when they legislate, they will legislate that it is a crime for the abortionist and of course for the abortion clinic and anybody involved there, but they will actually write into their bills protection for the woman.

So they'll say things like, this shall be a crime except for the mother.

And that's what you see across the board. They will literally write it into their legislation that the woman has legal immunity to do it and she's to do it with impunity without punishment.

And so I think, and you brought up a good point too, this is interesting. And I just wanna share this with you in terms of like thinking about this biblically and critically as brothers, as Christians, none of our bills that we've put in mention gender, class, nothing.

The bill, like Louisiana's bill, that historic bill we were able to get in Louisiana, that the pro -life establishment came in and killed over that week where we handled the votes we needed to abolish it.

It was the pro -life establishment, Mike Johnson, Louisiana Right to Life, and then of course that massive letter that was written with all those organizations, the

ERLC, National Right to Life that told the legislators never to pass a bill of equal protection that would lead to the punishment of a woman.

What was weird about that, Sam, was that the bill in Louisiana didn't mention the mother. All it mentioned, all it said was what's in the womb is in the image of God and these children in Louisiana will be afforded equal protection from fertilization.

What it did though, Sam, is it revealed a theological position that the pro -life establishment has.

They saw that and what was crazy was that the legislators saw it and dude, you should have seen their faces.

They were like, well, obviously, of course we'll pass this. That's the pro -life position, isn't it?

Human life from fertilization, everyone deserves equal protection. Isn't that our bill? Isn't that our thing? And all of a sudden the pro -life establishment comes in and goes, no, no, no, no, no.

We don't want that because we don't actually want that kind of law that would lead to the prosecution of a mother.

And what we were saying was, who's talking about the mother? We didn't mention her. We didn't mention anybody.

We just mentioned a definition and a crime and what it revealed, and this is what I've been saying,

Sam, you've probably heard me say this, is that the pro -life establishment has a fatal flaw and it is actually a heresy, historically, biblically and historically in Christian theology, it's a heresy.

And that is that they believe the mother is a victim, that she is not guilty and that she must be protected and never punished for engaging in the abortion.

So what my point is, is when we put a bill of equal protection in and they go, oh, but the mother, it's a revelation that their theology, their worldview is that she's never guilty and she must not be seen as guilty.

So what I've been arguing, Sam, is that that's really the main issue, is the fatal flaw here is, we can have all these disputes about like methodology and incrementalism versus immediatism and those are important conversations, but the fatal flaw here is that the pro -life establishment doesn't hold to a

Christian worldview on this issue. They believe that somebody in this must be protected to kill their child willfully with no punishment, which is what removes the gospel from the mother as well.

How are we gonna preach the gospel to a woman who's being told she's not guilty and she doesn't need to turn to Christ for her abortion?

Yeah, I mostly agree with you, I think, and since you've, from watching my interview with Christian and then maybe seeing some of my words on this issue, that you know that I despise with passion the messaging from the pro -life movement that women are victims.

It just drives me nuts. It's not true whatsoever. And it is a theological issue. It is when, if an unrepentant woman, if a woman has not repented from an abortion and she faces

God, she, one of the sins that she'll be held, if God is going to hold a woman accountable for murdering her child, why should not, why shouldn't the law do so?

It is absolutely ridiculous. So I'm completely in agreement with that, I agree. I think the, so if it's going to be, do

I have disagreements with the pro -life movement on certain things? Absolutely, of course I do.

To be very honest, just as some abolitionists do not like me, some pro -life people do not like me either because of these views.

And if, so if this conversation will be about what do I disagree with the pro -life movement, we can talk about that.

But I think even amongst us brothers, right, even amongst we Christians, there are abolitionists who believe that my views are sinful, that my views are unbiblical, are unjust, which

I think is something that we should make a major focus of this as well. I'm sure we'll probably get into it because, yeah.

But I will say this, this is where I disagree. I think so often the abolitionists describe the pro -life movement as their biggest enemy, which

I think is - I say that, I do say that. Yeah, which I think is completely wrong. I understand the temptation to say that,

I understand. But the reason why I'm, the reason why

I disagree with that is because of this. So going back to history, so for example, these debates are not new.

In slavery, you had, again, as I mentioned before, you had gradual abolitionists and then you had the immediate abolitionists.

So originally, before the abolitionists did anything, they had to vote on what was the strategy moving forward.

And they voted against those who wanted immediate abolition or who wanted to start off by abolishing slavery as a whole first.

They voted to say, let's start incrementally or gradually.

This was the anti -slavery society. And they started off with the Dolbin Act. But I mentioned this because I think so often when abolitionists describe the pro -life movement as their chief enemy, that just, if abolitionists are going to say that they are actually being like their original abolitionists, then it doesn't quite work because you had the anti -slavery society who recognized that, look, they had people that they disagreed with, people who were voting against their own goals to have immediate abolition.

And yet they said that we must win them. They are not our enemy. We have disagreements with them, but they are not our enemy.

Our real enemies are those who believe in owning slaves. So the real enemy for the abolitionists is not the pro -life person.

Now, there are some major disagreements there. And I think there are some people who call themselves, for example, Donald Trump says he's pro -life.

He's not pro -life. He's pro -abortion. There are some people who claim they are pro -life who are truly pro -abortion. And I think those people are absolutely the enemy of every true abolitionist, which includes any pro -life person who truly wants to abolish abortion.

But I think to say that they're their chief enemy, I think is wrong. I think - No, that's good. Yeah, that's good. Yeah, sorry, go ahead.

No, it's helpful to hear you say that. So I'll try to address those. It'll give you something to shoot at, right? So I think it's a category error to compare the situation we are in now in terms of dealing with what you and I are talking about, about equal protection and criminalizing this and equal justice versus the pro -life establishment that doesn't actually want abolition.

They don't want equal protection. They're not working towards that goal. They've stated it. They want someone to be able to do this with impunity and immunity in perpetuity.

They want that permanently. And so I think it's a category error to take our situation in terms of like gradualism versus immediatism as us versus what the pro -life movement is failing in, and then take that back to slavery because what is clear is that during the days of the slave trade where you had abolitionists, even disagreements methodologically versus gradualism versus immediatism, they did have the same goal, the real abolition of slavery.

The goal was, they actually had the same goal. What I don't have is a shared goal with the pro -life establishment.

They've told me that. They've sat next to me last year in Missouri. I was before the

Missouri legislature and we had a bill of equal protection. Simple bill, Sam, said what you and I believe, image of God, equal protection, and nothing about a woman, no class mentioned, and I'm testifying on behalf of the bill and sitting next to Bradley Pierce and I were two of the leaders of the pro -life establishment in Missouri and they killed our bill because they told the legislature that they did not want any bill that would lead to the prosecution of a woman who willfully takes a life for a child.

So when I've said, and I do stand by it, that the greatest enemy of the abolition of abortion in this nation is actually the pro -life establishment,

I don't mean that the pro -choicers aren't trying to foster culture and grow their love of death.

I don't mean that they're not there, but they actually aren't there at the legislature fighting against my bill.

Like I'll give you an example and then I'll shut up here. So in Louisiana, there were maybe five pro -choicers that day.

I mean, there were so many thousands of people there throughout that day, maybe five pro -choicers fighting against our bill.

The rest was the pro -life establishment. The letter that everyone was walking around with that day, the legislators were walking around with a letter from the 70 pro -life organizations saying, do not pass any bill that will lead to the prosecution of a mother.

That killed our bill. We had all yes votes that whole week until the establishment came in and killed our bill.

Mike Johnson, Louisiana Right to Life, National Right to Life, the ERLC. In Missouri, they killed our bill.

In Arizona, we had a bill here too, brother, and it was doing very well.

We had lots of co -sponsors. Everyone was saying yes to it. And it was the leader of the pro -life establishment out here,

Kathy Harrod, that killed our bill. And she did it by saying, I do not support a bill that would lead to the prosecution of a mother.

And so my point is, greatest enemy to the abolition of abortion is because they hold to a different worldview.

They don't believe what you and I believe about this. They are not aimed at actual abolition and equal protection.

They don't want it. It's not part of their worldview. Well, I think it's, I know abolitionists tie equal protection to abolition.

I disagree with that. I think they are abolitionists in the sense that they do want to ban abortion. And now, that's not to say that it's enough, right?

We need, as I said before, we need to penalize anyone who's involved in the abortion issue. But I think, you know, they are abolitionists, but there's, again, they disagree, which

I completely agree with. It's a theological issue, but they do disagree with that. But the reason why I mentioned that - Well, can I ask you real fast?

I'm so sorry. When you say they are abolitionists, but they do believe that a woman should be able to do it with immunity and impunity, how is that?

And help me to understand, how is that in any way abolition? I think that's a bit different. I'm not sure

I would quite phrase it that way. I wouldn't say they want women to do it without any consequence.

Well, they write it into the legislation, Sam. Well, but what I'm saying is, of course, they want to ban abortion.

They don't want abortion to be legal. Or I think so often people will say that they want to, I think you've said it before too, they want to regulate abortion, right?

Which I think is not quite accurate. I think, again, they do want to ban all abortion.

Now, again, I agree that if you want that, right? If you want to ban abortion, you're saying this is an injustice.

You, therefore, need to charge the people doing that injustice with the crime, right?

So I think it's important. But I think that to say that they don't want to abolish it is wrong, because, again, they do want to abolish it.

Well, hold on, Sam. This is good, we're getting somewhere. This is really, really important. Now, I'll answer your question, but I've been wanting to have some questions for you too.

I haven't been able to get to that. But just on this point, and please do ask, and interrupt me too. Definitely interrupt. This is a dialogue between us, so no formal debate rules or anything like this.

But when you say they do want to ban it and not regulate it, what I would say to you,

Sam, is I can give you example after example after example of them writing the legislation that does regulate it.

You can kill these kids, but not these kids. You can kill them for these reasons, but not these reasons. And then they actually do say that they don't want it banned for the mother, because they'll say that this law does not apply to the mother of the child, and they don't want prosecution for the mother.

And so they actually write that legislation. Someone's not writing it for them. They're writing it saying that they do want the woman to be able to do it with legal immunity and impunity.

That's in their legislation. There's a lot in there. I don't want to forget one of the things

I wanted to say earlier. But I think, again, we can get into the incremental side when you mentioned the regulation thing.

So I think we can get into that soon. But, sorry, I don't want to forget what I was going to say. No, take your time, man.

There's no rush. Yeah, but I think to say that they're saying that women should be able to do this,

I think, again, that's wrong, right? I think, again, if you're, I think it's more accurate to say they just do not believe in penalizing the women, right?

I think that is actually accurate. Well, think about this. They legislate it, though, brother. They put it in the writing that she should be protected under law to do it.

Yeah, so, again, I don't think that's exactly quite the way to frame it, right? Because, again, that's not exactly what they're saying.

Because, again, they do, because you're not saying that they really believe that women should have abortions, right? No, yeah, you're right.

No, they don't want her to have the abortion, but they do want her to have the legal protection to not ever be penalized if she does.

Yeah, again, which is, I think, the way you framed it now, I think, is the fair way to say,

I think is the more accurate way to say it. But I think, I'm forgetting how you've raised it before, but before, it seemed to be suggesting that -

They write into their legislation, and I can give you a number of examples of this, brother. They write into their legislation that they do not want the penalties or the definition of crime applied to the mother, meaning that they're writing into their legislation that they do not want it legally criminalized or banned for her, which is what

I was saying, is that they don't actually have the goal you have. And so, what I'm saying is, when you compare this to the abolitionists of slavery, they at least had the same goal, the real abolition of slavery.

We don't have the same goal as a pro -life establishment. That's actually, again, sorry, there's maybe three or four different things I want to say about that.

Sorry, go ahead, go ahead. So, yeah, no worries. So, actually, there were some abolitionists, actually, who did not have the same ultimate goal.

There were some who just wanted to ban the slave trade, but did not want to ban slavery. This is both true with the

British and in America. And yet, they saw them as their allies and they worked with them. They did not see them as their enemy.

They had some very strong words to say, rightly so, but did not see them as their enemy because they were wanting to work with them to abolish the slave trade, and then, hopefully, convince them to abolish slavery as a whole.

So, you did have that within the abolitionist movement. So, and then, when we talk about, again, I think how you worded it later on,

I think when you said that they do want to make abortion illegal, but they don't believe in penalizing the women, that is true, and I agree with you on that.

But I think, again, so often, I think to frame it as they do not, again, I'm forgetting exactly how you framed it because I'm thinking about different things now, but to say that they did not want it to be illegal for the women, yeah,

I think that's how you phrased it, is wrong. To say that, again, it shouldn't be penalized, that's true, but to be illegal.

Well, my point is, is if they write into their legislation, like they'll write the legislation up, this is the pro -life establishment, they'll write the legislation up, and in the legislation, they make sure that she has the legal protection under law in that state to do it with impunity and immunity, that is them writing into law that she must be protected from consequence and the law itself to do this willfully to her child.

Yes, but what you, and I'll say this, and then I think I'll ask the question I wanted to ask, but I think what you're leaving out is with the other laws in place, if the ultimate end goal were to happen, the woman wouldn't have the opportunity to do that in the first place, right?

Which, again, is - No, she does, she does. Well, so in the, if we were to have the ultimate end goal when it comes to banning abortion, there'll be no doctor that would, or so -called doctor, an abortionist, that would be able to have an abortion.

The abortion pill would be banned. And in every scenario, the woman would not have the opportunity to do so in the first place. So I think, again, it's important to say that -

She would though, brother. She would. How? Through the same way women have done it throughout all of history, DIY abortions, pills and potions.

Right now, brother, and this is sickening to see, it really is sickening to see. You can go on YouTube and there's women who are teaching women how to do a

DIY, do -it -yourself abortion from home and different methodologies you can do.

And what my point is, this is the main point, that I don't believe that this dispute is actually between incrementalism and immediatism because really lurking there as the foundation is the fact that they don't hold to our worldview or want the end of abortion criminal for everybody.

But I think that's a bit, with all due respect, I think that's a bit convenient because people have described me, aborts have described me as being one of the enemies of the abolitionists, right, of the abolitionist movement.

They've described this because any incremental policy is considered as being an attack on abolitionism.

So I think, again, I think it's wrong to frame it as, well, it's not really just a debate over incrementalism versus abolitionism or immediatism.

It's just the pro -life movement versus abolitionism. I think that's a bit wrong. But yeah. But sir, if I may ask this question.

So would you support, if pro -lifers were to support, were to introduce a bill that would ban all abortion, that would, again, just bear with me here, ban all abortion would penalize women, would penalize anybody involved with the abortion, right?

But they would not, but death penalty would not be included.

Would you support it? Yeah, so that's actually, that's a great question. It's an important question because that's actually the state of things across the country.

We have to contend with that, that there are certain states that do have capital punishment, which, you know, what does scripture say about taking the life of another person is that the civil magistrate wields the sword of justice.

And in those cases, the right way to deal with the penology of murder is essentially capital punishment.

We, of course, we should believe that as Christians, but in some states across the union, we don't have capital punishment.

And in some states, I would say their standards of witnesses and evidence are not even good enough right now to trust them with that.

However, there's a difference in terms of when we talk about abolition, there's a difference between the definition of something as a crime and then the question of penology.

Scripture, the law of God deals with things as defined as a crime, things that are, and you know this, things that are called sins, but they're not crimes, and then things that are sins and crimes.

And then the scriptures give you the penology, the penalty for if they do this, here's the case law examples of how you deal with those particular crimes.

And then sometimes like even with like theft, there's different ways of managing the issue of theft with penology. Like there's a personal theft and then there's a business theft and the penology for that is different.

So, but my point is this, in scripture, you've got something as crime and then you've got to deal with penology.

What we're saying is abolitionists, when you go into a state to get legislation and to provide equal protection, you have to, we are trying to deal with something as how does

God define this? It needs to be the crime of murder. It needs to be equal protection. That other category of penology is a separate category that we also, yes, have to work in, but those are two different categories, penology versus making it a crime in that category and being consistent.

But if I understand you correct, sir, with again, with all due respect, I think that's a bit of a convenient way to separate the issue.

Because, so for example, let's make it a issue of the states, right?

So you've mentioned that some states have death penalties and some do not. So let's suppose this is a state where it does have the capital punishment for murders.

Right, first degree murder, yeah. In this case, would you support, and then a pro -life lobby introduces a bill, same scenario as I mentioned before, but would not penalize, but would not have death penalty for the woman.

Would you support it? Well, it wouldn't happen because their worldview doesn't allow for it to happen, but let's imagine, let's imagine, let's imagine that they would and they won't because it's not their worldview.

Imagine that they were in the state of Arizona going to make it a crime and afford equal protection so that everyone was punished for the murder of the child.

I would absolutely support that. And again, the issue of penology is, and this is the thing, you said it was convenience.

I don't think, Sam, it's a matter of convenience. That's how the Bible does it. It deals with something as a crime and then it deals with the penology.

But let me explain why I think it's convenient because abolitionists have framed this issue of, you mentioned yourself before about justice and injustice, right?

You've mentioned that you don't believe in regular, you know, you don't believe in incremental policies because you believe it's regulating abortion, right?

You believe it's partiality. Yeah, it's partiality, it is. Yeah, so while we disagree on that, we can talk about that next.

But I think the, so when you frame it as issue of justice and issue of injustice, right?

We're talking about what is honorable to God. If a murderer murders a baby, right?

And there isn't a, and then there is a bill that would not have true justice for that crime, right?

If a life for a life. If we're not going to support that, then that's inherently unjust, it's unjust.

So I think for, again, this is the issue, the abolitionists, I know there's some abolitionists who I think are much more consistent on this issue who say, no, they would not support it.

And they're being consistent. Now they're wrong, but they're being consistent. I think they're being biblically inconsistent because scripture deals with those two things as categories.

There's something defined as a crime and penology is something that's dealt with in a number of different cases and case law examples.

And so penology is one thing, how it's actually punished. The question of whether or not it's a crime or what kind of crime is it is a separate question.

And so what would be right is in the category of definition and justice. Take the life of a human being in the womb willfully, you are murdering that child, you are guilty of murder.

That's one category. And the other category is, well, how do you deal with murder? And here's the deal. Again, we can say convenience, but scripture does give you examples of differing degrees of murder and how you deal with that.

So it'll call something, you should not murder. And this is murder, right? And that's a crime. Yeah, but sir.

Hold on. So you call it crime and that's murder. And then there's categories and case law examples.

Okay, what kind of murder was it? And how do you punish those differing degrees or accidental death, manslaughter, those sorts of things.

And again, even with theft, you should not steal. It's a crime to steal. But then it gives you the category of penology dealing with, okay, well, how do you deal with the different ways someone steals?

So what I'm saying is that, well, we have to focus on as abolitionists is what you already agree with. We need to provide equal protection for all human beings from fertilization.

And it doesn't matter who does it. Anybody engaged in it is guilty. And my point there is the pro -life establishment doesn't agree with you.

Yeah, but sir, you've mentioned again that we agree that a life, that if you killed a pre -born child, there's no difference between that and killing a five -year -old child.

That's right. So it's not a comparison. And I mentioned there's different penalties for different crimes. That's true.

But killing a pre -born child and killing a five -year -old is the exact same crime. So again, if this is an issue of justice or of honoring

God above all, we don't wanna sin. We don't wanna introduce a bill that would dishonor God. We don't wanna support a bill that would dishonor

God. But if you're going to support a bill that would say, we're not going to get the death penalty in a state that supports the death penalty, which would be just, that is how it was supposed to be.

If you murder a child, whether it's a five -year -old or pre -born baby, they should be penalized for that. Some abolitionists are consistent and they say, well, in light of that, they would not support any bill that does not have that as part of its bill.

But you're saying that you would, from what you're saying, you would support an unjust bill because, but sir -

I think you're misunderstanding how the law works in this country. That's the problem. Well, what

I mean by that, what I mean, and that's for, maybe it's because you're from, maybe it's because you're from Canada. No, no, but what

I mean by that is in each state - Before I fucking get to that. Sure, I'll answer that though, real brief though,

I'll answer that. So when you go into a state and you write this legislation, and we've done this a number of times across the country,

Bradley Pierce, who I know you know, has written so much of this legislation. The legislation is written not dealing with the criminal penology.

That's a separate issue. That's not how it works in this country. So the state has its penology and its application of penology in the criminal code for differing degrees of homicide.

Again, manslaughter's in there. You got first, second, third degree, all that stuff is in there. That's already in the state's law in terms of how does the state decide to deal with it.

The law itself is seen as separate because what this is doing is putting into the state's law the definition of what's in the womb, human being from fertilization, and that it should be afforded equal protection under the law.

Now, once that is law, then that makes this murder, and then it goes into the state's categories of murder and how they deal with murder in that state.

So what I was saying is, I don't think you understand how this works. When we write this legislation, you're not dealing with penology in the legislation.

The state already has a code of penology, and this just puts it into the homicide code. So it is a category of definition in crime versus penology.

And again, that's how scripture does it. I see. That's helpful. I understand what you're saying now.

So, okay. So is it possible? Is it, you know, so, because I'm not a lawyer, right?

I'm not a lawyer. I mean, either. I hate those guys. The law side, right? But we love

Bradley Pierce. Except Bradley Pierce. Except Bradley Pierce. Yeah. So is it possible for a bill to, for a bill to say that this would not apply to penology?

Is it possible for a bill to make that clear? That this, whatever this bill is, it would not involve the woman getting the death penalty?

I'd have to ask Bradley Pierce about how the, I don't even, he's been frustrated at times where he's written legislation and he's had to put things in that shouldn't even need to go into the legislation.

It's more of a way to respond to the pro -life establishment that's trying to kill the bill.

So he'll write things into the legislation that annoy him even, like this doesn't even need to be stated.

It's already a part of this. It's already a part of the law in the state. But when these bills are written though,

Sam, I think this will help you. When they're written, they're written as legislation that essentially is providing the definitions and allowing for it to be a crime.

And then once it is that crime, it goes into that state's penology and how they deal with it.

So it is separate. It is separate. So, okay. So, and again, I'm not very,

I'm not as aware of the nature of the bills as much, and I can look into that more.

But let's just say, since we've both acknowledged that we are not, now you are more familiar with it than I am, but since we don't know exactly the nature of these laws, whether that would be possible or not, let's assume that it was possible.

There's a reason why I'm asking this, right? And I want you to bear with me. Let's assume it was possible, right? Let's assume it was possible for them to say that.

And again, it may not be, right? And that's fine. But let's assume that it was possible. Let's just say that there is a country out there, right?

Because if abolitionism is biblical, then it should be applicable in any nation in the world, right?

So let's assume that there is a nation. There is a nation where the death penalty is legal and it allows for a bill to address penology as well.

Let's just assume that. And the bill, again, this same bill is introduced by anti -abortion people, all right, so you can say pro -lifers, and it has it in the bill that the woman would be penalized, but it would not be the death penalty.

Would you support it? I would speak prophetically against it. Yeah, I would use the law of God, God's word and his law, and his standards of wisdom to speak prophetically against something that was a bill that God hates.

Would you support it? So I'm saying, I would speak prophetically on that issue. I would use the word of God to testify on behalf of God's word and his authority to say

God calls partiality a sin. It is an abomination in his eyes.

Unequal weights and measures is an abomination in his eyes. I would try to speak against it like Isaiah 10.

Woe to those who write iniquitous decrees and make the fatherless pray. I would speak against it like, and just in terms of like getting to the scriptures here,

Deuteronomy 16, 19, you shall not pervert justice, you shall not show partiality. So I would say the word of God commands us to not show partiality and not pervert justice.

So my duty as a Christian in that context is to speak prophetically against something that would show partiality or pervert justice.

That's what my duty is. That's what scripture commands of me. So I, and that gets us into this discussion of whether we can, as Christians, accept or pursue even so -called incremental bills that say you can kill these children, but not these children.

So we can get to that, sir, but I just wanna be clear. Okay, then I missed something. Well, maybe you answered my question, but I just wanna be sure.

You said that you would prophetically speak against it. Yes, I would speak against the impartiality and not giving her what is already, you gave the example of it's already capital crime, it's already murder, capital punishment is available.

And we're gonna take it off the table for her. I would speak against that and say that's partiality. That's a sin against God. I'm only asking this because I wanna be very sure because you said that you would speak against it, but does that include that you would vote against it as well?

I would, I think our duty there in every world, not there, but in every context is to bring the word of God faithfully in that context to speak in terms of how

Isaiah speaks about iniquitous decrees and the way that God even threatens those who write them.

I think that we can't actually, we are never going to see transformation happen in the world.

And I know that you agree with this fundamentally. We're never gonna see transformation happen in the world through compromise and evil.

Like if we do things as Christians that are evil, so that good may come, I think we're misguided.

I think scripture would call us to be faithful, to tell the truth, no matter the consequences. And I think that's our duty in whatever culture is we speak

God's word and the truth and we don't approach it with pragmatism. I agree, but I'm still trying to make sure

I understand what you're saying. Cause it seems like you're not answering my question. I know that you will speak against it. We agree,

I agree. I would do the same as well. Well, to some extent. But my point is, would you vote against it as well?

Voting, would I vote? See, you'd have to be more clear on the details of something like this.

Cause it's a hypothetical situation where capital punishment is already a crime in that place.

And you're gonna give equal protection to the child in the womb from fertilization and everybody involved is gonna be punished.

But we're gonna make sure that the woman in this scenario is not actually guilty of, she's not gonna be penalized like everybody else.

I would speak prophetically against that and say that you're showing partiality in this penology.

And I would - But would you vote for it? Would I vote for the criminalization of abortion and calling it murder for everybody? Yes. But the penology is a separate question though.

But sir, so remember - But you're giving, hold on, and here's the thing now, you're giving a scenario that is a hypothetical dream imaginary scenario that I would say is skirting the real issue.

The real issue here again is the question not between immediatism and incrementalism, it's justice versus injustice.

And the main point, which I don't think you've quite addressed yet is that the pro -life establishment does not want the equal protection and abolition of abortion.

So the question of incremental bills or gradual bills doesn't really apply because they don't want what you want.

Sure, with all due respect, I love you and we've - Yeah, don't worry about that, brother. No, this is how we're supposed to do this.

Yeah, yeah. So we've talked about equal protection. I've mentioned my views on that at length. I think what I'm asking you now,

I think you've just answered it now. Although it seems like you're kind of dodging it a little bit, sir.

I think you've mentioned that you would speak - I think you're confusing categories. You would, because remember I gave, this is a scenario, you mentioned this is a scenario, it was a hypothetical question, right?

Which of course, in a debate, in a discussion, we're gonna have some questions like that so that we know what our stance is, if we're consistent.

So that's why I asked you that question, right? And you've said that you would speak against it, acknowledging that that bill would not be ideal.

That bill would not be perfect. That bill would not on its own - The penology is showing partiality.

But sir, but sir, but remember that I have already mentioned that again, this is a scenario where that is possible, right? So we acknowledge that.

In your view, do you believe that it'd be partiality? You speak against it, but you've said that you would still vote for it, right?

Well, let's be clear. It's not my view that it's partiality. That's the biblical view. It is partiality.

Anytime you regard - If you regard - Well, I disagree, and we'll get into that. Well, scripture is really clear on it. If you regard the face of one person and you show them personal favoritism, and you pervert justice on their behalf, that is partiality.

It's the very definition of partiality. Well, I will explain why I disagree with you on this. But before I get to that,

I just want to make it very clear, right? That you've said that this bill that would support an injustice, right?

You would speak against it, but you would still support it. I would speak against the injustice of the penology, but I would actually support,

I would support the justice in terms of the establishment of justice for the child and the legal protection for their life.

Yes, well, still, so you speak against it - And here's why. I'm trying to finish my point, sir.

Well, yeah, this will help you though. This will help you because you're having a hard time understanding what I'm saying. So in the category of defining it, making it a crime, and showing no partiality that anybody who does it is guilty of the crime, that is one category, and there's no partiality being shown.

There's no unequal weights and measures. The category of the establishment of justice, calling it a crime, and saying that you cannot do it is one category.

And you're saying in the penology over here, you have an inconsistency. So what

I'm saying is in the penology and how it's punished, I would speak prophetically against showing partiality to the mother and saying you must be consistent, have equal weights and measures because unequal weights and measures are an abomination.

So I'm saying that you're talking about two categories here. I would highlight the goodness of the one.

But sir, I think again, I understand what you're saying. I really understand it, right?

So you're saying you would hate, you would abhor, you would speak against the partiality and saying that for any other kind of murder where in that nation or state that we would have death penalty, but for this, we're going to show partiality for the women.

So therefore, we're not going to... You would speak against that, but you said that you would still vote, but you would still be glad that it would have equal protection and it would ban abortion.

So I hear what you're saying. My point is, again, in this scenario that I've given you, it is still supporting an injustice because you and I acknowledge, you and I acknowledge that again, partiality, again, how you framed it is wrong or also by saying that we're not going to have death penalty for anyone who murdered, or at least for the woman who murders the child, that is also an injustice.

But you would support that. My point in saying that - No, I would... Yeah, go ahead. I've been trying to get to my point.

Yeah, I'm trying. I don't want to... You're saying a lot of things that I don't want to miss some of them. Go ahead. Well, my point in saying that is because that is my view of pro -life bills.

That is my view of it. But you say that, and frankly, it seems like you're having different rules for yourself when it comes to that particular bill, but then when it comes to pro -life people who would say, look, we hate that some babies, that some babies do not have the protection that others would, that we hate that this is prioritizing some babies over others.

We hate that. We are still going to rejoice that some babies are being saved.

Because one thing that I think abolitionists forget about is that when the

Bible says, "'Rescue those who have been taken to the slaughter,' it does address laws, but not just that as well.

So it's not just addressing the ideal perfect bill. I'm glad that some babies are being rescued because the reality is this, when it comes to the abolition and when it comes to incrementalism or immediatism, worst case scenario with immediatism, no babies get saved.

Worst case scenario with incrementalism, some babies get saved. So since Roe v.

Wade, there have been 32 ,000 babies annually that have been saved in America.

Now I know some abolitionists will try to dispute this, but this is really just indisputable. There was a study that came out from, I forget the school, the school in the

U .S. that said that the birth rates have gone up by 2 .3%, mostly dealing with women who are in college, 20 to 24 year olds.

And that there are now 32 more babies being born than before. And this is a secular organization that say it's clearly because of these bills.

So clearly, even though unfortunately this is not enough and 32 babies being saved while it's fantastic, again, it should be, no baby should be killed because of abortion, right?

But the reality is I rejoice that while these bills are imperfect, while these bills are not on their own enough, while I'm gonna speak against the reality of some babies being killed,

I'm still gonna support these bills if it's the best we can offer. If it's the best we can do, for example, like the heartbeat bill,

I will support that. Like you, when it came to the bill that I shared, not because I completely support everything in there, but because I'm glad that at least it's going to save some babies.

And I think, again, I think you have a more convenient argument for yourself, but I think when it comes to the incrementalist, you only identify the imperfections there instead of also addressing the fact that some babies are being saved and I rejoice in that.

Okay, all right. So not, again, not convenient biblical categories of definitions of something as a crime versus penology.

And I think that you have to contend with that. So you'd said a lot there, I'll do my best. I wanted to make sure you got a chance to say all that.

But when you tried to compare your scenario of it's a crime for everybody, it's equal protection, but the category of penology, the mother will be shown partiality over here.

When you tried to compare my saying, I would speak prophetically against that. And I would call it partiality. I would call it an abomination.

I would call it sin. When you try to compare that scenario to the incremental type legislation that is by permission of the pro -life legislators and the pro -life movement,

I think you're engaging in a very, very serious category error because the pro -life legislation that you're referring to that is quote unquote incremental or gradual is legislation written by pro -life legislators and the pro -life lobby and establishment that is via permission.

It is definitionally writing into law partiality and unequal weights and measures.

I'll give you the examples, some examples. So in Arizona, we put our bill of equal protection in, very simple, image of God, equal protection for all humans from fertilization.

When that bill was killed by the pro -life establishment, she came out and told the legislators not to pass the bill that she didn't want any bill passed that would end to the criminalization of the mother.

She said both mother and baby are victims. And so what she did, Sam, is she put a different bill in.

She wrote it, it was passed because she had all the ears of the pro -life legislators.

And that bill wrote into the bill that you could not kill a child in Arizona in the womb for the reason, the express reason that it had a genetic abnormality, which means in that legislation, you can kill the healthy kids in the womb, but you can't say that you're killing the child because it has a genetic abnormality, which

I pointed out to Kathy, Sam, that that bill is irrelevant because all a mother has to do in Arizona with that bill is say, oh,

I'm not killing it because it has Down syndrome. I love Down syndrome. I'm killing it because it's healthy and I hate it.

And it wouldn't have mattered. She also said that you can kill a child in Arizona, but it has to be given a proper burial.

Of course, you know, legislation that's gone into say, you can kill the kids with these methods, but not these methods.

And so the legislation that you're suggesting that Christians can get behind and approve of is legislation that God specifically abominates.

And that's why I say the issue is not incrementalism versus immediatism. It is, does God hate this bill?

And if he hates it and he abominates it, the question is, as Christians, can we support something that God has told us expressly over and over and over again?

He abominates, he detests it, do not pervert justice, show no partiality.

If those are his commands, then how do we as Christians actually say, yes, please pass this bill that God hates?

Well, let's talk about that, right? But before I get to that, let's address again. So in that, so I think

I, we've talked about the pro -life movement for the majority,

I think, of this conversation. And I think, again, we've said that we have some disagreements, but we mostly agree, right?

So to me, I think since we've established that, let's talk about, because this conversation is about us as Christian brothers, right?

Because you have Christian incrementalists and then you have Christian immediatists, right? And I think, I know you think it's not about that, but I think because I'm a

Christian and you have many other Christians who share my views, I think we need to talk about our differences, right? So I don't have an issue talking about the pro -life movement, but again, we mostly agree on that.

But I think, before I move on to, I think what is the core of right now what we're talking about when it comes to these incremental bills and your disagreements on it and how you understand it,

I wanna explain to you why I disagree with you on that. But before I get to that, I think, again, in a bill that would say, a bill that says that it is unjust, it would be wrong to give a death penalty to a murderer.

God abominates that as well, right? It is unjust, but you still said you would support it, right?

That you would speak against it, but you would still support it. And I know, again, we can talk about - Are you talking about the scenario where we have bills in states that don't deal with penology, that just deal with the definition of it as a crime and afford equal protection?

Or are you dealing, again, with a scenario with a hypothetical situation where it's just the mother who wouldn't give the capital punishment?

So, again, I think I've sufficiently addressed that. I said, because I specifically said, you then tried to compare that scenario in terms of partiality to the incrementalism that you would actually celebrate, that you would support, that actually writes into the legislation permission.

You can kill these kids, but not these kids. And they show partiality in that way.

Comparing those two scenarios is, I think, it's, again, I think it's a heavy category error to compare those scenarios.

I think, no, because remember, because the issue is dealing with what is just, right? So, again, I think that's why

I mentioned that it's a bit convenient, right? I'm talking about is it just or unjust, right? I'm saying both bills on their own are unjust.

Both bills on their own are unjust, right? But, and you said that, in a sense, you said the same thing as well.

But you would say that it seems to me because the other bill is better that you would be against.

I'm showing you, I'm showing that I'm trying to be consistent in both scenarios, yours and mine.

And in both scenarios, I'm saying that I'm gonna speak against the partiality and unequal weights and measures.

And what I'm saying is that I'm the one in this conversation that's willing to do that in both scenarios. But in your scenario, you're saying that you will support partiality so long as it saves some lives.

Actually, sir, so as I mentioned earlier, I would speak against the fact that some babies are not protected.

I mentioned that early on, I would speak against it. But I will still celebrate that some babies are being saved. The same way that you would celebrate that at least it gives equal protection to someone.

But then this will help, right? This will probably help then. So I see what you're saying. And I think everyone could probably see it.

And of course, I respect your position in terms of I'm glad that you wanna see it criminalized and abolished and equal protection.

And you're giving me a scenario where you have a person like yourself who believes in abolition, equal protection as the end goal.

But you are willing to deal in this category over here of legislation along the way that I would say shows partiality.

It's unequal weights and measures. I think it's biblically defined as that way. My question is, where are the people like you at the legislature?

Because I've never met someone like you at the legislature. Because who I do meet at the legislature are the pro -life leaders and legislators who do not have the end goal of abolition.

And they are only regulating with bills of partiality. So my point is, is this, you're kind of a unicorn.

I've never met someone like you. I'm not a unicorn, sir.

I've never met someone like you at the legislature. What I'm saying is that, is this, your position doesn't exist at the legislature.

Nowhere in this country. Yeah, well, but again, I think that's going back to, we started off by saying that I disagree with the pro -life movements on those things.

So to me, that's kind of going back to the original conversation. And I think we need to, I would love for people to have my views with more influence.

And I'm with whatever influence I have, I'm trying to use that. But again,

I think - Brian has a question for you. Sorry, I should probably let the people in the thread say something. Brian has a question.

Brian Gunter actually says, Sam, he says, Sam, because this is related to what you're saying. Name one bill that fits the scenario you describe.

You can't because it doesn't exist, but I can show you hundreds of bills of partiality and you support those.

Why? Okay, so I will get to that. But again, I've been trying to get, the question that I asked you earlier was to get to, let's talk about these pro -life bills, right?

And I've not been able to get to that. Okay, go ahead, go ahead. Yeah, yeah. So I think the reason why

I said that is because so often abolitionists, so you may say that it doesn't exist and all that, but again, when it comes to a conversation, when we're trying to deal with, because for me, while I care about, we can care about the rights and laws and everything else, as Christians, what matters most to us is what is biblical, what is just, what is unjust, what is righteous before God, what is pleasing to God, right?

And the reason why I wanted to establish that hypothetical situation is because while it is hypothetical, while you can say there hasn't been a bill that has happened yet, the reality is this, we are dealing with context.

We're dealing with how do we react to scenarios? Well, how do you react to a group of Republicans that might introduce a certain law or Democrats that might oppose a certain law?

I say all that because if you're going to say, and again, bear with me here because I want to get to the question now.

If you're going to say that you would support that bill that I mentioned, to me, it is absolutely no different than what

I have said. You might talk about, well, it's penology or whatever, but I'm gonna deal with - No, it's very different, it's very different. Is it just relentless?

You're missing the, I found it, hold on, I found it, Sam, I found the point you missed. Okay, I was trying to figure out where is he not understanding what

I'm saying? When I said category error, you're dealing with penology for the perpetrator in your scenario, but on your side, you're not dealing with penology for the perpetrator.

On your side, we're talking about actual legislation of partiality that says you can kill these kids, but not these kids.

So when I said massive category error, that's what I meant. In your scenario, it's dealing with the penology, the punishment of the mother of the criminal.

Yeah, but I'm trying to - But in trying to compare those two things in terms of your support of bills of partiality that God abominates,

I think is a massive category error. One is dealing with penology for the criminal, and one is actually saying, no,

I will support bills that are bills of permission to kill. Yeah, again, I understand that's your argument, but the reality comes down to, again, if we say that a murderer should not be given the death penalty, that's unjust, just as partiality is unjust.

Penology, penology. Sure, but it's still unjust, right? Would you not agree that it's unjust, sir? I've agreed with that 100 times.

Of course, that's partiality. The penology, the punishment, but to try to compare the question of penology for the criminal, the perpetrator, to incremental bills that actually legislate for the murder of children, the crime itself, is a massive,

Sam, it's a massive category error. It's just in the arena of logic. That doesn't work. But sir, you keep, yeah, with all due respect, sir, you keep saying that, but again, the issue, what

I'm addressing is that it's either just or unjust. You've acknowledged it's unjust, just as partiality is unjust.

But if we're allowed to think in categories, which we should, we should be able to think in categories, then we should be able to make the distinction that scripture makes between defining something as a sin or a crime, or a sin and a crime, and then something that is dealing with penology.

Those are different categories, and scripture deals in those different definitions of categories. So, but this gets us to the main issue, which

I think everyone's waiting for. Actually, can we do this? Can we do this real fast? Gabe, are you there,

Gabe? Yep. Can we do like a pause screen and give

Sam a chance to get a drink of water, and maybe take a bathroom break, and then me as well? Yeah, give me one second. Can we do that,

Sam? I'll give you one second. Good idea, right? Okay, so we'll just take everyone just a two -minute break, and I wanna give

Sam the floor when we come back to get to the questions and things he wanted to deal with in terms of these incremental bills and those sorts of things.

I'm gonna give him the floor and allow him to ask everything he wants to ask. So we'll just take a two -minute break here, right,

Gabe? Yep, I'm ready. All right, thank you. All right, guys, we're back.

Thanks for letting us take that break there for a minute. So I'll just start this by saying, and then give the floor to Sam. I think the confusion here, and that's why

I said it's not between incrementalism versus immediatism, is that abolitionists do believe in righteous increments.

For example, probably only gonna be able to abolish abortion in one state first.

So it might be Louisiana first. That's a righteous increment. It's not the whole country. It's a righteous increment.

But we do it consistently, according to God's standards, without partiality. And so we believe in a righteous increment, but it must be something that is pleasing to God.

So if we write a bill, is that bill pleasing to God? Does it show partiality? And that's the key issue where I said it's between justice and injustice, not incrementalism versus immediatism, because all abolitionists realize that we have to have righteous increments to make our way, but they have to be righteous.

They can't be unrighteous. And that's the key issue. And I'll give it to you, Sam. Okay. So a lot of what you just said, you've mentioned rightly that this is a matter of justice versus injustice.

And please let me finish my thought here. But you've mentioned that you would support an unjust bill if it penalizes women, it has equal protection, and bans abortion.

And the reason why I raised that point is because that view, while we may talk about how it's a category, I can't even say the word.

Category error. Category error. Yeah. While you're saying that, I don't think it really addresses the point. The point is, is it an unjust bill or not?

That's all I'm trying to get to, right? And you've acknowledged that's an unjust bill. Regardless of the category error, it doesn't matter.

It's still, the reality is it's an unjust bill that you would support. I know. I said I would prophetically speak against it.

And I said I would - You would speak against it. I said I would support - You would speak against it. I would support the lack of partiality and the consistency in the criminalization and equal protection, but I would prophetically speak against, with God's word, the partiality shown to the mother.

And again, and so everyone's, people are just jumping in. And this is where I think we need to get, because I think we've -

But sir, remember, you were - We sufficiently both addressed this. But sir, you were supposed to allow me to finish my thoughts. I am.

I just want to say, while I'm addressing what you said, in terms, and I think when I said category error, it's because it is a category error to compare the penology of the criminal to what you're advocating for, is that we support bills that actually legislate that you can kill certain kids, but not others.

It doesn't, again, address the obvious, which is that you've mentioned that while you would speak against it, you would support that unjust bill, which abolitionists claim they would never do, right?

And that's what I'm trying to get to. So now we can get to why I would support a bill for the same reason that you would.

While I speak against the unjust nature of not protecting every single preborn child,

I would still say that I would support that bill for the very same reason, because I believe that it is more, it does much more good than harm.

It saves some babies, and I will rejoice in that, even though I will also speak prophetically against that bill, knowing that that bill is not good enough, that that bill is inherently unjust.

But now here's what I think is important. It's unjust because it doesn't protect all babies.

But I do not believe it's partiality. Here's why. You and I seemingly have different definition of the word partiality, or the meaning of partiality.

I don't judge partiality by the outcome. I judge it by the intention.

So James 2 talks about, actually, let me, I'm gonna actually quickly read it. I don't wanna butcher the text.

I think it's James 2, verse 4, where James says, have you not then, this is, of course, referring to how you treat people differently based on whether they are wealthy or poor, in terms of their seating and things like that.

And then James says, have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

So that's how I understand, and I've addressed this a lot when it comes to the issue of critical race theory and things like that, that when it comes to how we define partiality or racism, it is not just by outcome.

It is not just by even just distinctions.

It is by the motivation behind it as well. It is by, for example, it is by the evil thoughts involved there.

That's very important because, in my view, so when, let's say a heartbeat bill, for example,

I don't believe it shows partiality because of the intention behind it. Now, so if there is, so I oftentimes say that when it comes to this issue, in some states,

I am an abolitionist or an immediatist. And then in some states or in some nations like Canada, I am an incrementalist.

In Canada, we have zero laws on abortion. In 1989, interestingly enough, there was a bill that would have been, at the time, the most pro -life bill, or one of them in the world.

But groups, so much abolitionists actually voted against it. They said that no law is better than a bad law.

And since then, 1989, there have been zero bills in Canada. Abolitionists oftentimes claim that the reason why you don't have a ban on abortion, the reason why you don't have abolitionist bills is because of pro -life movement.

But if that was the case, then you would imagine that what had happened in Canada 40 years ago, it would have led to an abolition in Canada, but it hasn't happened.

It actually made things worse because there has been nothing. If you even ask the abolitionists in Canada, the majority of them will tell you that America is much more right for an abolitionist bill than Canada is.

And I think that's because you actually have the pro -life movement doing some groundwork to make an abolitionist bill possible in the future.

The pro -life movement doesn't want abolition. So we've addressed that many times already, but let me just get to my point. What's true?

But my point is, is that, so you have an abolitionist bill, sorry, you have a pro -life bill in Canada that was vetoed by abolitionists.

So oftentimes you have abolitionists who complain about, as you did right now, that the pro -life movement kills some of these bills.

Well, it's also happened in other nations like Canada. But now get to the partiality aspect.

The reason why I don't think it's partiality is this. In Canada, you have about 90%, sorry, let me slow down. You have nine out of 10 people in Canada who are radically pro -abortion, but you have about roughly 13 % of the population who are pro -life.

But that 90 % of the nation also says they would have, they'll support some kind of a bill on abortion, some kind of a bill that would have, that would restrict abortion, right?

So it's not, I don't believe it's partiality for me to say, look, I want to save some babies. I want to rescue some babies from the slaughter.

I want to rescue some babies. And while I want to rescue all, I know in a nation like Canada, that is not going to happen right now.

But I want to save as many as possible. So I'm going to introduce a bill that would save some. That's not partiality.

That is me trying to save as many as possible. And let me quickly get to this. Well, I know you're doing a lot. I've had to respond to some of this further.

You gotta let me speak. Okay, just some of it, just some of it. Okay, there's a lot there. I've allowed you, you know,

I've not gotten a chance to really get to what I want to say. Okay, but Sam, if you bring up so many different points,

I'm gonna miss, you said it's not partiality. Those bills would be partiality.

By biblical definition, and I think what you're advocating for is pragmatism over principle.

And that I think it has to be said, is that you're saying, I don't think it's possible. And so let's do what's pragmatic.

I think we need to be prophets and operate on principle and use the word of God and trust God with his gospel and the authority of his word.

Let me just say that. So, but going back to, I was actually, I had it pulled up here.

I didn't even have to open my Bible, James chapter two, because I think James chapter two is a significant section of scripture that just is in tandem with all the texts in the

Old Testament and God's law word that forbid partiality or perversions of justice that abominate unequal weights and measures and partiality.

In James two, he says at the start of verse one, my brothers show no partiality as you hold the faith in our

Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. Now, I think if we shouldn't just try to figure out what does partiality mean?

Partiality is very clearly defined in scripture. It's to regard the face of another. In other words, have a favorite face.

You're picking a face and saying, I will favor you over you. That's partiality. And so, of course,

James goes into the discussion about the poor man and you sit here and he says something interesting here though, because you quoted it, but I think you went the wrong way with it.

It says, have you not then through what they're doing, then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts.

So it's the action. It's what is actually taking place first and then leads to the accusation of the evil thoughts.

So he goes on to say, if you really fulfill the royal law according to scripture, you shall love your neighbor as yourself, you are doing well.

But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

This is one of the premier passages that Christian abolitionists would say to you as a brother, brother, there's no way to honor this word from God and support and advocate for the bills that literally legislate partiality, because that is,

Sam, what they do. I'm not sure if you've read these bills. I have over and over and over.

And they legislate partiality. They say, and you brought up the heartbeat one, then I'll stop talking after this.

The heartbeat bill, when you say it's not partiality, it is by definition partiality. You're saying,

I will regard the human being with a heartbeat, but I will not regard the human beings without one.

But I thought that the Christian worldview said that he knits us together in our mother's womb, we are fearfully and wonderfully made, and we are

Imago Dei from fertilization. So it is the definition of partiality to say, heartbeat, regard your face, partiality.

No heartbeat, less than human. That is partiality. But sir, that's not true, sir.

I think the way you're, I think to say less than human is just not true. So that's part of the point I'm trying to make. I think, again, that's very, very, but I'm glad you mentioned that, because it would be partiality if the bill, if the position was that the preborn child or the child without the heartbeat isn't a human.

But that's not what it is, right? We are trying to, so we're trying to save as many as we can.

Which is why I've said - Sam, can you go back to that spot? Can you explain that? No, no, no, no, sir. I'm letting you talk, Sam. Sam, I'm letting you, I want you to explain it.

Sir, you can interrupt me, sir. Sam, Sam, Sam, relax, brother. I'm asking you to explain further what you said.

Sam, please explain, I'm gonna give you the floor. Explain further what you said in response to my saying it is partiality, and I said, okay, you're not human.

What I meant by that is that human beings are protected by law in our nation. Persons, human beings, are protected by law.

That's what I was referring to. So explain what you mean how that's not partiality. Go on, I'll give you the floor. I just want more definition.

What do you mean that that's, what do you mean by that? Yeah, so what I'm trying to say is, is that as I mentioned earlier, that the intention is what matters.

So for example, I'm glad you mentioned James 2 again. See, if in that scenario, right, for example,

I'm sure they've been, okay, so let me just say this. So if in that scenario, right, that James is talking about, it's not the fact that there just happens to be, that they're saying that, okay, you rich people stay here, you poor people stay here, right?

You know, that in itself is not partiality. What makes it partiality is that they're doing so because they believe that the rich person deserves and should sit here, and the poor person should sit there.

I think it's impossible to ignore that. Oh, that's perfect. Yeah, so what I'm saying - That's perfect.

Your explanation is perfect. It's perfect because it defines exactly the scenario of what's happening with the heartbeat bill.

Sir, so if I may continue what I'm trying to say, what I'm trying to say then is, again, the intention is what matters here. We are dealing with people who are radically pro -abortion, right?

Now, again, as I mentioned before, if we did not, if the pro -life movement were introducing these bills in a vacuum, if they were not dealing with pro -abortion people would that also have to vote as well too, right?

Then I would agree with you that that's partiality because if you have the complete power to do so and you're not, that's wrong. That's why I've said in some states, right?

In some states you have compromised so -called pro -life politicians who because they're thinking about their own political interests do not protect the babies that they should be protecting, right?

But if in a place like Canada, if I know that the only opportunity

I have to give some babies legal rights is to introduce a pro -life bill that would be like a heartbeat bill or something like that, that is not partiality because of my intention.

Now, let me explain why this is very important to understand. Let's look at, for example, in Israel, right?

You have Israel and Hamas right now, obviously what's going on. Israel has 52, sorry, 252 of its citizens right now in hostage by Hamas.

They just recently have been able to rescue 112 of the hostages.

Almost all of them are children and actually I think all of them are children and women.

And it's been very obvious that they've been prioritizing the women and the children. Is that partiality?

Explain that a little further. I'm trying to make the connection you just made to what you just said. Okay, so in Israel, right?

And in the Hamas issue, right? Israel has, so Hamas has 252

Israelis in hostage. Israel has negotiated for the rescue of 112 of the hostages.

Almost all of them are children and women. This is because they're trying to, they've been prioritizing those people because they recognize that those people are easier to rescue than the men.

Is that partiality? No, it's again another category error. You're talking about a situation where you have the preservation of human life happening and the understood worldview of an image bearer of God that you, the men preserve the lives of women and children first.

Men sacrifice their lives. It's an understood image of God thing in us that we rescue the women and children first.

That is our pattern and it has nothing to do with saying that you are more, here's the category error. I'm gonna give it to you. The category error is that we're talking about defining someone as human and not human and worthy of protection.

In your scenario, they're all human. They're all human. And we want to, as men, rescue the women and children.

Major category error. Now, you said a lot, you said a lot. It's my turn now. But hold on. You said a lot, Sam. No, no, no, come on, sir.

Sam, the audience is even begging. Sam, the audience is even begging for you to let me have a moment to speak here.

But sir, I mean, well, come on, but to be fair now. Sam, Sam, no, no, Sam, Sam, Sam. I'm gonna respond, brother, brother, brother.

There's people in the audience disagreeing with me here too, brother. So, but I am gonna, I need to respond.

You can't go on for five minutes with 10 different points. We're never gonna get anywhere. So you try to preserve your, honestly, interesting definition of partiality.

Sam, it's not biblical, biblically defined. Well, I'm telling you what the text says.

Partiality is to regard the face of another. I can't invent what it means. The text is very clear.

Showing partiality is biblically defined. We don't get to decide how to define it. But you said, here's the scenario.

You said, James is saying it's partiality because the person is thinking this.

You said, because you are rich, I will treat you in this way. And because you are poor,

I will treat you in this way. And you said that because that's what they think and that's their intentions and motives.

You're rich, so I'll give you this. And you're not rich, so I'll give you this. You said that's partiality.

But with a heartbeat, Bill, Sam, you're not gonna avoid your very own definition. Because you have a heartbeat,

I'll protect you. And because you don't, I will not protect you. By your own definition,

Sam, that's partiality. No, sir. So again, so I'll get to that, but I didn't get to finish the point because again, you mentioned category because we've addressed that already.

So I want to get to that. I don't want, you know, again - Well, let's commit to condensing. So let's commit to condensing and not doing 10 points in one session.

Okay, condense. Okay, okay. So again, you've pointed out category error,

I think oftentimes to kind of dodge the question to deal with the core of what I'm saying, right?

By your, even in this definition, even what you just said right now, if you define partiality as strictly making distinctions, strictly just that, right?

No matter what the intent is, no matter the context, no matter what, if that is a definition - I didn't say that. I didn't say that.

Well, again, even from what you've just said, from what I heard you, even if you think

I am not summarizing it well, from what you've said, by your own definition, because what the

Israelis are doing is they're saying, if you have certain anatomy, if you have a certain age, we're going to prioritize you.

Now you might claim, well, there's one way, it includes murder, and one where it's actually preserving, although I would say, well, we're trying to preserve life through with the incremental bills as well.

So it depends, again, how you want to frame it. But the reality is, in both scenarios, we're trying to preserve life, right?

So again, help me understand why, when it comes to the Israeli hostage issue, why that's not partiality based on your definition.

Yeah. Well, okay, I didn't say making distinctions was partiality. Making distinctions is something we have to do as image bearers of God every single day.

What I said was, biblically defined, partiality would be to regard the face or have a favorite face in a scenario, right?

That's partiality. In judgment is, hey, this guy's rich, so I'm going to pervert justice for the poor guy, because this guy's the rich guy.

He's my favorite face. That's partiality, right? So that's the key thing. So it's not showing distinctions.

It's not saying that there are distinctions. And that's what I was trying to address before, by the way. Yeah, what I was saying is that when I said category error, is in the one category, we're talking about bills that legislate.

You can kill these children, but not these children. That's how the bills are put into law.

By permission, kill these, no permission to kill these. That's one category.

Then you bring up a situation that's a category of all human beings, all respected, all worthy of life, all trying to be protected.

And in this category over here, we're trying to save some of these people, these human beings, all of them are human, from these terrorists.

And so let's go for the women and children. And that is, I'm saying, a category error. We're talking about two different things.

They don't match. In the one scenario, you have what is common amongst humanity. Save the women and children.

Men sacrifice their lives in that way. But that category can't be blended with the category you're suggesting that says that we should advocate for and celebrate and help bills that God abominates where they actually deal with unequal weights and measures.

They acquit the guilty. They show partiality. They say, if you have a heartbeat, you're worthy of life.

If you don't have a heartbeat, we're gonna kill you. You can't compare those things. Yes, you can, sir.

And I think, again, you're dodging the heart of the question. The question, again - Sam, we need to stop real fast.

If we're gonna show affection to each other and respect, we have to stop with the dodging, the allegations of dodging and all those things.

I don't think that's helpful in this discussion. Let's not make it about personalities. Let's deal with the issues. I didn't mean to make it personality.

I didn't mean to, I'm not trying to accuse you. I just meant that you're not addressing my question. I didn't mean that. I have addressed it abundantly.

Yeah, well, I think, again, so again, forgive me. I'm not trying to accuse you of any kind of cynicism like that.

I'm just saying that I don't think you're really dealing with my question. You may disagree with that, but I don't think you are. So what I'm trying to say is this, is that, again, this is about partiality, right?

We have our disagreements on the law aspect and all that, but remember, this topic is about partiality.

I'm trying to get us to define partiality. And from what you've said, I think that is an issue when it comes to the issue of the hostages, right?

Because they are saying that, look, we are going to choose, we're going to prioritize certain people over others, right?

And what that means is they're also saying that, look, these people are going to be more in danger with Hamas, as in the men, because we're going to prioritize the women.

And my point is that is the exact same reasoning that the pro -life movement has. It's not the same reasoning.

It's the same reasoning, sir. We're trying to rescue - It's a category error. It's not the same scenario.

It can't be logically connected to the two. The point, but sir, again, you keep saying that, but I think the point is this.

The point is, is that in both scenarios, we are trying to prioritize the people that we believe we're possibly able to rescue before we can save them all.

You may disagree with that, but that is the point. Two points I want to make, and it hasn't really actually been addressed by you.

And I'd like you to get to it. And that is that the pro -life legislators and lobby and organizations that you refer to are not actually working for equal protection and abolition.

They don't want it. They fight against it. They have officially come out and said it.

They've written, again, signed on the dotted line. And what they do engage in, and maybe this is where we can get to this.

Scripture says to show no partiality in judgment, okay? So no partiality in judgment.

It says that differing weights, sorry, unequal weights and measures are both alike an abomination to the

Lord. Okay, so let's just put an example. If I have a bill that says you can kill the healthy babies in the womb, but you cannot kill the handicapped children in the womb, is that an abomination to God?

If that, yeah, that bill would be an abomination the same way that the other bill that I mentioned as a hypothetical is also an abomination as well, but context would matter, right?

So that's what I'm trying to get at. The context does matter here. I don't think anyone can try to make an argument that any bill that allows for some babies to be killed, or I will say in the same way, in my scenario that I gave you earlier, that to say that we shouldn't penalize, or we shouldn't give women death penalty, that they can say that's just.

Both scenarios are unjust. However, we're dealing with context here, right?

If the alternative, right, is that all babies get killed, I wanna save as many as possible.

And I think you can't ignore that context. I think too often the abolitionist movement ignores the context.

And you know what, I will use this argument as an example as to what I'm trying to say. This is why, and this is maybe the core of what

I'm trying to get at. Abolitionists, by your very name, the title, you're saying that you are this generation's version of the original abolitionist.

And I think that's actually very much incorrect. I think this is important to address. Would you have voted for Women Forces Slave Trade Act?

Hold on, hold on. We're doing it, you're going to a lot of different issues.

Let's work through them. Well, I answered your question. You asked me if I would support it, and I said, yes, I would support that bill because of the context.

And I'm trying to explain that by asking you a question to see if you would also be. Well, I wanna make sure we zero in though, because there's a lot of things probably being brought out at once.

And so I wanna make sure that we're actually addressing them and not missing them. So when I said, is that bill an abomination?

You said, yes. So a bill that says you can kill the children without a heartbeat, but you can't kill the ones with a heartbeat.

You can kill the healthy children, but not the children with a genetic abnormality. You can't kill them because they're black, those sorts of things.

You acknowledge that God abominates those. And so the reason I was asking you that is that what you're advocating for is, again, you're a unicorn because the pro -life establishment doesn't want what you want.

So when they write this legislation, they're not even aimed at your goal. They don't want what you want, but they are legislating bills of partiality.

And so I guess the main thing I have to ask you is, do you believe that God is glorified in us actually engaging in things that he declares a woe on, an iniquitous decree, and he threatens legislators and rulers who do it?

So should we support that and go along with it, or should we be prophetic, condemn it and be faithful in the midst of an adulterous generation?

Like, I mean, that's kind of where I'm getting at. You're saying we should go along with it because it's pragmatic, because it's what works for now.

Yes, God abominates it, but we should actually just do it. I'm saying, I think we need to be prophetic and speak

God's word and the truth and trust him to change hearts and minds rather than being pragmatic and not as prayerful or trusting.

Yeah, I will, I'll speak, I know I can speak very fast, so maybe I'll speak slower and then maybe that'll be helpful.

That's okay. I'm slow to write, but sometimes I speak very fast. We've been going for two hours. We should probably end this soon because we have been going for two hours.

We're both probably - I didn't even realize it's been two hours. I know, I've been enjoying it. Yeah, yeah. And again, I'm sorry, sir.

I sincerely did not mean the dodging the question thing to be, and I just meant that. Well, you owe me dinner the next time you come out, okay?

That'd be great, that'd be great. But yeah, so I've answered that question I think several times, right?

That I think, again, that's why, I know that is in many ways the core of this very issue.

That's why I asked you the question earlier about my hypothetical scenario, right?

And you acknowledged that in that situation, it's an abomination to say that the woman should not receive the death penalty, but you would still support the bill while speaking prophetically against its evil nature or its abominable nature.

And that's the same thing that I would do. That's what I'm trying to say, that in the heartbeat bill, I would celebrate that it would save some babies, but I'm still going to speak prophetically against the nature that it still allows for some babies.

I despise the nonsense about this whole, this idea that abortion should be acceptable if it threatens a woman's life.

Abortion is never justified for any reason. It never threatens a woman's life. There's always a opportunity to induce labor.

So again, I would not want to celebrate the abominable nature of a bill, but I would still support it in the same way that you would in my scenario, right?

But now in addressing - I think you misunderstood me. I think the audience - Yeah, but the audience heard me, but you make an accusation there, and so I want to address it.

Not address it, I've addressed it probably at least a half a dozen times. What I told you is I would speak prophetically against the penology of the one.

And I would say that the criminalization there, the equal protection there is good and glorifying to God, but I'm not the one who legislates.

And so I'm saying my duty as a Christian in that scenario is to speak prophetically with the word of God against the penology and the partiality shown there.

I've said that at least a half a dozen times. Yes, you have, but again, you're also missing my point. I wouldn't be the one introducing that bill either, right?

So I'm saying that I would also do the exact same thing. I would speak against the unjust nature of the bills, right?

And then I would also say that I would also be glad that it would save some babies.

I'm glad that 32 ,000 babies have been saved because of incremental bills.

I rejoice in that, right? Now, again, the question that I was asking earlier, I think this is an important thing, right? Would you support the

Slave Trade Act by Wilberforce? Describe what you mean by that. So the

Slave Trade Act by Wilberforce, it banned, I mean, historically it's been known as banning the slave trade, right?

Would you support it? I would have spoken consistently with the

Christian worldview, which is what Wilberforce tried to do in terms of the definition of what a black man and a black woman is and bringing the biblical worldview into collision with it.

And the fact that Wilberforce may have had inconsistencies is not, I mean, I think germane even to this discussion.

I mean, we're talking about something that is very different in a way. And so I would say this,

I think our duty is to be consistent, faithful, and prophetic in the midst of any kind of Holocaust or injustice.

And so I would have wanted to be a corrective force in the midst of the abolition of slavery to say that we need to hold to God's word, we need to preach the truth, we need to make sure the gospel is premier here, the authority of Christ, the word of God, we need to use

God's standards here and we need to not compromise. I think my main objection to, even in your bringing up the

Wilberforce discussion and the Slave Trade Act, I think the main conflict here is between principle versus pragmatism, because you've said over and over again, it's not possible and this is all we can do.

And so we should accept what is an abomination in God's eyes because that's all we've got. I wanna say that I think, and I know you agree with this fundamentally, that the gospel is the power of God for salvation, that the word of God is sharper than any two -edged sword.

And I believe that the only way that we're gonna see transformation in the future is by being faithful with the truth today.

And so I don't think we should approach this issue as the pro -life establishment has, devoid of Christ, devoid of the word of God, devoid of God's standards because we think we can just try to save some.

I think, and this is, Sam, this is just a very personal part of me. I think one of the reasons we've been dealing, and I'll shut up here,

I'll shut up after this. One of the reasons we've been dealing with the Holocaust as long as we have in this nation is because of precisely your position, pragmatism over against principle.

And I think that if we had been faithful from the beginning as the church, speaking the truth without compromise, pointing people to God's word, warning them of final judgment and standing on God's standards, we would have seen much more fruit than we have now.

I think this Holocaust is being extended because of pragmatism and the lack of faithfulness.

That's my thought. Yeah, so I strongly disagree with that because again, that's the, the abolitionists have been saying that for a long time, but again,

I think nations like Canada proved that's not true. If what you were saying was true, then the abolitionist mindset that led to that pro -life bill being vetoed 40 years ago, if that was true, then you would be seeing abolitionism growing in Canada.

You would see a massive change in Canada, but it hasn't actually led to the opposite. Now, with that being said, what

I wanted to say, the reason why I mentioned Wilberforce, this is very, very important. You've framed this as an issue over principle versus pragmatism, practice.

Pragmatism. I can't even talk anymore. Pragmatism, yeah, we'll end this after this, yeah. Yeah, that's really important because here's the interesting thing.

Wilberforce was extremely pragmatic, but I don't think anyone, the two of us would say that he wasn't principled.

And this is why I'm mentioning him to, I guess now to end this conversation that I've enjoyed.

But here's the issue, is that Wilberforce, again, abolitionists revere him, rightly so.

I at least immediately revere him, but he was an incrementalist. He was a gradualist. Infamously, he was, because first of all, his colleagues in the antislavery society were introduced to the

Dobbin Act, which reduced the number of slaves on a ship, right? He supported that. It was

Laudato Queno who introduced it, and he supported it. He actually said some very great words about it afterward as well, too.

He also supported, I think it was the Foreign Slave Trade Act, I think, which basically said that British citizens could continue with the slave trade, but just not on British soil.

And then especially his Slave Trade Act. Again, nobody would say that he's not principled. Nobody said that he does not truly care about slavery.

Nobody, I think, would dare say that he had any role in extending the slavery to slave trade, as some would accuse the pro -life movement as doing when it comes to the issue of abortion.

And yet, his Slave Trade Act included something called the

Apprenticeship Clause, which basically said that it would ban all slavery. Well, not slavery, actually, but the slave trade.

He allowed slavery to continue, which he was actually criticized for by, I think it's Elizabeth Hayrick, who claimed that because he was a gradualist, that he should repent.

And he disagreed with her. But nevertheless, he allowed for the, sorry, the clause in the slave trade because he had no other alternative, right?

That he was forced to allow for the slave trade to continue in Sierra Leone. Very few people talk about this, but because he passed that bill, it eventually led to the slave trade being abolished also in Sierra Leone as well, too.

If we're gonna say that people like myself who support incrementalism, that we are being pragmatic over being principled, then the same would have to be said about the very person that abolitionists are standing on, right?

If we're going to say that he is a pragmatic because he allowed for some exceptions for the ultimate goal of true abolition, of abolishing all the slave trade, then that is a problem for abolitionists today.

Not for me, not for me. The title for me, abolitionists, is definitional of what

I want to happen. There are a lot of bad abolitionists in history. There are people that I think are horrible, that were quote -unquote abolitionists.

And I don't wanna, I don't have any desire to be connected to the abolitionists of slavery in terms of I wanna be just like them.

Where they had failures, they need to be called out. If there's failures in me, it needs to be called out. So I really have no affinity to say

I really need to be seen among them. I think the issue is in terms of principle.

Is something wrong in my methodology? And I think that there's something severely wrong in, and I love you, but I'll say it to you because we have to speak the truth to each other.

I think there's something severely wrong in your methodology where you will say things like it's just not possible, so let's be pragmatic.

I think scripture would say there's another way. There is a way we ought to do this with the word of God, trusting in God. We have to do it according to principle.

I think we're called not to compromise over the truth. And I think that when you talk about what we have presented in these bills, they are bills that are presented that are the regulation of abortion and they are bills of unequal weights and measures and they are bills of partiality.

That's what God would call them. And in the end, here's the main point. In the end, I called you a unicorn because you're saying you want abolition and equal protection and it to be a crime for everybody.

And I keep thinking when I hear these smash mouth incrementalists and brothers like you, where are you guys?

Because you don't exist at the legislature. There's nobody like you at the legislature. The people who are at the legislature believe this.

Women are victims of abortion and require our compassion and support as well as ready access to counseling and social services in the days, weeks, months, and years following an abortion.

As national and state pro -life organizations representing tens of millions of pro -life men, women, and children across the country, let us be clear.

We state unequivocally that we do not support any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women and we stand firmly opposed to include such penalties in legislation.

That's what they believe. And so my point is underneath this whole system, this fight against abortion at the legislature is an industry that doesn't agree with you.

They don't want what you and I want, that we want together. And when they write the legislation they're writing, they're writing it with protections for the woman to do it with immunity and impunity.

And they're writing it with partiality, kill these humans, but not these humans. God abominates all of that.

And so my question is how do I live faithfully in the midst of a Holocaust? Do I compromise with evil?

Do I support something that God specifically hates and abominates? Or do I just stand in the midst of that evil and adulterous generation with the word of God, the truth without compromise.

And I speak prophetically against even those pro -life legislators that are writing these iniquitous decrees.

What I'm saying is, and I read it at the beginning brother, and I know you agree with it, a hundred percent we're brothers together on this.

In Isaiah chapter 10, the way that God speaks to people who write iniquitous decrees is the way that I think we should speak.

He threatens them with his justice. He warns them of the judgment to come. And I think that that's how we need to speak against this.

And I think that if we're faithful without compromise, that's when we'll see transformation because people's hearts aren't gonna change in this nation.

If we actually, how do I put this? People's hearts aren't gonna change in this nation,

Sam, in my mind, if we are training them that yes, there are certain humans you're allowed to kill.

And I think that if we stand boldly and firmly and consistently, their hearts will be changed because they're gonna be hearing the truth consistently and without compromise.

We can't teach our culture that it's okay to kill certain humans and write that into legislation as pro -lifers.

And so brother, I think that's probably a good way to end the show today. We can talk again though. I don't mind you coming back.

Can I have a reply to that? Yeah, you have the last word there. Yes, sorry. Yeah, okay. So as you mentioned that you and I have the same end goal, but I think some of what you said is incorrect, right?

I know you disagree, but I think based on the scenario that I gave you before, you've mentioned that you would compromise on a bill to a certain degree, right?

Not some bills, but you would compromise on a bill that would ban, that would not allow for a woman to receive death penalty.

I know that you believe it's a category error, but I think again, when it comes to the issue of justice or injustice, right?

That you have compromised in that way. And I would say that it is a political compromise, not a moral compromise.

I would say that. And since you would say that you would speak against it, but vote for it, that you would agree with that.

I think that when it comes to incremental bills, I disagree with what you said, that I don't believe we're teaching society to think this is acceptable.

Just as Wilberforce does not teach society to think that banning the slave trade alone or banning the slave trade in everywhere, except for certain areas in the world or the

British empire was also how it's supposed to be, right? So I disagree with you on that. But I think again, this conversation,

I'm glad we've had this conversation. I think this conversation is a matter of strategy, right? Now, obviously we should care about justice and the

Bible does not, the Bible does not ignore that we should promote justice, that we should hate what is evil and love what is good.

And I think that, again, in this conversation, I appreciate you, but you've not convinced me that an immediatist bill is the only way to go.

Especially because again, as I mentioned earlier, this has been my last word on this, is that an abolitionist bill, worst case scenario, no babies get saved.

A incremental bill, worst case scenario, some babies get saved, such as 32 ,000 babies annually since Roe v.

Wade. And I rejoice in that and I celebrate that. All right, brother. It's been great talking to you, man.

Love you, man. Thanks for being with me today. All right, bless you, brother. You owe me dinner. Thank you, sir. I do,

I do. So I'll see you when you come out again. We'll hang out together. All right.

Take care, sir. All right, Gabe, you can disconnect that and I'll finish up with a couple of different things. We got to do some housekeeping here.

So I hope this has been a blessing to everybody. Obviously we could do this in a number of different ways. You know, we could do this in such a way where we do a formal debate setting and actually it would be great.

I mean, like I would love to do a formal public moderated debate with a brother like Douglas Wilson on this issue.

And I'd be willing to do that in a heartbeat. I think that would actually help in many ways in terms of having some moderation. But I thought it'd be good actually to have this conversation with my brother,

Sam, because I wanted to do it in such a way that hopefully we can show that, look, we can have this conversation as brothers with respect, with gentleness, with love.

And you can even have moments of heated disagreement and still leave the situation loving each other and caring about each other.

And so anyway, that's why we did it this way. We can obviously have more in the future. And sorry, just sending messages here.

So, okay, final thoughts from my perspective, and I'm sure Sam will maybe write something up and give his final thoughts.

I think that one of my, the challenges in this discussion was when, you know,

Sam would ask me the question, like he tried to give the scenario of, you know, total criminalization, equal protection, but in the penology section over here, you've got the woman who's, you know, she's shown partiality in the justice for the penology.

What I was saying was that I would speak prophetically against it. I would, I think I repeated that numerous times. I would speak

God's word against it. I would condemn that. And I said, I would, of course, support the category over here of equal protection and making it a crime, but the penology over here,

I would be speaking against it. And so I just didn't seem to connect with Sam. And maybe

I had a hard time articulating it. So I'll take the blame for that if that's true. But I do believe that as a category error to try to compare that scenario to the scenario over here, which we're actually dealing with.

And that is that the pro -life establishment doesn't even agree with Sam and doesn't want what he wants. They don't want abolition. They don't want equal protection.

They fight against it. They sit down against me at legislatures to fight against it. And so that's the real scenario.

We're actually dealing with, they don't want that. It's never gonna happen in their minds. They don't, it's not part of their worldview.

And when they're legislating, they are legislating not to ultimately end it.

They want her to have impunity and immunity. And so when they do legislate, they legislate with pure partiality.

And that's what it is. It can't be avoided. That's the definition of it. You can kill these ones, but not these ones.

And for these reasons, because this one can feel pain and this one cannot feel pain, or this one, I can hear a heartbeat.

I found one and this one, no heartbeat. So this one can die. This is what they write.

And Sam admitted that that's an abomination. And so the key issue here is in terms of, are we gonna let the

Bible tell us how to do this in terms of methodology?

Do we go to the Bible to tell us how does this play out? How should we actually approach this?

Whatever failures happened in the past or in time of slavery with any particular abolitionist is ultimately irrelevant to me today.

Because what we're facing is a Holocaust. And what we have to say is how does God want us to end this?

Do we do it with pragmatism? Do we just sort of put the best minds together to say, what's the best we can get and how can we use this?

Maybe what's a slogan campaign we can use? Should we do that? Should we try to change people's minds with slogans like abortion kills love?

Abortion kills love. There are two victims in abortion, the mother and the baby.

And these are the signs that are being held up in Ireland when we were in the Republic of Ireland trying to stop them from legalizing when it was considered a crime and murder.

The pro -life movement swooped in there with their slogans. Abortion kills love. There are two victims of abortion.

Do we do that? Do we just put together the best minds to say, what's a good marketing strategy? How do we do this?

Or do we go about it as Christians standing on the word of God saying, God says you shall not pervert justice.

God's word says you don't even delay justice. You don't distort justice. You show no partiality in judgment. God says that unequal weights and measures are an abomination to him.

God says, whoa, to those who make iniquitous decrees. That's what God says. And so do we want to approach this honoring and glorifying

God and having clean hands before him in the midst of the conflict? I think that's the goal of the

Christian abolitionists is to say, I want my hands clean before God. I want to glorify and honor him. And I want to trust him in the midst of this

Holocaust. And I want to do what he says to do. He says he abominates this.

So I ask myself the question, do I want to stand before him as a believer, as his child for reward or lack of reward, having supported something and pursued a methodology which he specifically says he hates and abominates?

He calls it detestable. And I think when you think pragmatically as Sam did numerous times in the conversation, pragmatically rather than principle and biblically, pragmatically, you will end up actually supporting things that God abominates, calls evil.

And we're doing that, we say, in the name of the preservation of life and justice.

But do we do that? Do we do evil so that good may come? Is that how we're supposed to do this? Or are we supposed to actually as Christians stand on the truth and trust

God? He brings up the scenario in Canada. And I'm sorry, I have to just say,

I know Sam's not here to argue back about this, but we can only go for so long. I don't know much about the situation in Canada, but I'll tell you right now, it doesn't look like there's been a lot of abolitionists operating in Canada.

And I wouldn't say that the people who had the abolitionist mindset were like, reigning and ruling in Canada and it just totally failed.

I wanna say that I think the problem with Canada and what you have in Canada is the pulpit itself and the lack of prophetic ministry in Canada.

I think the problem in Canada is the lack of prophetic ministry, not that they had so much of it and it just didn't work.

It's that there's not been consistency either in Canada or in this nation. And that problem primarily, and I said at the beginning of the show, take responsibility where we can take responsibility.

Where we fail, let's admit to the failure and let's fix it. Like if in the reform community, people say, hey, you guys can be arrogant, real jerks, know -it -alls, loveless, graceless, cold.

I'm gonna say, I see a lot of that too. We should take responsibility for that. And in this case, on the issue of abortion, take responsibility where we can take responsibility.

The problem is the pulpit. First and foremost, the problem is the pulpit. We're not teaching the truth on this issue from the pulpit.

We're not speaking the truth with boldness in the pulpit. And so the problem is also pastors not engaging in the public square on this issue.

And so the pulpit is the failure. And I would say that's the problem in both

Canada and the United States of America. The problem is the pulpit and that bleeds down into the congregations. There's no faithfulness in the pulpit.

And so there's no faithfulness in the congregation. And so that goes nowhere in the culture because there's no message coming out, no boldness coming out.

And truth has fallen in the public square. Therefore there's injustice and unrighteousness, Isaiah 59.

And so much more could be done. Look, I know, and I'm looking forward to it. I hope it happens someday. I've even challenged

Scott Klusendorf to do a moderated public debate, which would be a much better setting and scenario to really get down to the issues and make sure that everything's timed.

You have to move fast and stay on topic. I know that. I'd love to do it with Doug. Scott never responded.

I've asked him numerous times and he won't do this debate. I'd love to do it with Doug, but in this setting today, they wanted to at least have an opportunity to have this discussion and Sam has had it elsewhere.

And so we thought it'd be good to do it in this way. So I hope it was a blessing to everybody. Much more could have been said and done, but this was planned to be more like a discussion slash debate, and hopefully it's been helpful to all of you guys.

Encourage everybody to go to apologiastudios .com and sign up for all access, partner with this ministry so we can do more and more and more.

And please do go to endabortionnow .com to go get your church signed up, to go out to preach the gospel, to save lives at the abortion mills.

You'll join almost a thousand churches globally that are out saving lives at the abortion mills.

If these ballot measures go through in these states across our union, we are only at the very beginning, it seems, of this unbelievable

Holocaust. It'll be the bloodiest and most brutal time we've ever seen, and that's post -Roe.

And so that's what's happening right now. We need your help. We need your help prayerfully. We need your help.

We also need your help financially. Please go to endabortionnow .com. Please go give. We are working right now in the state of Arizona.

I can't right now announce everything that we're doing, but let me just say we will announce it to you when the time comes, but we're working very, very hard right now against the ballot measure happening in our state.

We are still trying to work to get a bill of equal protection back into the legislature here. We have that still happening across the country with faithful pastors and other ministries that we are helping, and then they're helping us.

And so it's happening across the country, but brothers and sisters, you need to know that the most damage in this fight is coming from the abolitionists.

It's the bills of consistency and equal protection that are happening across the country. That's where the most damage is, but it's happening with organizations and ministries and churches like ours that have nothing in terms of budget compared to some of these massive organizations that are just gonna get more and more financially inflated as a result of these ballot measures and all that's going on across the states.

We need your help. We need your help financially. If you care about this issue, please pray for us, but also give, give at endabortionnow .com.

It does cost a lot of money to do what we do when we go to these states with these bills.

We support other ministries and other pastors and the work that they're doing. It does cost money to train up and raise churches locally and around the country to go save lives at the abortion mill.

We give everything away to the churches. We expect nothing from them. We want nothing from them. We just wanna train them and give everything away so they can start saving lives, but all of that takes money, guys, and so we need you guys to please help us.

Help us if you can. Endabortionnow .com, please help, and we'll catch you next week right here on Apologia Radio.