What Should Christian's Political Strategy on Abortion Be?

All right, we're live on the conversations that matter podcast and I appreciate everyone's patience in advance because I've been getting messages from StreamYard for the last hour

Telling me that they're having a lot of people on the platform.

And so they might have some problems with Delays and that kind of thing. So Lord willing this will all work out

If not, I'll upload the conversation later because it's also being recorded locally But we have two guests with us today.

Neither of whom have been on the podcast before we have Ben Zeisloft and we have AJ Hurley.

How you guys doing? They're good. Thank you so much for having us Yeah, my pleasure. So I've been in chat groups with Ben for more than a year

I would say at least and yeah, we've kind of gotten to know each other in that and It was

I think it might have been since the daily wire and all that So I mean, yeah, yeah

AJ I know I've started talking to you more recently But I have heard of the white rose resistance and excited to hear what you're gonna bring to this

Let me just explain to everyone Kind of what we're doing and why you guys are that because I've had some people reach out and say

Like do a debate series on this and get my guy in and my and there's a reason that it's you guys

And the main one is because You guys respect each other And if this is a tense topic

But you can both be adults about it and there's already a rapport built and I just think that makes for the best

Discussions on these things when you respect each other, but you're still unapologetic about the positions you hold.

So Ben Both of you I should say but I'll start with Ben has

Really a platform and an expertise to bring to this So Ben, I know you've kind of been around the block and political activism you like I mentioned before you're at the daily wire

But now you are the lead editor at the Republic Sentinel. Where can people find about your work or website or whatever?

Yep So our site is your public Republic Sentinel comm on Twitter war at Republic Sentinel and then I'm on Twitter as at Ben's ice loft

Perfect. All right, and then AJ I know yours is pretty long. You sent me your bio

You can just do the bullet points man all good so you were instrumental in exposing

Something that happened in DC at the beginning actually about a year ago now Where there was a baby two years.

Okay. Sorry two years ago where there was some babies kind of like left in a box and you expose this and You've been a respiratory care practitioner and worked with different pro -life groups like National Director of Activism at live -action and survivors of the abortion

Holocaust and now you're at white rose resistance, so so you've been around the block on this issue and you both have clear views on what we're gonna talk about today and Some I'll just say this and then

I'll let you guys talk Some have said this is a debate. I think actually you guys then I know has already this is a debate

So I'm like, well, I guess it's a debate now, but there's no debate format here So I asked the guys when this started developing into more of a debate.

Do you want to do like? Rebuttals and opening statements and that kind of thing and they were cool with just keeping things kind of fluid

So that's what I'm gonna do. I'm just gonna let them both talk and Then if we reach a point in the discussion where questions would be appropriate

I may ask some questions if we have questions from the audience I may put those in there, but I'm gonna try to be as fair and equal as I can

So if I give Ben a question, that's hard. I'm gonna try to find a hard question That's equally hard to give to AJ.

So that's how we want to do it this evening And I do the podcast as like this is my house your guests in my house

So I want you to feel that way and I want everyone else who's participating to feel that way

So here's the big question first Who wants to go first or does it matter to you guys?

I'm good other way. Yeah me too. I mean I can go first if you'd like It doesn't does usually who talks first is is the is the one that he doesn't want

You know, you usually people don't want to talk first in these type of things because if he if he talks first usually loses

But I mean I can I can go. Well, you're gonna go back for so so yeah,

I mean this is sort of like an opening statement, but just Your position and usually the person who goes first in a formal debate right would be the one who's

Supporting the the view and then the person who disagrees would be the person who goes next usually So the view as I understand it, this is what we agreed on was whether or not

Approaches to ending abortion that are incremental are Morally acceptable that's as I understand it.

So that's what we're gonna be talking about today And I know Ben disagrees with this AJ thinks that that's permissible

So I think AJ probably you should go first Explain why you think that's a permissible thing and then we'll let

Ben respond and we can go back and forth. Sound good. Sure Yeah, yeah Well, all right, I think it's helpful to start with basically just and I'm getting a little bit of an echo

John, too I don't know what that's all about But um, I think it's a little it's very helpful for me to just right out the gate kind of established

What? What biblical incrementalism or whatever you want to call it righteous arguing or voting for?

righteous increments to end a political evil What it is in what it isn't so, you know when

I say I'm not an abolitionist It's funny because different people have different perspectives of what what that even means like and it's actually it was funny because I Texted some friends that aren't even

Germane to this whole thing, but they kind of know the gist from the periphery on these and ask them.

Hey How would you define are you an abolitionist and then they said yes, and I said, what is that and one of them said well that means that you don't believe in rape or incest exceptions and Another one said that well that just means that you you want to criminalize abortion and So I think a lot of people get really confused when because they don't know all the insider baseball

When it comes to these topics because if that was the case, I would be an an abolitionist as well

And I actually I used to be an abolitionist For the first few years until I the some of the wheels started coming off for me

So, let me just say what I don't believe before I say what I do. Just maybe we can cut some

Like some unnecessary conversation out because I don't want to argue for I don't want to defend the pro -life movement

I don't want to defend people that think that we should forever Regulate this issue.

I don't want to defend people that want to victimize women. I I want to End this political evil and I want to save as many children as I can while I'm doing it

And so I would like to end this with I mean I'm I don't necessarily think this will end without a a great awakening or a revival of some sort or at least

Restoring of the family unit, but but regardless I would like to curtail evil as much as possible

So I I believe abortion should be criminalized I believe it that murder if you willfully like I mean if you

I Held the babies of third trimester, baby I mean if you are the guy who is dismembering that or you're you're the person who is who is

Responsible for the death of that child you need to be held to the fullest extent of the law

So I think rapists and murderers deserve the death penalty according to God's standard right, it's gonna take a long time to we all recognize that the

The beauty and dignity of every single human being to where our laws reflect that but yeah,

I I do think that there are examples of biblical incrementalism and and I also think that That it's not a you know to saying that we are for some type or against killing all some babies does not mean that we are for killing all babies

So and when it comes to like a heartbeat bill or something depending on some heartbeat bills

I would outright reject giving the circumstances others in if like it's in New York in California or someplace that that is

Unbelievably hard and they're they're killing most children and even I mean, California is a destination spot killing 20 20 30 40 50 thousand late -term abortion now

It's like if I could get that I would save a lot of life. And so I don't believe that Saying I believe in protecting babies with heartbeats

Means I'm sanctioning the killing of babies without heartbeats and so I Think that all of those analogies would apply there in terms of saving.

We need to save all the life lives we can and And while preaching the gospel while we do it, so that's essentially my perspective real quick, too

I my perspective is not that's not that Incremental ism is unjust but that it's inevitable and I actually

Where the wheels came off for me with the whole abolition thing was when I started realizing that equal protection does not equal biblical justice if the punishment if I get out life at conception bill and the punishment

That's a result of that is is You know a 50 -cent fine that might be equal protection, but it's not biblical justice and so if a heartbeat bill is

Indirectly sanctioning the children the death of children without heartbeats then an equal protection bill is is indirectly sanctioning

Putting image -bearers of God in a seven -foot cage for 20 years to life and something that God would never prescribe as just either so it's not that biblical

That's not that incremental ism is unjust. It's that it's inevitable. You just need to determine which type of incremental ism you want to biblically enshrine

Methodology methodologies of such so that's essentially my perspective alright, awesome, so Ben what what do you want to say?

You can respond to some of that if you want, but maybe just make the case for your position first Absolutely.

Well, thank you so much for having me Yeah, sorry if I framed it as purely debate. I know it's supposed to be discussion I was using the term debate loosely, but in essence

I'm I agree with AJ that increments in some sense are inevitable But I think I think you said in there the incremental ism is inevitable

Which is what I would disagree with I would say the incremental ism the way I'm defining that term is Explicitly pursuing change by degrees

Which I think is not something that God want us to do as Christians because never really what you do is you codify iniquity?

So some of those, you know pro -life bills who was mentioning I haven't read many heartbeat bills But I was just doing some research into Mike Johnson's history of pro -life activism and one of the bills that he had was the unborn child

Protection Act when he was a member of the Louisiana House and that bill does explicitly say, you know

Just because we're allowing we're banning You know late -term abortions with when you get to go in and cut up the baby

It's not to say that you know, and then there's a list of other methods you can still do to kill a baby So it depends on The kind of increment you're pursuing, you know,

I would concur that yes increments are inevitable, but incremental ism is not meddable You immediate ism is something you can actually do to truly move the ball down the field and pursue justice

And I think that's what God would call us to do You know, he does say establish justice like there are actual biblical commands for how we go about this

So one thing I would like AJ to do at some point tonight if he's willing is is to kind of show us why

You know, his approach is not violating, you know, Psalm 94 Isaiah 10 these explicit passages where we're told do not codify iniquity

You know do not, you know prescribe death by decree for the fatherless

So I lined out today on Twitter a handful of other arguments But we have to consider also the prudential failures of incrementalism over the past 50 years because that's that's the way we've gone about it for a long time now post -Roe is

Is teaching the culture that the way we should end abortion and teaching Christians the way we should end abortion is by increment

So I think we can examine the fruit there But what we've had after 50 plus years of pro -lifism in the

United States is a culture that is Extremely confused on what is human life. It's only got more degenerate even in other spheres, you know, what is a woman?

We don't know the answer to that question But on the abortion issue, you know when I do sidewalk counseling here in Philadelphia when

I talk to women, you know They'll use the pro -life excuses. They'll say well, my baby doesn't have a heartbeat yet My baby's just six weeks old whatever the case may be and they're picking that up from pro -life laws where if if Christians have been

You know the whole pro -life rights or pro anti -abortion rights have been saying no

We're not murdering babies at all from the very beginning We wouldn't be in a situation like that The battle lines would be a lot more clear and I think

AJ recognizes that's where he wants to be but I think he said earlier today as well that If you're giving me if I'm wrong, it's essentially that He's not a he wants to abolish abortion, but he's okay in the meantime with regulating abortion

That's where I think the heart of the disagreement lies where I would say let's not regulate abortion. Let's actually establish equal justice in the process trying to think if I miss any points, but Maybe maybe a helpful synonym for incrementalism is regulationism.

I heard that T. Russell Hunter said that recently. I think it's a good distinction Because obviously we can't go about and just say, you know, here's here's the book of Deuteronomy Let's enshrine this into our laws, right?

Because that would entail entire wholesale restructuring of the legal system of the criminal justice system the way that we you know adjudicate murder and homicide

Which I think everybody recognizes that's not what we're trying to do The question is are are these increments sins against God and I don't think in the abolitionist case that is what's happening

Cool. All right. Well yours was shorter So I'm trying to keep track of this.

So you have like you have two and a half minutes if you want it Ben So, well, do you want

AJ to respond now or do you you want to keep talking? It's up to you That's fine with me. Yeah, you can respond.

All right Yeah, so I'm much I agree with their I First thing you talked about the

I think the Unborn Infants Protection Act I think that was a really bad thing for a few reasons because one day they admitted outright that it

Probably it was just something that they could kind of grandstand that they passed but it wouldn't really save any lives

And so yeah I don't think I think we should be very careful as to what type of message we're sending

Especially if If it's not going to result in the net positive of saving people's lives this so this

Understanding of teaching by increment. I do think there is some perspective there because I do believe that the law is a tutor

However, I just I guess I think my response would be like if if there was in Nazi Germany If there was ten

Jews that were lined up about to get gunned down by by the

Germans If they said to me Basically, should we save five of them?

In in that regard it would be kind of disingenuous for me to for somebody to say to me

Oh, well, if you save if you save five of them, then you're teaching them that it's okay to kill some of them so in especially with these things in regards to Unjust weights and measures.

I think we'll get to that like in that circumstance If if they had said, oh, well, should we just should we kill the one or should we save the ones that?

That aren't Jewish, I I don't think it would it would be pretty just ingenuous if I said, oh

Well, that would be unjust weights and measures. So so I Know you shouldn't so I think we're left with this inevitability in an unjust system where?

Like look all of these we live in a system where everybody all unborn children are up for grabs

So like in California, you can kill him to the day of birth So if I was to get a heartbeat bill passed

It would be so disingenuous for me to to think to make the argument that I'm actually

Sanctioning the the death of children without heartbeats No, actually the abortion industry is doing that that the people that have written laws that's already taking place

My my law is just simply saving Saving some that that I can based on whether that it's politically feasible

Mm -hmm. Yeah So with the I'm glad you mentioned political feasibility because I think that's one of the issues at hand where we're convinced that only certain increments or certain measures in this discussion are actually politically feasible where Really what the

Christian should be doing in politics and this gets into the conversation we're all having a month or two ago with with Trump and how do we respond to Trump is

Is buying into the paradigm that you know There there's these set outcomes in politics and we have to pick, you know

Between the less of the two evils where really the way that political engagement works. It's all about power What you do is you exert as much power as you possibly can to change the outcome, right?

We're saying, you know, you need to support this bill We need to identify the legislators that are on the fence about you know

My abolition bill or whatever the case may be and say if you don't support this bill I'm gonna you know direct funds, you know get boots on the ground to knock doors in your district and make sure you don't get reelected next year, so It's I don't like the the mindset of buying into a false paradigm and saying that we must have incremental ism

Or else, you know, we will get nothing. I don't think that's true And I think you we actually when we buy into the paradigm

We ensure that that's the best we can ever get is incremental measures And I think that's why over the past few years We've had

Legal abortion where some states have kind of increments and right now a lot of the states are passing 15 -week bills

Which actually allow 94 % of abortions before and anyway So they're pretty much ineffective because even those that last 6 % could just have the abortion

You know beforehand and it just adjust their behavior and I bring up a similar concern with the heartbeat bill Even considering that, you know, most of those heartbeat bills have exemptions for the mother which

I know that you're opposed to and so forth but it's important to reframe our thinking on this matter to You know from like, oh, what is what is feasible because you know

That may have be a broader sample so that we can think it's actually how do we change the outcome of this? How do we you know preach righteousness both, you know preaching the gospel, but also calling for repentance

Which in the civil context looks like establishing justice. Well, let me take it out of the feasibility

You know the the abstract and actually give you an example and I'm so glad that you mentioned the 94 % and the 15 -week bills

Because what I'm trying to illustrate is this this isn't our this isn't nebulous this isn't some theory that I'm bringing up that that these

Distinctions actually matter and they're actually that if you get this wrong

If you if you don't try to save the actual babies that you can Then what's going to happen is you will actually allow for more bloodshed.

Let me give you an example I'm glad you said you said 94 % of the children are killed

At before 15 weeks. So 15 week bills do do absolutely nothing.

I I completely Little to nothing. I completely agree there, but it's the abolitionist position that allowed for uh that A 15 -week bill to happen in arizona just two weeks ago or a week ago not even a week or a week or two ago

Um, and let me explain what happened um, there was an 1864 bill that was already in the on the books

And this bill said, uh, basically criminalized abortion for the abortion provider but the the gist of it was that um

It wasn't a crim a crime for the mother and The aha and the abolitionist groups lobbied with the democrats to basically say

Don't repeal this or repeal this bill because it creates unjust weights and measures and now as a result of the democrats siding with aha and the abolitionists um, the bill got repealed and now 94 percent of The babies are being killed in arizona if that stat is correct there

So this isn't arbitrary. This isn't abstract these these ideas have consequences and in this particular this political

Ideal this ideal ideology has victims Yeah I don't know.

That's quite accurate the abolitionists. I saw who were opposing the 1864 bill first of all for the record I was just saying, you know, leave that bill intact leave it alone.

If anything somebody should just amend it um and and make an equal protection bill and then and then pass that instead but That's all

I I didn't see any abolitionists necessarily saying, you know repeal that bill. Yes, you know, go ahead and repeal that bill

Anyway, um, maybe you have counter examples, but yeah, yeah, I do if I could speak to that real quick Well, I mean jeff jeff durbin got uh utterly destroyed for supporting it

I mean the the the Aha groups and and abolitionists rising were were completely coming after him publicly for trying to support retaining that bill and not

And not removing it and put up putting an equal protection bill in and I mean in that regard it's like So I guess we could get out of the abstract and I could ask you uh, why why it would be okay in that circumstance to vote for If I was if you could vote for that right and rather than just leave it alone um

Why would that be okay if it's sanctioning unjust weights and measures? but um

And not just outright unjust in something that we should and incorrectly preaching to the masses

Telling them that that if you kill a If a certain class of humans kills an unborn child, then that's not a crime

Yeah, I mean I was not the one nor were any abolitionists or anyone really any pro -lifers either because it was in 1864

Nobody put that law on the books Uh, at least I can say what I was saying publicly, you know, I was writing about this and quoting

You know jeff durbin and an abortion now and restate reform and the groups that are on the ground You know fighting to keep that bill intact but also for equal protection

I was quoting them saying that you know, you know, leave that bill alone And let's just do equal protection.

We introduced a bill three years ago You know in 2021 in arizona that the pro -life establishment killed then by the way They went on to take away the the penalty the adjacent penalty in the 1864 territorial law

That did penalize the woman because we used to have those on the books in the united states And it was the pro -life movement that actually took those away in arizona.

Uh, that's at least what I was saying I mean, maybe it's a bit inconsistent But you know, I I would say, you know, that does just because i'm inconsistent or you know

On that point doesn't mean that you know incrementalism is correct So, you know, well sure sure but but but that's my perspective.

My perspective is unjust Incrementalism is inevitable So so if if your bill is we need we can never establish anything other than biblical justice

We need to establish justice for our pre -born neighbors Well, why wouldn't you resist that bill?

because clearly it doesn't establish justice, so I actually in a sense

I I I Appreciate the other side the abolitionist the hardcore abolitionists on this perspective because at least they're being consistent

At least they're saying we want to establish biblical justice. This bill doesn't therefore it's not worthy of our support

Can I jump in real quick? I apologize. I just need to uh explain to everyone. I keep you see

I keep looking down. Um, so Ajay, do you still hear the echoing? Uh, I do but it's it's tolerable.

Don't worry It's just okay because I was hearing it too and that's why I was muting you ben I was trying to anticipate when you were gonna talk and stuff

So i'll keep doing that to monitor things also put myself in the middle here since you guys are the ones disagreeing here um, do you mind if I ask a clarifying question to both of you that I feel like might tease this out a little bit so um

This is the impression i'm getting so far in this. Uh, this debate over the arizona law and so forth is that I think ben you're looking at uh,

And maybe I shouldn't say that law because I don't know if you think this about that law, but heartbeat bills and incremental

Uh arrangements that aren't perfect biblical justice and that kind of thing you look at those things

It seems like as affirming standards Like if you vote for these things you are affirming That like this should be the standard

And I think aj you correct me if i'm wrong either of you It looks like you're looking at these as restrictive standards.

So i'm voting for this as a restriction. I know this isn't The standard but this is a restriction.

So I i'm not voting to kill people on sunday through wednesday Um, i'm voting to save them on wednesday through sunday, right so I I think that might be a different way.

You're looking at the same thing like a aj's looking at it as a restrictive thing And ben's looking at it as an affirming thing.

So, um, I I don't know if that clarifies it I thought it might so either one of you

I think ben you were up next uh, does that Clarify the issue. Is that how you're looking at it?

Yeah to an extent and and really what One of the reasons why i'm holding the standard is because I actually read these bills frequently for what

I do for work You know when i'm reporting on these things And they're it's just like these don't do anything like these these laws are they these regulations can be easily worked around And if you if you're really determined enough to kill your baby, you can you can skirt

I mean i'm writing a book right now all about this topic where you know I tear apart all the you know pro -life bills that have been

Proposed in the place of abolition bills over the past 10 -15 years and you know, oklahoma, louisiana, arizona

All these states where there have been these big abolition battles And that's that's what you are doing when you vote for one of these bills is you are affirming

You know, it is okay to kill a baby, you know before this point but not after this point or whatever the case may be um

So that's that's what i'm having a problem with and you know There are explicit biblical commands to not do that sort of thing to codify iniquity and i'm reading the bill

I'm like, yeah, there's the codified iniquity section and like, you know section 3a or whatever the case may be

Okay, so that's standard across the board on pro -life What you're calling pro -life legislation like heartbeat heartbeat bills and that kind of thing.

Yeah for the most part. Yeah Okay. So aj what do you think of my characterization there?

Well, no, you're I I I mean I would put it in simpler form um I would

I would just say that um

Protecting a child the protecting uh, like like, okay, i'll just give a very simple like That if you vote for a heartbeat bill in certain circumstances, obviously, there's wisdom that that that needs to be going to that decision in certain circumstances voting for a for a heartbeat bill does not equal

Sanctioning the babies the death of babies without heartbeats that's what kind of rare I would like to get but I but I did also want to address what what uh,

What ben just said too So i'll let sure yeah go for it Um, well, you know you had said one of the reasons why you you didn't support these was because they don't do anything

I mean I can go into the the practical aspects of of whether these bills do anything

But that's that's beside the point I think in not to the crux of the issue here

Um, because if they did do something, would you support them? Because I hear a principle so I mean and back to the debate topic at hand the the debate topic was is it morally?

uh permissible to to Not necessarily do they do anything because most of these heartbeat bills

I wouldn't support either right it's a very actually when when ben and I Really agree when it comes to the practicality of a lot of this stuff

Like we're not very far off like like I know ben enough to just by kind of looking at him from afar that We when it comes down to the brass tacks of whether we would actually vote for some of this stuff

We probably agree in 99 % of the cases But that's a different thing than what what

I why i'm here is I am very careful about um

Binding people's consciences towards one type of political way of ending evil

Yeah Yeah, I certainly understand that in you know We're trying to drill down on is that there are actual biblical commands that guide how we do this, right?

Where you know, uh, I don't think I would reject the category the notion that you know Politics is all prudential or all compromise.

I said there actually are You know standards that god does have for believers in in politics and I you know,

I am convinced You know i'm reading through isaiah right now and constantly there's these calls for biblical justice protecting the fatherless all these sorts of things

But then also like i'm saying, you know explicit prohibition saying, you know You you do not pass bills that god hates essentially sure, you know

Because then you you will you cannot expect his blessing as a result of that Um, so I do i'm not trying to bind consciences, you know,

I think there is legitimate You know disagreement and and and so forth that's why we're having discussions like this, right?

We're we're allowed to disagree as brothers and sisters in christ on this but you know, I do think there is there is a

Extent to which it becomes sin and then you know, and also not prudential I mean, we're supposed to be wise as serpents innocent as doves

And really what a lot of these bills are doing is allowing, you know, the politicians, you know the pro -life republican politicians and lobbyists to You know pull fast ones on believers where they take their money and they say, you know

Give me give me this money. I'll pass this like equal, you know, um This born alive protection act or you know, i've seen bills that say, you know

You have to give the baby a proper burial once they die It's like are you kidding me? Will we ever pass this bill if it were like in the case of serial killers, you know

You can serial kill all you want but then you have to properly bury the victim You know, it just makes me mad even talking about it, right?

and it should make all of us angry that our our lawmakers are this weak and in this inept and I think a lot of It is because you know, we're buying into these false narratives saying we must have these these, you know, incrementalist measures

And I think you asked a question where you said, um, you know, if it did do anything, would you support it?

Uh, and I would just reject that premise because I don't think they do anything I haven't seen an example of you know, a bill like you're talking about that does actually meaningfully save pre -born lives

You know, uh, and even setting aside, you know, if if we have a six -week standard, you know

Maybe it'll save some practically and you know I'm not i'm not denying the fact that you know If texas or florida or something has a six -week bill that some babies will be saved and some moms will say

I'm not going to do this but You know, I I don't think that actually meaningfully happens to a provable degree because still you know

There's the abortion pills you can cross state lines, you know, there's self -managed abortion. There's all sorts of ways.

Yeah. Sorry. Uh Yeah No, oh no, I was agreeing with you like totally agree like No, we need to we need to close these polls man and and we need to have serious laws in place against abortion trafficking and and trafficking of of uh,

I mean look i'm i'm I think States that can do it and criminalize abortion and actually make it a crime.

We need to do that. Um, but uh I I still have I don't know if I heard a

Specific answer though like in terms of like if if a heartbeat bill actually did save 99 percent

Uh 0 .9 of the babies would you vote for it? Yeah, well,

I I still reject that premise just because I don't think they saved 99 .9 of babies No, I I know i'm i'm intentionally giving you a hypothetical to determine, um to determine like What your where your standards are like is the issue the wording is the issue the amount of?

Is the is the practicality of it or is the issue just the principle? Yeah, I mean again i'll repeat, you know, i've never seen i've been looking at these bills for a few years now

I haven't been around the block as long as as long as you in this in this orbit But you know, i've never seen a bill that actually does something like that.

Um, but something like what? Yeah in terms of the principle. I mean, yeah, I would oppose it because it's codifying iniquity

I don't think god blesses that sort of thing Can I ask a clarifying question? This isn't meant to be challenging

I'm, just aware of the people who are listening and and some of them might be surprised To hear this because they're thinking hey,

I live in a state where Planned Parenthood doesn't even exist anymore They all got pushed out right wasn't what just happened with the ending of row wasn't that you know years and decades of pro -life or anti -abortion movement kind of Seeing the fruit of its labors and and now you're saying that you know, none of this really means anything

I don't know if that's what you're saying, but maybe just a point of clarification Yeah, I can go first and I think aj and I would probably agree on a lot of this uh the answer to this question where you know, uh row was

You know the overturn of row was good But dobbs was bad where dobbs allows states to just make make up their own

Abortion laws and decide who lives and dies an actual just ruling from the supreme court would have been you know We have the 14th amendment

Let's protect all pre -born life and guarantee the equal protection of the laws to all citizens including the pre -born ones

Uh, so in my reporting i've been looking at these stats constantly, you know We're up to I think 73 percent of abortions in the united states now happen via pill

Uh here in eastern pennsylvania. We just had a Planned Parenthood close, right? This is you know, this is a purple state It's it's not just in red states that they're starting to close clinics

But uh here in eastern pennsylvania, they close a Planned Parenthood because they're all doing they're just doing pills now, right?

So it's I think maybe something that a lot of people don't realize is that you know Just because the Planned Parenthood, you know down in dallas texas or in fort worth or you know

Some other red area closed. It doesn't mean that abortion is over It's just happening, you know The abortion clinic has moved from the clinic the physical clinic to you know

The dorm room or or the upstairs bedroom where you conceive while you eject the baby into the toilet essentially uh

So now every home isn't a deal with and that's I would contend The reality that none of our laws actually do deal with and why we need abolition

Well, yeah, no, no one no one is uh denying we don't need abolition, right Definitely not anybody on this on this platform here

But it it seems kind of weird to me and and it and I don't know I know you don't mean to be disingenuous but it feels a little disingenuous when the abolitionists, um

Have been constantly including yourself calling Things like heartbeat bills iniquitous and calling it sin and um and calling it evil and then saying you don't do anything and then if I Pose a hypothetical that if they did do like and say hey, is it because do you do you?

Oppose them because they don't do anything Or because they they are in principle evil

Um, I I didn't really get an answer to that the question. Um, and so I I I again

I would like to know if if they actually did save 99 .9 Of lives if if you would support them not just because i'm trying to put you in a corner but just because like it seems more than fair that if you're going to call me evil for for supporting a bill, uh,

You should be able to answer why? Right, well, like I said, you know,

I want to stress again. I'm not trying to be disingenuous I'm just trying to be clear. Um, so apologies if I am being you know, coming off as that but um

I've never seen A harvey bill that actually does that right? I want to yeah, I hear I heard you.

I heard you when you said that Yes, so is that just i'm not going to answer then or because I asked like if you would yeah, so I would not vote for it right if I were a member of And I could pass a harvey bill

I would not vote for it, correct Sorry, did you say congress there? I accidentally muted you ben. Did you remember of congress? I I said a member of my state legislature.

Okay. All right. Yeah or congress whatever the case would be I would not vote for it. Right and I would say that's because it's an iniquitous decree

You know, we actually do have the standard of you know, you shall not codify iniquity, right? You know as they attend, uh, psalm 96 or psalm 94 excuse me, um got it and like proverbs 30 31, you know

There are minimum standards where we can't just do whatever we want when it comes to politics We can't just write into our laws that you know, certain babies have to die, you know under the chair

No, I appreciate the consistency there for sure for me It would just be like man.

I don't know how anybody it that's that really care like and i'm not trying to impugn your motives, but When it comes down to it, like if we can save not if if we could literally save 99 .9

of the babies and um by By not even by not even sanctioning but by indirectly saying

Uh, we can we we should just not kill babies with with uh with heartbeats

I I don't know why anybody who wants to protect children would rather prefer us killing 99 .9

of them Right. Well again that i've never seen anything like that. So I don't think that's a real world world situation but maybe

I can You know return a question to you where if we look at like isaiah 10, maybe we can start there.

Yeah, if I flip to it um So it says Yeah, 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 rights.

So how do you interpret that text? Yeah, so, um Woe to the people that have the power to end abortion.

They don't I don't like in other words You can't you can't take you can't ignore the context of something right?

Like It's it's as if you're you're applying an ancient manuscript in a in a in an age where there was kings and monarchs

That could just literally write decrees and end Abort like to take that and then assume

That we actually have the power um to end abortion uh therefore we can't ever uh do

Support some type of bills that that that gives some children Protection when they're killing all of them.

I think is is um is taking the intention of that out out of context Okay. Yeah.

I mean i'm not seeing in this text necessarily You know woe to kings or absolute monarchs who decree iniquitous decrees, you know

Um, i'm not trying to you know, i'm trying to tease out what you're saying. Yeah You know because I mean cards on the table.

Yeah, but I don't bear a sword either right? I mean So so like yeah, of course so we're taking the general principles of of the context of which that's hermeneutical principle is that that you can't ignore the context of what's going on there and then use some wooden literalism to try to put that in and say that I i'm i'm biblically enshrining this type of ideology and saying that I can't ever kill

I can't ever save any babies because because I might Violate this wooden like we have to see that the intention is there like Those like if you have the power to write the

And actually accomplish those then woe to you who don't I don't think it's it's referring to somebody that this context in our democracy that that where um where we don't have the power to write as a king to Snap our fingers and have abortion be abolished.

So I I just I think it's in that sense a category or Okay, can I just jump in and see if this clarifies it?

I think we're back to what I said earlier about the affirming versus the restraining standard because it sounds like Um, you could correct me from wrong aj, but if ben brought up other verses of similar nature

You might look at that and say yeah, but in the context in which we live Some of these restrictions that help save lives these are righteous things to do these are righteous laws

It's they're not killing anyone and I know that doesn't apply to all the heartbeat bills But once hypothetically or maybe in the actual world, maybe there are some that do you would say?

um, no, that is a righteous thing to do with the power that we have we should do this because We're restraining evil.

Whereas I think ben's looking You're looking at it ben and you're saying that no This isn't the perfect standard of god's justice and because of that we're affirming injustice

It sounds like it keeps coming back to that issue in my mind. Sure. Yeah. Yeah, so I would say, you know

So i'm a general equity theonomist, right if you want to be precise with words I'm, not sure where you stand aj necessarily on i'm the same.

Yeah, i'm gonna say Yeah, so i'd say that there is an abiding validity of of the moral principles of god's law that you know

Just because you know, we're in we're Non -law under grace that means we can just toss out the the civil law god does have good ideas on how to establish justice

I think you know christians should look at deuteronomy and you know those sorts of texts and say, you know

That is a reflection of the god who I love his righteous character And I want those those similar laws or you know applied to my context, you know in In order to love my neighbor as myself and protect them and restrain evil and all sorts of things

So I would say texts like this actually show us how to Go about abolishing abortion or establishing justice where you know

This is this is an example of something not to do right where you do not You know establish injustice, you know, you do not decree iniquitous decrees.

Um And it says whoa, that's that's judgment language. So I would not expect god to you know, um to bless an effort that You know goes about doing something like that.

Maybe i'm inconsistent with how i'm applying it You know i'm willing to acknowledge it and be proven wrong But you know, I would like to know how you're at least attempting to obey it

Yeah, yeah totally no, I mean I just i'm just saying I think there's other hermeneutical principles that that that apply there so like Like, you know, whoa to those who take innocent life, right?

But um, if you're gonna tell me that Telling the gustavo he

He does he can save five chill five jews Means that i'm sanctioning

The death of the other five is it's like and then trying to trying to say use exodus chapter 20 thou shalt not murder as As i'm somehow implicitly guilty of that.

It would be it would be I think a very bad exegesis Okay. Yeah I mean,

I think there are categories of implicit guilt for child sacrifice like in leviticus 20 You know those who closed their eyes to child sacrifice.

I'm sure you've read that passage Obviously, you know sure because you're very active in in opposing. Um child sacrifice and rescuing the innocent um

God warns in Leviticus 20 if you do not establish justice If you do not hold back those who are bringing the children and pass them through the fire for moloch

I'll oppose you too, right? So I do think there is like a category for blood guilt and and not in failing sin by emotion

Sin by omission failing to establish justice Yeah, no, I I agree. Yeah So are we argue is this do you do you guys think coming down to?

Like aj it seems like you're very much arguing political strategy Like what's the strategy we should use to do this?

And ben i'm not saying you're not talking about political strategy But it sounds like you're more idealistic about like you're you're talking in terms of law

And aj you're talking in terms of politics That's at least what i'm hearing that there's I don't know if there's a disconnect because of that.

Um, and maybe what would tease that out is Oklahoma verse where'd you say ben? Are you in pennsylvania?

Do you live there? Yeah. Oh, we're not that far from each other Okay, so i'm in new york, which is more hopeless than pennsylvania on this issue like I I don't know if if you you each would look at Different strategies for different places because in a place like oklahoma it would seem

You've had republican majorities for how many years that say they're going to end abortion and then they don't do it And it's just like guys do it

Right, like I I think everyone with their salt would be like abolish it now in oklahoma

You guys all say this but then in a place like pennsylvania or even more so in new york you don't have the political will to be able to Secure that kind of a thing and so You know,

I don't know if that would be acceptable more to you ben It sounds like you're in pennsylvania already thinking through this.

Would you see different strategies in different places? Yeah, uh, so no, so I would say abolitionism and That sort of thing does still apply in a place like california or new york where well

Here's why it's like if you look at um, you know, will um, william will force with abolishing the slave trade, you know

He it took him decades to do this, but he held to the same standard and you know He learned on his deathbed that his bill had passed meanwhile

You had people, you know trying to regulate how big the slave ships were and things of that nature Where he was saying no, this is what we need to do

Uh, we need to hold this righteous standard and demand, you know Everybody else needs to move to my position right assume the assume the center so to speak

Um, which christians have every right to do because you know, god is the ruler of this world This is his world, you know, that is actually the actual center is whatever he says um so if I were in a place like california where Even like an incremental measure is not going to pass if you want to speak prudentially um

I wouldn't even waste my time trying to do that I would just start laying the groundwork for you know Maybe in 20 30 years my kids will take up this work, but i'm going to start calling mike

I'm going to start calling gavin newsom to repentance And you know robert bonta the attorney general to repentance on this matter and saying what you need to do

Is establish justice for the people and treat them as the human beings that they are and then you know Let them decide the increments dusty deavers was saying that recently

If if there has to be increments let it be on somebody else's conscience and let them justify that before god

So maybe you know in 10 years, you know, god blesses your labors and you know, they pass

You know a born alive act or something like very preliminary, you know Don't be the person who was calling that whole time for the born alive act be the person who was calling for complete abolition of abortion aj i'd be curious like in a

State that's red like oklahoma or maybe idaho Where they have majorities and a governor that's you know, say they're all pro -life

They want to end abortion on some level and they don't do it Would you then if you were in the legislature vote for?

A halfway measure or and maybe that's a bad way to put it But that i'm trying to frame it the best way

I can. Um, Would you vote for like a heartbeat bill or something or would you demand? Hey, we're in a place where everyone agrees that we should end to end it

Absolutely. No, I I I like that's why I said there's actually practical Probably very little difference between ben and I I mean i've supported equal protection bills

And like honestly i've supported i've supported every there's hasn't been an equal protection bill.

I haven't supported um I think I think it's an amazing thing to try to do even in Blue states like because you're preaching the gospel while you're doing it

Like you're holding the standard and saying all of you are in sin like repent Do justice like I I think there's a huge role

In every one of the three spheres of god's kingdom to be preaching the gospel and calling forth consistency however,

I I don't when it comes to um You know one of those spheres actually providing

Protection and justice. I just don't I want to end the bloodshed and so Um, if I have an opportunity to to to save some children i'll do that And but to be answer your question specifically like we we're working in In idaho right now to to try to not only defeat this abortion amendment that's coming in 2026 but then to to establish an equal protection bill.

I would love to get behind that I think We we need to rally the church behind that cause so no like florida, oklahoma, louisiana

I think it's absolute treachery that has happened and I have the entire time have been calling out

Like to my own peril. I mean I without going into details There's been organizations that i'm no longer with because of my voice in in resisting

The the political and moral compromise of the pro -life establishment Can I bring this into a different area and then we can get back to abortion

But I just thought this would be a great kind of thought experiment. Um, i'm I'm assuming that you're both

You both think pornography is wrong and that no one should view it and I know ben Because you've been vocal about this on twitter.

You think it should just be banned the government should ban it Uh aj, I don't know. Do you think the government should ban pornography?

100 however, I would support like like like if somebody said we should had a bill to Ban child pornography if it you know in some instance that would they had some loophole

I wouldn't say that just because I have a i'm supporting a bill that banned child pornography that means i'm okay with other forms of pornography and actually that might be the

That might be the crux of our debate. I would like to kind of maybe tease that out and figure out Is it is it the terminology ben that you guys are resisting

Or like so in other words if I just had a heartbeat bill, that's didn't say You can kill babies without heartbeats, but just a bill uh that said

We are protecting babies with heartbeats and you can't kill babies with heartbeats

Are you saying it's iniquitous because it implicitly? sanctions uh injustice

Yeah, um I don't know if it implicitly does like i'm saying, you know, there are statues that Like they're they're, you know components of these bills that clarify when you can still kill babies, right?

um so But there's others that don't so that's what i'm asking is like Um, if if we if I crafted a piece of legislation that's been done

That that didn't sanction in the language Any killing of any human being but just saying which which human beings we can protect would you support those?

Yeah, so so in that case what you're doing is you you could be pushing for actual Abolition, but you're choosing not to you're making a you and and um the political

Actors the lawmakers the lobbyists are making a calculated decision to not push for full abolition

Um, so what I would do in a situation like that instead of pushing for the heartbeat bill, you know I would say let's call for abolition and then maybe they come back and say well

Let's do the heartbeat bill instead and that'd be frustrating. But at least again, like it's not on my conscience It's not you know, that's that's not you know, it's not my my guilt that i'm incurring

Totally and I completely agree with you there Like I I don't I don't advise anybody start with the heartbeat bill for these reasons

I mean like even in a place like like it generally and this is why I say that we generally agree In 99 % of the cases most likely is because if you can get a heartbeat bill

You could probably get a life at conception bill, right? so so I would I would try to and I mean this happened

I believe in georgia where they they um They were uh thinking.

Okay, let's let's put a um, let's get a heartbeat bill in and they said, okay No, well, let's not do that.

Let's fight for a life conception bill because they know Once it goes to the house and then the senate they're going to add

That and that what they ended up happening was a heartbeat bill At the end of the at the end of the day

But if they had started with a heartbeat bill, they probably would have had like a 15 -week bill or something totally egregious

And so I agree practically with you, but I guess i'm just trying to find um I'm trying to like find out what what what what is the principle here?

Like is it that you're outright? Explicitly sanctioning injustice or or what if there was some type of bill that that actually um

Criminalized abortion without but of certain image bearers of god without implicitly sanctioning the death of others if if That and i'm i don't mean to put a hypothetical.

I'm just trying i'm trying to get I was trying I was trying to give you the the pornography example to see

Yeah, you answered it kind of like you would support a law to outlaw Uh, like to to censor child children from viewing pornography, which there are laws in the books now in some states where uh internet providers, uh cannot

You know children cannot access pornography if they're not a certain age or something like that. So, okay I thought that that's

I thought that was a parallel But but ben would you like reject that bill because it sounds like aj you already said you would support a bill like that if Uh, well,

I don't want to put words in your mouth, you know aj. Yeah. No, I would I would okay Yeah, well, I would you know,

I guess this is analogous to the heartbeat issue. Um, yeah to some extent But that's why I wanted to bring it up. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah Um, but I would go to those politicians to say, you know, why not go for the whole thing, right?

Why not just say let's ban porn and then if they insist on doing just the child thing, you know

It's literally not my fault, right? But I would I would keep pushing for the standard, you know But would you vote for it is the question that i'm asking like would you if it was like there was one vote?

They needed to get it passed and they can't get it passed without that vote. Aj would vote for it Would you vote for it ben or would you?

Would it go it would go back to the status quo of porn is just legal, you know in all cases Yeah, um, that's a good question.

I I don't know. I mean the pornography is Not as I suppose as clear as as the abortion issue where it's literally baby murder, um,

I'd have to I don't know. I have to think about clear in scripture, right? Like that it would be lusting it would be it would be coveting another person's wife in some cases.

Yeah Yeah, it's sinful. I mean, um Yeah, i'm i'm legit i'm not sure you know again

This is a hypothetical and yeah putting all the putting all the putting all the pressure on like one guy You know if i'm if i'm in oklahoma and i'm the i'm a lawmaker in oklahoma and everybody else is voting for it

I would abstain or you know to make a statement perhaps. Um, i'm not i'm not sure I would you know

I legitimately don't know but when it when it comes to like abortion what you know child sacrifice

Which is the topic of this debate or this conversation whatever you want to call it. I would say You know, i'm not going to vote for an iniquitous decree.

I'm just not going to do it Yeah, and I wonder if we picked other hypotheticals if that would even tease it out more

But I you know because there's a lot god laid down many laws right murder is just one but it's an important one but um

But if we had this if we were absolutist in everything or pragmatic in everything

I so i'll start with you aj I guess and then i'll let you guys continue the banter I'm, sorry for imposing myself here.

I kind of couldn't help myself. It's my show, right? So um How dare you speak up in your own show?

I know i'm catching myself realizing that I shouldn't be interfering this much but aj Uh, you know if we were just pragmatic on everything

Or practical and like hey, what do the people want? What can we get away with while still maintaining our seats and getting elected the next year?

Wouldn't that be a race to the bottom? 100 no, I mean and it's funny because I keep thinking i'm gonna get you and then

I don't Well, it's funny. I mean i've been if you go on my instagram i've been so vocal about trump because it bugs the crap out of me that Every pro -life leader is totally kissing his feet right now while he sells our entire pro -life party out to to to like the democrats and so um

It's I think we we need to push for the standard um, but for me, it just it comes down to like is this really all we can get like is this really all that I can do um to to protect every single child because to be honest with you like blood guiltiness like it's

I mean you mentioned it before ben but blood guiltiness. The only thing that removes blood guiltiness

Is bloodshed? I mean and and I hate to say that but it's it's just true like even genesis 9 it says like if you willfully

Spill men's blood by man your blood will be spilled and so this idea that we're establishing justice by Instituting heartbeat bills is just ridiculous

Like locking an image like like thinking that we we did justice By locking an image bearer of god up in cage for 10 years and calling that bit

Washing our hands and saying we actually did what was just To me is just is silly.

So if you're gonna if a heartbeat bill That doesn't explicitly sanction the the um

The taking of some of an image bearer of god without a heartbeat like if it just says let's save these bills if that is implicitly unjust

Then an equal protection bill is implicitly unjust because it sanctions

Egregious crimes That god has never established And actually sanctions injustice against people who are breaking god's law in in killing human beings

So that's why i've always said it's not It's not that Unrighteous incrementalism is unjust.

It's that it's inevitable Uh, okay. I'll ask the the question to ben then uh to from the flip side if we were idealistic

On everything to the point that you know, there's never any kind of wiggle room compromise um

We just it's got to be Exactly what god has laid down in his law. Would we be able to make progress?

uh in areas like this, but also that could extend out to areas like pornography and the sanctity of marriage and other moral issues like Shouldn't there be some momentum or some?

Ability to take a step and then take another step to to get to where we are or if there is how would that look?

yeah, so I would I would reject the premise that You know, you're calling it idealism and all these sorts of things and saying

I don't know what to call it What's that? I said, I don't know what to call it. You use your whatever. That's fine I'm, just saying, you know, that's that's the term that you know is being employed

But I I would i'm i'm not really i'm not trying to be idealistic as in, you know i'm a 19 year old libertarian, you know with a fedora saying, you know, this is what it has to be and No real world experience i'm saying this is actually how you do politics, you know politics is not about compromises about power

It's about you know making the politicians do what you want them to do uh with a limited set of resources with a limited voting bloc

Um, you know, and I think you'd agree with this john that all you really need is a small and committed minority You know, that's how the alphabet mafia has taken over this country in a very short period of time.

So You know, I know you would also reject that, you know, we need this 51 percent, you know, regenerate, you know

Majority to get anything done. But you know, I think if christians legitimately do Apply strategic pressure into proper ways with the righteous standard then eventually we'll start seeing movement in the right direction instead of the opposite uh, so I think it may be just being a different approach to politics where Um, you don't really make friends with politicians necessarily you make them do it what you want

Um, you know by applying money by applying votes, whatever the case may be Uh to threaten their power if they if they cross you um so I know that there's been abolition groups who

You know when they're when there's like a committee chair who blocks their bill They they channel money into putting up billboards in his district to get him, you know

Get their prime another primary opponent elected instead, you know, that's the sort of thing i'd like to see and you know with aj

I know that he agrees with everything. I just said, you know, that's what you want to ideally do You know if he's putting forth like 60 percent of the efforts to that and then 40 toward like some heartbeat bill in california

I want him to put you know that 40 toward helping me do the other 60 if that makes sense

Yeah, yeah, um, well we've gone about an hour now and I want to be mindful of your time

I know we could probably talk about this forever and I should probably get to some questions. So for five dollars earl starbuck asks

Uh given that most abortions are going to be done with the abortion pill and abortifacient birth control Should we focus attention on banning those?

Uh aj and then ben yeah, it's going to be tricky to do it though, um, it's weird because the

Everybody's saying how abortion is returned to the states and it's no longer a federal issue But like literally we're federally subsidizing abortion and then also the federal government

Brought this I mean the fda is is the one who's behind the abortion pill and regulating that.

Um So, no, I I definitely think I mean I would actually point to somebody like markley dixon in texas because he's he's trying to use, um, whatever means possible to Including private enforcement mechanisms to try to ban abortion trafficking so, uh, we need to make it a crime in the states that we can and even a crime to to um, crime both civilly and and criminally uh to to uh traffic any

Uh child across state lines to be to be either poisoned Or um, or even in state to to uh, either poison or dismember someone

Yeah, ben Oh, I have you muted. Sorry. Sorry ben go start start over now. It's my bad.

No worries. No worries um I think aj and I are going to see eye to eye on on the need for that, you know Making sure that abortion pills abortifacients are dealt with.

Um Because it is you know Now it's pushing out three quarters of the abortions that happen in this country and abortion rates are

Increasing because of them now, it's just more available people know about them more post row um, so that's why you know,

I call for abolition bills is because you know, if you're facing down, um, you know murder penalties because You know because you're taking pills and ordering from the mail and killing your baby in the privacy of your own home

And then you know, there's a text message You know record of you doing that and there's sufficient evidence to convict you then

You know, I think those are the sort of laws we can pass and I think aj and I would probably agree that most of the pro -life movement is not even thinking in those terms

They're they hardly even care like, you know, and then now you have this situation where the average pro -life voter

And truly a christian who has good intentions is looking at you know The abortion mill in their state closing down they're celebrating thinking that abortion is ending when really it's actually increasing, but it's just not seen as much

Uh, and then we have a question for you aj Would the white rose resistance stance be that go the gop who kill bills to abolish abortion should be excluded from the table

Of communion why or why not? Oh, that's a tough one. Um Hmm I I think maybe it was gop senators because he didn't have the word in there or yeah

Politicians who kill abortion bills to ban abortion I I mean if I was a pastor of somebody that actively uh, like if if mike johnson was in my congregation

Man, dude, that would be tough, dude. I I would have a few words to say not only in abortion

I would have a few words to say to him in in a lot of regards. But um, yeah, I don't think there aren't moral principles that that uh that he can make publicly that that wouldn't apply to his um

His life as a member of the body of christ. And so if he's actively Resisting abortion bills,

I would say that yeah, we would have at least a conversation I wouldn't be very careful about excommunicating somebody especially for like secondary or tertiary issues and in like biblical strategy towards ending political means but we would at least have a

Some type of disciplinary conversation if he's actually doing things to to prohibit, uh abortion from being abolished

I apologize ben. Most of these questions that are coming in are for aj. I'll ask you one though. This was this is for you uh,

I guess exclusively um Let's do this one is violence Ever justified to protect the unborn.

I think that one actually is for you ben so Is I want to get charged with a crime for giving an actual or a war maybe or something to?

End it What do you yeah, I mean what I what I would want to happen is is the state using violence to end abortion, right?

Where god has given the sword to the civil magistrates to to execute justice. That's romans 13 That's not you know, some old testament, you know, possibly, you know, are we talking about you know, some kind of monarch doing this?

No, this is you know romans 13, you know, all of christians for the past 2000 years Have applied that to any civil government they're in, you know, where if god puts you into a seat of civil power

You have the duty, uh to whatever degree of power you have to actually wield that sword Uh for justice's sake whether you're you know, the governor of a state whether you're a lawmaker or whatever the case may be

Um, so that's the kind of violence. I support to end abortion is you know is the death penalty, uh for people who willfully murder babies

Uh and ecclesiastes 8 11 says that you know, that's a deterrent for future criminals to do the same

Um and like even aj was saying, you know at genesis 9 6 Where the blood guilt element is there where we there actually is blood for blood that's necessary Uh, that's what god thinks about the death penalty.

That's what christians have historically thought Okay, uh, this one's for both of you. Um Babies murdered at fertilization and those murdered in the third trimester.

Is there a difference is one murder worse than the others? So aj and then ben

No, they're they're equally wrong Yeah, absolutely equally wrong, all right, that was easy easiest question

I had all night uh And I know it wasn't for me, but I I kind of I don't think

I differ from you guys I think it's murder But um, I would say it probably does take a certain level of callousness when you're in the third trimester

And you especially if you do have a a heartbeat and you know it and it looks like I mean it there's there's sort of this extra

Layer of evil sometimes or a callousness, I guess I don't know what else word to use to be able to do that But yeah, obviously it's wrong.

Uh both cases So we have this question, uh, which prayers does god refuse to hear if we are not abolitionists?

All of them. I don't know if I understand this question Does you guys understand what this is asking?

like ideologues ideologuing Okay, I think he's trying to say if you're an unrepentant sin

Will god I mean, I you know god's merciful in in cases like that, you know, you know People don't are sometimes blind to their sin, you know

I don't know. I'm not sure what he's exactly getting at but okay, we won't we won't try. Yeah Uh, okay.

Here's one, uh question for ben What role do you believe the federal government has in regulating abortion, especially in view of your theonomical views?

room for federalism Yeah, certainly federalism is preferred outcome, you know

Just like we have with murder law, you know murder law is done at the state level And I think that should be the case for abortion, too um and you know, but there is still you know, the doctrine of lesser magistrates and You know

Even with greater magistrates with greater power can step in when the lesser magistrates are failing to do their duty And establish justice and we do have explicit federal

Um permission to do that with the 14th amendment, you know guaranteeing that the states have equal rights But again, i'd rather see all 50 states abolish abortion establish correct penalties for that You know,

I don't that's an absolute last resort for me Can I can I respond to that real quick? Sure um, i'm curious because um if that's true

I I wonder why the state thing doesn't doesn't come into view here with uh with this whole incremental debate because If um if That if i'm voting to on a on a bill to end abortion in a state um

I could be I could be tacitly that you could you could say that i'm tacitly agreeing to the reality that Human rights are up to debate and that I could literally determine who lives and who dies by a popular vote.

And so um You could say then that yeah, I just kind of wonder like why why this incremental thing

Uh when it comes to only the states themselves um in reference to the federal government now being

Not not uh applying the 14th amendment immediately in ending of abortion all in all 50 states

Yeah, so I think it depends on who you are, right? So if you're a lawmaker in pennsylvania or the government of pennsylvania

You have zero power over, you know, what happens in ohio or new york? um All you can do is abolish abortion in your realm

You know in the same way that the the us does not have any power to go unless you really wanted to You know employ our military or whatever.

I don't think anybody's calling for that to go to kenya or to china and end abortion there um, but I think in the current state, you know, if I If i've been talking to my congressman,

I would say you need to put forward an equal protection bill and you need to abolish abortion right, so like when um

When I actually had the Yeah, when live action had their uh north star campaign a couple years ago, uh, you know,

I was yeah. Yeah, absolutely um I think most abolitionists were pointing out you have that clause in there

Saying that women are exempt from this and you know, and that was so abolitionists certainly speak to the federal level as well

And you know, but again i'd rather see states do it because I do think in our system The states are the ones who who handle murder law and i'd prefer to see it there

But I guess my my argument was a little different though my argument was if a heartbeat bill sanctions the death of children without heartbeats then wouldn't

Simply voting on who lives and who dies Agree indirectly sanctioned the notion that we that human beings don't have equal right inalienable rights

Follow so you're saying Could you rephrase it perhaps? Yeah, uh sure so like if If a heartbeat bill me saying

I I can protect baby. We should protect babies with heartbeats if a heartbeat bill is evil because it

Implicitly sanctions the murder of children without heartbeats Then you could make the case that even showing up to vote on somebody's rights to live and die

Is perpetuating the notion and giving credence to an unjust uh law to begin with That says an iniquitous decree that says that we can determine by popular vote who lives and who dies

I don't know about that. I mean, you know, our system is based on voting right where the government has the duty to protect the rights that people already have

Right, so the government's not assigning rights to people when they when they vote for against certain bills They're at least ideally, uh securing rights that they already have so whether it's the second amendment whether it's the first amendment

Um that are enshrining those rights or in this case the right to life um Just because i'm a i'm an abolitionist christian lawmaker who's showing up to my state legislature to vote

Against a heartbeat bill or for an abolition bill. I'm not maybe i'm misunderstanding but it you know, i'm well

I think well, yeah, let me help you there there because they are actually when you say that the that a state legislature has the right

To deprive inalienable rights for somebody therefore vote to take them away

Then you're giving you're implicitly legitimizing uh, like so so another like just like just like uh,

The abolitionists used to oppose roe v wade because it was a legal fiction In part and and and not and not outright ending it so you could say that even showing up to vote

Would be giving credence to this idea that human rights are are to be voted on Which is unconstitutional?

well, no, I don't know if I buy that because again, you're showing up to enshrine rights by By virtue of law that the people already have that's that's the whole point of our system, right?

So we need you know, but they don't have them if you can take them away If you know, they do have an alien to be it alien inalienably

They have their rights, but the government has to determine how to protect those rights They already have so that is going to involve votes at some level.

I'm not sure I follow you don't have rights by any one stretch of the imagination if you can literally vote them away like We can't we we like if if if the government

If the state legislature tomorrow decided that we can kill.

Um 25 year olds That are um Irish you know none of no one would would pretend that's legitimate because Are your the right to life isn't isn't to be voted on?

So if you if your perspective fundamentally is Participating in this is implicitly taking rights away

Okay, um in the in the case of the heartbeat bill then then I don't understand why you wouldn't take the same logic and apply them to voting in general or voting at the state level because you're legitimizing a system that is

Unconstitutionally saying that we should be able to take your rights away that are inalienable And are protected on the 14th amendment and the declaration of append independence by a popular vote

Yeah, well in a situation like that if i'm showing up to vote whether i'm a You know a citizen casting my ballot in november in the primaries or a state lawmaker, you know

I have you know as a lot Assume we're talking about a lawmaker here, you know swearing an oath to the constitution

Right and as a christian, you know having an allegiance to the higher law of god, right saying You know,

I have a duty to use my vote. I have one vote representing my people Uh to do justice and to hold a whole constitution all these things

I would have a positive duty to show up and vote against it, right? That's the power that I have in this system So I i'm that's an incremental argument.

That's an incremental argument right It is because if if it's unjust for you to pretend like we can

Take care take rights away Then you're saying the opposite is that people die therefore

We need to give we need to show up because the opposite would mean that we're sanctioning their death and i'm simply saying

That's begging the question if your perspective is That you're that it's implicitly evil

By By supporting something that is unjust Yeah, well incremental or immediatism is not assuming that you have all power, right?

I'm not omniscient I don't I don't have every vote in my in pennsylvania, right? I can't just like you know

Mind control all my lawmakers and make them vote how I want I you know, if i'm suppose again that i'm in the pennsylvania state house

I have one vote or if i'm the governor, you know, I have executive orders Whatever the case may be, you know within the bounds of your actual power that you have as an individual as a lawmaker, whatever

Then you know, you're doing your full duty before god, right? If you're that's that's really what it's getting at I don't know how that's true

To my argument, but we can move on. Okay Okay Uh, we're actually now almost a minute a minute an hour and 20 minutes

In so, uh, if you guys, you know, just let me know if you need to go I'm, I don't really want to go too much longer

We we do have a lot of questions coming in and comments more comments than questions There's quite the fight going on in the chat group here um

All right, ben Men's conscience is clean because he didn't try to save children incrementally how many die in those 30 years

I think aj's conscience is clean because he's actually doing something. I don't know if that's a dig at you ben

I'm, not sure if that's it has question marks. So I assumed it was a question Um, but I guess that was the only question was how many died in those 30 years?

So maybe defend yourself You know, you're obviously you're doing things to try to end abortion. And so I think he's asking what success though.

Have you had? Yeah Well, yeah, so first of all i'm 24 i'm not 30 so but in any case yeah over the past 50 years

It's been incrementalism under which all these babies have been dying. It has not been immediatism Right every time that immediatism is even tried.

It's the incrementalists who undercut them, right? So in all these states that you know, aj and I are agreeing on like Arizona, oklahoma, um, florida

It's always the incrementalists, you know Republican committee chairs or whatever who come in and undercut all the efforts and the lobbyists and so forth who are funded by national right to life um, so it's not

It's not the abolitionists who are killing who are stopping any babies from dying or um Who are causing any babies to die?

It's those who are literally passing the law saying we need to keep letting babies die Okay Did did you say something aj

Yeah, can I respond to that real quick? Yeah, this this idea that incrementalism is why babies are dying is is so Historically, um

Reductionistic I would say, um, I mean because I could easily say that especially since in a

A equal protection bill. There's only one that i'm aware of that's ever even made it out of committee hearing

And you guys have been trying for 10 years. So I mean i'm trying to be Established a quorum here, but like I could just as easily say when when you have every power

To to pass to put forth bills in the in the state legislature also, but Um now you're gonna you can blame it on the pro -choice lobby or pro -life lobby all you want but you're you're conceding the point that we need cultural reformation and including in the gop, which

I Agree with so just to say that the the reason why babies are dying is because of incremental policies is just silly in my opinion

I'll let ben respond to that Yeah, and i'm not saying that's every case obviously, you know where there's hardly any pro -life presence that that's not the case like california

That's not the case, but it's like i'm talking most about red states and purple states Um, but if you look at who's actually causing the cultural reformation within the gop, you know

Who's getting all the gop talking heads conservative talking heads podcasts talking about abortion in a new light?

It's it's the abolitionists. It's the immediatists, you know You have like bradley purest and alibas stuckey and you know

Dusty deavers on steve dace and you know, those are the people who are actually, you know Pushing the ball forward on on abortion is the people who are saying, you know

I'm going to go to what I actually want which is the abolition of abortion And everybody else has to come to where I am, you know assuming the center again um, so I would reject the idea again that like You know, there's it's not that abolitionists are completely ineffective

You know, we're having this conversation because abolitionists have been effective at shifting paradigms over the past 10 years

Okay, well, uh, we we do have more just questions coming in a lot of them are about ivf

I really don't want to get on to that topic when we're over an hour and 20 minutes in Um, but I think uh, aj started

So i'll let aj you can you can have a statement if you want to put a cap on this and then ben

Why don't you end and put a cap on it and give your final remark? Yeah, I guess i'll just summarize what my argument is all over again, it's not that unrighteous incrementalism

Um is the case it's that it's inevitable. Uh, it's not that it's unjust that's it's inevitable.

Um, that anytime you um You try to end a political evil

You're going to be indirectly sanctioning some other type of evil most almost all the time in in an evil age and so, um uh,

I I think the the difference here is a difference between um

Philosophical political purity um and uh getting your hands dirty, uh in in dealing with an unjust system

I would say that you you can you can choose not to engage in the unjust system

But at the end of the day, it's it's just a form of practical pietism Because um, if you don't engage because it's too dirty or if you don't engage because it's unjust um

And in doing so would would elicit some type of implicit injustice. You won't engage at all

All right, ben absolutely so yeah just to restate my initial point, um I'm, not denying the reality of increments

But i'm opposing incrementalism right where you're pursuing change by degrees instead of acknowledging the inevitability of change by degrees where Um, and I think probably the most important point in all this is, you know, are we doing this as christians, right?

Uh, i've tried to bring at least some degree of scripture into this into this discussion But i'm confident that at least i'm at least striving to You know oppose abortion in a way that god would sanction and and would bless and maybe i'm inconsistent and i'm willing to You know deal with the hypotheticals and you know, maybe

You know, maybe I shouldn't have called for the arizona law. I don't know But at least i'm attempting to obey, you know

The clear word of god on this issue where and I think that's what I respect so much about abolitionism Why it's so compelling to so many christians is because it is looking at How does god treat sin god says end sin immediately, right and I was making the point earlier today

We do this in our individual lives. We don't cut down when we watch porn, you know from five weeks Five times per week to two times per week

We just try by god's grace to end it all and then and see what happens and maybe we fall maybe we don't um, or when a missionary enters a new culture and you know, he doesn't try to convince

Uh, all the all the polytheists of monotheism. He starts preaching, uh, the trinity. He starts preaching, uh, the life death burial resurrection of christ

Uh, so in every other domain, um, we're treating sin Immediately we're trying whether it's corporate or individual and we're using god's word to do so and for whatever reason um, we've been duped as as christians in the united states to not do that on the abortion issue, uh,

When it comes to politics and if we have more time, I'd love to pursue, you know, uh, he was mentioning the political um, but maybe you have i've overstayed, you know, my welcome in this in this

Forgive me for doing that but um, you know, these are all Essentially what i'm being driven by is at least attempting to be driven by is the word of god

And trying to honor the lord jesus christ the king of kings and lord of lords in doing this Yeah, so I appreciate both of you guys and this has been respectful and informative

I think I I would say that in the comments section. I think it leans abolitionists the people who are

Asking questions and making statements and stuff, but we we do have a healthy, uh mix here Uh, and if people want to go find out more about ben, where can they go?

You can go to republic sentinel .com and you can go to my twitter which is at ben's ice loft and aj

Aj Yeah, you can go to twitter. I just I just started the twitter thing, but aj hurley life on twitter

Uh instagram facebook aj hurley and uh, thanks so much ben for this has been awesome and very very respectful

Which is something that doesn't often happen So i'm so thankful that that I think we prove that we can be brothers and disagree on things and And we're all fighting for the same thing at the end of the day