 Let's throw a quote up there. We're going to switch gears and talk about, for a little bit, biotechnology. And let me just define what we mean by that. We mean using certain means to alter the chemical makeup, the biological nature of the human being, to enhance it or repair it. And the short question I want to answer or argue with or wrestle with a little bit here is, when is it OK to use biotechnologies and what would be the biblical fence posts we want to look at? So what I want you to do is read this case study that I've concocted here. This is completely contrived, but I want you to look at it. And then I'll just ask you what you think we should do. All right, you're going to take this or not? If you're going to take it, I want to hear why. And if you're not going to take it, I want to hear why. So we've got a drug. It's not reparative. We're not fixing anything here. This guy wants you to be kind of a forerunner here. This drug is going to alter the biochemical nature of your nerve cells. It's going to alter the structure of the nerve cell. It's going to allow you to radically transcend your current limits in terms of your cognitive ability. You will ace the LSAT exam. You will ace law school. All right? You taking this? Yeah. Limitless, yeah. It's a show. Yeah. Same idea. There was an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie that had something to do with this, didn't it? Yeah. Yeah. What's that? There was an Arnold one? OK. Yeah. I wasn't going to bring up Arnold. I lied. But anyway, go ahead. You going to take this or not? No? OK. His answer is no because he thinks he should better himself rather than rely on an external thing that would take away incentive, perhaps, to work hard to improve yourself. And also, you would say no because you're relying on something, maybe can I throw in a term here, perhaps an alternate or substitute savior to do your work for you? Tell me if I'm putting words in your mouth. But is that kind of along the lines of where you're going? OK, all right. We'll go here. Do they do this to you? You know what this reminds me of? I know that his name is not exactly Gold right now, but there used to be an old Bill Cosby sketch where there's a kid that goes into the candy store and he gives the clerk fits. He says, now see that candy three rows over from the top? No, not that one. Go four over. No, no, down two. Come on, no, up one, one more, two more. Yeah, that's the one I don't want. That's kind of what's going through my head right now. All right, go ahead. So the argument here is OK tempting, but if we're going to take this drug, give Barry Bonds his home run title, give Lance Armstrong his bike titles back, every player who used hormone enhancing drugs, there it is. Now let me tell you what the pushback will be from the 25 and under crowd. And here's what they'll say, what they always say. That's different. And here's what their answer will be. If I take this drug, I might be able to help mankind. I might find the cure for cancer. I might do something really good with it. Well, in this case, this isn't helping you with bench pressing. This is helping you with your cognitive. Yes, you and I understand that. We look at this and go, OK, I see a problem here. At least one thing to consider. It may not be the only thing, but you and I see one thing that needs to be considered. This could act as a disincentive to putting forth effort to doing hard work. And we see that. You know what the 25 and under crowd thinks? What's wrong with pot if I want to just chill? I'm telling you, we are having a huge problem right now, talking Christian kids at Christian worldview camps out of the idea that pot's not a good thing. So what if it alters my brain a little? It gives me a mellow feeling. I actually do better in life. My parents like me better, and I'm nicer to people. And that's their answer. Yes, I saw a hand. Yeah. I'll let you answer any way you want at this point. OK, maybe lastly, build some part of your body parts up for the display of others in this case. I love you, because you just, we can dismiss class now. Talk's over. No, seriously, great job. No, every one of those principles I completely concur with. Going back to creation, and let me add one more. What is the ultimate thing for the Christian? Do enhance ourselves or to grow up in Christ? Grow up in Christ. But it still gets a little fuzzy drawing the line between repair and enhancement. I think we all would agree in this room, therapies aimed at repairing or restoring lost functions certainly fall within biblical guidelines. But what about things that don't necessarily repair? Or it's not quite clear if it is repair. How about braces? You go to the orthodontist. How about treatment for baldness? Here you go. He's going, bring it, man. I'm there. You know those notes I just sent to Pastor Rick? He's not going to post them now. There you go. Perfect heads, the rest he covered with hair. I'll accept that. How about cosmetic surgery, facial reconstruction when there's been no injury or damage or no TMJ issues or something like that? Are those repair or are those enhancements? So I guess what I'm getting at is, and here's a confession, everybody, get ready, you thought the expert was going to end this session telling you what the right answer is and sowing this whole thing up. You ready for some real interesting news? Christian thinkers are all over the map on this question. We're still wrestling with it, trying to get a sense of what the right proportion is. Generally, I agree with every one of those principles you brought out. But what do we do with something like braces? Or what if you've got, I went to school with a girl who had an incredibly crooked, large nose. And in high school, they did surgery to fix it. I mean, transform the girl, really. Was that repair? Was that enhancement? Was it wrong to do that? These are the kinds of questions that come up. But in this case, we're talking about, I think, something that at least in my mind is pretty clear. This is about radically altering the nature of human beings. I mean, we can debate about baldness and nose therapies and things like that. But this is taking the human race, certainly beyond its created limits. And there's a whole movement out there known as the transhumanist movement, led by guys like Gregory Stock and others, who that's what they want to do. They want to push humans further so that we reach the next stage of evolutionary development. And the way they want to do that is through biochemical therapies aimed at enhancement, not repair. And this is being put forward. Who brought up the steroid use with athletes? Yeah. You're exactly right. If we're going to condemn that, how do we applaud this? And you'd be shocked at the number of 25s and unders who do just that. Very Bond's evil. Taking that pill so I get through law school? No problem. Now, here's the question I have that I've not figured out yet. Why that disconnect? How can they not see this? Yeah, go ahead. Yeah. Now, that's an interesting point. If we are image bearers and God gives us bodies and we are to glorify God with our body, shouldn't we be skeptical of things that might make it difficult to glorify God with our bodies? Like, it breaks our body in short order. That's certainly something to consider. Where does this go back to, men and women? There should be a familiar storyline going through your head. What was the temptation the serpent gave to Eve? You shall be like who? Was that, shall we say, enhancement? And not only that, here, it gets real insidious here. Satan not only tempted her with enhancement, he tempted her with envy, didn't he? He tempted her to envy God. God is smart. You're not. He's worried you'll get smart like him. He envies you. That should make you envy him. Boy, is Satan twisted or what? The original temptation of mankind was an enhancement temptation. Interesting. Now, why, and I'll jump right to you in just a second, I'm going to throw out a theory here. I'm doing a test drive right now. Here's why I think the under 25 crowd I'm running into at Christian camps sees no problem with this. They have no concept at all of what it means to be a human being. I think it was Osgenus, but I'm going to qualify it. But somebody said the following. Up until the last 60 years, the primary question has been, who is God? Now the primary question is, what is man? Does he have an essential nature or not? Is his nature constructed socially from place to place, or is it intrinsic and fixed? When human nature is up for grabs, a lot of things start falling apart. And let me give you an example. What happens to the gospel in a culture where human nature is up for grabs? Who's the gospel written to? Humans. So let me float something. It's pretty hard to argue that a man must repent, that a man must look to Christ alone for salvation, that a man must turn from sin and embrace the only hope there is in this universe when nobody even knows what a man is anymore. By man I mean human. Now I'm not making the argument the gospel isn't supernaturally powerful to overcome cultural problems. I'm not going there, of course it is. But do you see how this can be a hurdle for us? If you don't have any theory of what we call, here's a big word, philosophical anthropology, all that means is if you don't have an idea of what man is, why wouldn't you enhance? On the atheistic worldview, can you see anything wrong with taking this drug? In a universe that came from nothing and was caused by nothing, what are human beings? Cosmic accidents, right? And by the way, they don't have value at any stage of existence, not at the fetal stage, not at the adult stage, not at the senior stage. So why not enhance yourself? Especially since there's no essential nature to you, only functional abilities. If that's the driver, why not? But we as Christians have a different worldview. Our primary salvation does not come through enhancement, it comes through conformity to the image of Christ. Our primary goal in life is not being able to do more physical stuff better than everybody else so we can lord it over them pridefully. Our primary purpose in life is to serve our Lord and serve our brethren, love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul and mind, and love our neighbor as ourselves. And last time I checked, none of us have come close to doing that. That's our primary mission. But I'm finding students and churches who have no concept of what it means to be an image bearer. And for them, it's all about function, it's all about what you can do better than the next guy. And if this helps you do it, go for it. Okay, go up. Yeah. When people tell you that something is moral because it's legal, point out that's an example of the Izzat fallacy. Slavery was legal for a long time in this country. It didn't make it right. Spousal abuse was legal in this country. Drunk driving was legal in this country for many, many decades. It didn't make those things correct. But you're correct. The younger generation often thinks just because it's legal, it's okay. Which is why politics matters because the law is a moral teacher. Other thoughts on this? Go ahead. See, this is where we as Christians have to be thinkers on these issues. What would be wrong with you wanting to be able to bench 320 pounds? Look like Arnold. I mean, if you're not doing the steroids and you're just working hard, what would be wrong with that? What would be wrong? And here's my answer to that. You're not altering your nature as a human being. You're improving and fulfilling the nature you have. Do you see that? You're making the most of what you have. You're not transcending natural limits. You're working within those limits to be the best you can be. And I think that's a little different than this. Which gives the mind cognitive abilities no human would have through study, hard work, concentration, practice. It comes completely independent of that. That's an alteration. That's not through hard work. So here's some drawbacks to this and then I'll take your questions. Does this create a society of haves and has-nots? Yeah. Could there be pressure put on parents to enhance their children or be accused of the state of child neglect? Yeah. What about doctors who say they have moral qualms about doing this? If this becomes a fundamental right, what are they gonna be forced to do? They're gonna be forced to participate in therapies that do this, correct? You think I'm kidding? You wanna know how doctors in some states are being forced to perform sex change operations against their personal beliefs? They will soon be forced to do abortions or get out of the field. That's where we're heading in America. We're losing the fight on religious liberty right now. And if things don't change politically, it's going to get worse. And doctors will simply be told, you will do this or abandon the field. Licensing will be predicated upon referring for abortion or performing them. In California, pro-life crisis pregnancy centers by law must refer clients to abortion clinics. In other words, a business that's set up to oppose abortion must support it by law. That's what leftists have done in that state. And if this becomes a right, quote, how many people are gonna be forced to comply with it who have objections to it? I think a lot. I think a lot. I think it also could be a problem that you'd have a lot of unfairness with the haves but haves nots. Are poor people gonna be able to afford this? No, but rich people will. So I think the poor could be exploited through this. I think there's a lot of dangers to look at here. I saw another hand and then we're gonna go to general questions, yeah. We'll enhance it and make it better. Got some in my briefcase, you need some? No, I don't know. It's being talked about in some ways it's available. I don't know the exact. I mean, it's called, no, now don't go there. Be careful, brother. I'm a functional atheist till eight in the morning when the caffeine hits my system, okay? I mean, some people have said things like, well, what about dudes who down 10 energy drinks in an hour? What about people who are messing with certain combinations of drugs to try to achieve it? I don't know, I don't know. But I think we need to think about it. It's coming, it's not a question of if it's coming. Only barely. I think it probably isn't hypothetical in some places but I'm just unaware of it. All right, here's what we're going to do. We have reached the point where I promised you, in fact, I'm over time, where I promised you I would ask some questions, or I'm sorry, you could ask some questions. But I'll tell you this authority trip. I will answer any questions you want. You don't need to clear them with me by writing them. You can just ask them. But if you prefer to write them, that is fine. I will repeat the question for the sake of the tape so that they can hear it there. And you can ask anything related to what I said, we're gonna start in the back with Pastor. Oh yeah, okay. How did I get into this pro-life work? In 1990, I was an associate minister at a church in Southern California. I had always been pro-life. There was never a time I wasn't, but I wasn't doing anything about it. Once a year, I'd go to a pregnancy center banquet, give an obligatory 50 bucks and go home. I got invited by the local crisis pregnancy center director to come to a pastor's breakfast, where I thought there'd be up to 100 of my peers there because when we would do Saturday morning breakfast, I mean, we would get people turning out. I showed up that day when the topic was abortion and only four other colleagues of mine were present with their spouses and a handful of other people. But thankfully, the speaker, Greg Cunningham, former member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, who had written the bill there that cut off tax funding for abortion and whose bill had been litigated in the Supreme Court case, Thornburg versus obstetrics and gynecology. Did you know Greg? Oh, there you go. Then you know him. He's a fireball. And he showed up and he spoke that Saturday morning and I thought, wow, this guy's really smart, lawyer, really articulate, that impressed me because I had heard pro-lifers I wasn't impressed with. But then he did something I was totally unprepared for. He showed an eight minute video depicting abortion. I had never seen abortion. And I sat there and wept and thought I am no different than the priest in the Levite who passed by on the other side of the road. They felt pity for the beating victim but they didn't take pity. And I said to myself, that's not good enough. I went home and I said to Stephanie, honey, you gotta see this tape. And I took that VHS tape. VHS tapes were these rectangular things that were like this. Yeah, I got them right next to my Polaroid camera at home. But I showed her the tape and I said, I don't know but I just feel like my whole life got rewired. And six months later, with the blessing of my church I was no longer working at the church and was pursuing how I could work full time helping pro-lifers make a case. That was 26 years ago. I'm telling you, the images did it. Of course God's hand was on it but people ask me all the time, why do I show the pictures? Why do I show the pictures? We don't need to show the pictures. Everybody here is pro-life. Here's the problem. There are millions of Americans who are attitudinally pro-life but they're not behaviorally pro-life. Pictures change how people feel. Facts and arguments change how they think. Both are vital in changing behavior. Greg Cunningham puts it well. He says, when you show the pictures of abortion abortion protests itself. So here I am, that's my... Did you have follow-up? All right, who's up next? Yeah, did you go to Penn State by the way? Okay, really? Can you give me some dirt on him? Can you give me some dirt on him? What's that? Oh yeah. In fact, I'll be working with him again in England this fall, I really love some dirt. Yes, yes. I mean, it's gotta be some good stuff. I want some, I want some good stuff. All right, go on. The current abolitionist movement, okay. There is, in some very small segments of the pro-life movement, a group of people who go with the general term abolitionists. They don't wanna be called pro-lifers. In fact, they think pro-lifers are the enemy. They think pro-lifers are the problem and they blame us for not ending abortion in the last 50 years. Now I want you to think back to the history we did earlier about how we got to where we are today. And I want you to imagine a pond, a still pond, or a lake rather, big lake. You throw a rock in the middle of it. What's gonna happen to those waves? They're gonna go out for a very long time, aren't they? The abolitionists say, ah, there's no rock. It's just your fault as pro-lifers that you haven't ended abortion. You're not honoring God and the reason is you're compromisers. You support legislation that's incremental in nature. And the only way to do this righteously is to call for an immediate abolition of abortion, allow no compromises, and any bill that is incremental is evil and not of the Lord. Now, just an FYI, the guy who's the head of this, T. Russell Hunter. He last fall issued a challenge to Greg Cunningham, the guy I just mentioned, to debate publicly this issue. And T. Russell was quite arrogant in calling it out. I watched that debate and I am here to tell you, I encourage you to watch it. Greg Cunningham absolutely cleaned his clock. And Greg made the point that if you can't save all the children, you save as many as you can. And when a pro-life legislator works to limit the evil done when he can't end it outright, he's not compromising. He's doing the greatest good he can given what he has to work with. That's not compromise. That's sound moral thinking. That's Oscar Schindler saving as many Jews as he could instead of just saying, I can't save them all, I won't save any. And this is where the abolitionist movement has pretty much had its 15 minutes of fame. Now, having said that, I do have a few guys who call themselves abolitionists that aren't with that group in Norman, Oklahoma and they're better for it and they're decent dudes. I may not agree with them on everything, but they're not bad guys. I'm just gonna tell you up front, the guys in Norman, Oklahoma with abolished human abortion are bad news. Please stay away from them. They are theologically problematic. They are morally problematic and they're trying to split the movement. And I've just gone through Facebook. I tried to respond to them for a number of years and now I just block them because they just wanna cause trouble. And especially after that debate when they really took it on the chin. So that's my answer on that. I wasn't even gonna bring up the abolitionists but you asked me directly so I said I would answer all questions. So I'm being true to do that. Sorry to be so negative but they really are problematic. Yeah. Yeah, what about all these frozen embryos? The latest estimates are we've got about 400,000 of them on ice. Now that's a lot less than what we were told during the whole embryonic stem cell debate where we were told there were millions on ice and we needed to use them for research, put them to good work and how dare you pro-lifers oppose research that could save lives just because you care about a few cells on ice? I mean, it was crazy the arguments that were out there. Here's the thing though, 400,000 on ice does not mean 400,000 available unless we're gonna override the wishes of the parents. The parents have to release them. And when you factor out the embryos that have actually become available for release either for research or adoption we're nowhere near 400,000. We're down near around, I think the last I saw was maybe 100,000 max. So what do we do with these leftover embryos? First of all, remember our principle if you're a Christian couple and you're using reproductive technologies you limit the number of leftovers. You shouldn't have 12 embryos on ice even if you're starting this at age 20. You shouldn't have that. And yeah, it's gonna cost you more money to avoid the risk of leftovers but that's what you gotta do. But let's say we got a case, we've got, let's say it's true, we had 400,000 embryos. Here would be one solution. And that would be for Christians to agree to adopt them. An embryo adoption works just like adoption with any other child. The mother, let's say it was you. I'm not trying to put you up to this. I'm just telling you. You would then adopt the embryo. You would then carry the embryo to term. It would be implanted in you. And if all went well, you'd give birth and it'd be your child. That would be one way out of this mess is a massive rescue effort by Christians to save their unborn neighbors that way. But again, we have a problem. Most of those embryos have not been released by their parents. There are? Yes, there are. And there are organizations like Snowflakes that does embryo adoption. A friend of mine, I think I could mention his name but I won't. He's a leader in the pro-life movement. Twice he and his wife have tried to do this. It didn't work out. They miscarried both times. But they tried and they're going to try again because they feel that they want to try to be a rescuing agent to those children. And so they step up and do it. But other than adoption or donation to a couple that will carry them, I don't know any other options that are ethical. Donating them to research is tantamount to abortion because you're killing them for the benefit of others. Other questions, yeah. Question is, have I ministered outside an abortion clinic? And when I do, do I use the gospel as part of that outreach or do I do it strictly in clinical terms? The answer is yes, I have been outside abortion clinics. I don't do it often. And the reason is simply this. It's not that I'm opposed to that kind of work but I do know where God has gifted me and placed me to have maximal ministry impact and that's where I'm going to spend my time. This is not meant as a anyway denigrating people outside clinics but for every person I can find that's willing to pray in front of the clinic, I can find it best one. I'm sorry, for every 10 people I find that will pray in front of a clinic, I might find one that can be a pro-life speaker and go into schools and present a pro-life message pre-need so that the client never arrives at the clinic. So I concentrate on building speakers, training them how to speak, teaching them how to organize material. They follow me around, they read what I read, they watch, they learn that I put them into schools and I've got seven of them now that I got out there speaking full time. So that's what I do. Having said that, if I'm ever asked to go pray in front of a clinic on a speaking event, I go. I will go support the local pro-lifers, do that. I'm not going to say no to that. I do it. As far as sharing the gospel, I don't believe the credibility of your pro-life position rides on whether you share the gospel. It is a good in and of itself to argue that it's wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings and abortion does that, therefore we ought not be doing it. That is a good in and of itself. However, virtually every LTI presentation that we do involves the gospel, even when I'm debating the president of the ACLU. If you go watch my debate with Nadine Strawson at Westmont College in 2001, just before I show the abortion clip, I share the gospel. Not a long one. It's a short thing, but it's shared. When we go into Catholic high schools, all our speakers share the gospel before showing that film. Now they don't stand up and say, the Pope's the devil, but they share the gospel. And you know what? The Catholic schools thank us. So yes, I take great joy in sharing the gospel. We shared it this weekend in our time together. I have no hesitation whatsoever. The one thing I do challenge, and you didn't say this, I'm just addressing it for those who do. I do not agree with people who say a pro-life presentation is no good unless it's gospel-centered. I also do not agree with those who say the only way we'll end abortion is to preach the gospel in this country. I do not agree with that statement. Did we end slavery that way? We did not. By the way, what does scripture say about the number of people who will be saved? Are tons of people going to be saved or do scripture say few find it? Few. If that's true, we will never have the masses we need to end abortion by the Bible's statement of the matter, right? We need coalitions of saved and unsaved people to bring about justice for the weak and vulnerable in our culture today. So here's what I say to people. I don't preach the gospel to end abortion. I preach the gospel because I'm a Christian and I'm excited about what Jesus did for me. That's why I preach the gospel. I don't think the only way you will end abortion is to have people converted to Christ. People are capable of coming to see evil is wrong. They are not capable of seeing Christ as supremely beautiful without the power of the Holy Spirit. They are capable of seeing certain things to be right and wrong independent of special revelation. And so therefore I can do both and I don't have to pick one or the other. I preach the gospel as often as I can and in those rare cases where I don't share it, I don't beat myself up for it. I did a good thing making a case for the pro-life view in and of itself. Does that help? Good question. All right, in the very back, straight back, Good question about that. It's certainly not ideal because children need a mom and a dad. And that's true whether they're embryos or already born. It's Maggie Gallagher's quote, sex makes babies, society needs babies, babies deserve a mother and a father. No one's gonna ever convince me a child is better off with two moms or two dads than they are a mom and a dad in the home. You're never gonna convince me of that. And if you think that's true, the burden of proof is on you as far as I'm concerned. So, I'm actually skeptical of that. I would not advise it because I think the data that's out there about children raised in single parent homes, it doesn't mean that every time there's a single parent home, it's bad news that everything's gonna turn out bad. There are single parents who do heroic work, raise their kids well, their kids come out great. God is glorified, everything's great, okay? I get that. But to intentionally do that, I mean, it's one thing if you're a single parent because you got a divorce, you didn't want, somebody, you just, that's how it worked out. Or there's a death or whatever, or a crisis pregnancy and you got pregnant but now you're raising the child. But to intentionally bring a child into your home that isn't going to have one of the parents present, I think is ought to give us some real pause. Could there be though an emergency situation where that would be the only way to rescue children that would otherwise be killed? I suppose in that environment, if you could convince me that was the case, then I might say, well, then we have a special circumstance. But outside of that, I certainly wouldn't advise it. Yes. Now, I wanna make it clear. I'm not talking here about the single parent who that's just where they are in life due to a crisis pregnancy or a divorce or a breakup of a family. I'm talking about the intentional moving of raising a child in a single parent home where that's the intent. And I think that should give us great pause. Said again. Yes. Yeah. By the way, when reproductive technologies are used, when that's the intent, we are not treating medicine. We're not doing medicine. We're treating the desire of someone to have a kid at all costs. And you're right. That leads to the commodification of children. Yes. Yes, he did. I actually think that's a profound argument and not one you have to apologize for. I think it's a very powerful argument. And look, the data is out there. Children in two parent families do better. Now, there are exceptions. There are, but generally speaking, that's we're reasonable to believe that's the norm we ought to be aiming for. All right, follow up. I normally don't do this, but I'm going ahead. I'm, yeah, quite a bit. I hate to be the bad cop here. I actually do like most people. You brought up the two that are a bit of a bur in the saddle. Okay, let me address the personhood movement. Personhood movement like AHA, like abolish human abortion, though the two groups hate each other, but like them frowns heavily on any kind of incremental legislation aimed at limiting the evil done. And instead, what they do is they go to the ballot process, try to get it on the ballot where the unborn are declared persons, and they lose everywhere they do it, and we get more case law built up against us that we then have to try to overcome in the courts. The other problem I have with it, and here's the big one, and by the way, there are some good people in the personhood movement. I'm not attacking their character. I'm just going after their strategy. I am concerned about any concession to the other side that buys their premises. I reject totally that there can be such a thing as a human being that's not a person. We should not be arguing for personhood rights. We should be arguing for human rights, period. The unborn are human beings, that's enough. Personhood is a category that functionalists have developed to set aside one class of human beings we can kill from another class we can't. And therefore, when we buy into personhood language, we are actually conceding the premises of the other side. There is no difference between person and human. That's my point. In other words, when someone says to me, the unborn are human, but they're not persons, my question is what's the difference? Have you ever met a human that wasn't a person? Those of you with teenagers don't answer. But I mean, seriously, you didn't have personhood talk prior to the abortion debate. Yeah, yeah, here's my answer to that. Most legal scholars I've talked to about that language in Roe v. Wade said, "'Justice Blackman was kidding and playing around "'and nothing else in the case "'will support that conclusion.'" So though he says those words, they carry no real legal weight. The case was decided on a woman's fundamental right to absolute autonomy, essentially. And in subsequent court cases like Casey, the court argued that restrictions on abortion could only stand the test of review if they didn't place a quote, undue burden on the abording mother. And therefore, any law that was interpreted to be an undue burden would be thrown out. Personhood would have nothing to do with it. You could be a state that declared the unborn persons, pass it with a ballot initiative, and the court would punt to Casey and say it's an undue burden too bad. So I tend to believe it's a waste of time. Again, does not mean these are bad people. I don't wish to fight them. I'm not thinking that's the way we should go. Not really, nothing substantial. It is true that Georgia right to life is now dominated by personhood people, guys like Doug Becker and others. I just disagree with them. I do not believe people who work incrementally to change the law are the enemy of the pro-life movement. I think they're doing the greatest good they can given what they have to work with. And I think their view of how we got to where we are is incredibly simplistic. They're not understanding the 400 years of thought that brought us to where we are today. In fact, every time I've asked one of them, I haven't asked all of them, but the ones I have asked tell me, just trace for me in the broadest terms the history of thought for the last 400 years. I don't need specifics, just give me the big milestones. They have no clue. And yet they're gonna tell the pro-life movement we've got it all wrong for the last 50. Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah, so I would say be careful with them. Work with them, don't make enemies, but I also don't think they should shame the rest of us who are working incrementally to try to limit the evil insofar as we can. And by the way, let's not forget something. We all have to know how to do addition. What's going to happen five seconds after a state passes a personhood bill if one ever were to get passed and it's failed even in states where you would think it would pass? What's gonna happen? The federal courts will enjoin it immediately. Do we have the votes on the federal courts to overturn? No, we don't, not even close. Which means we get another loss credited to our account. More case law against us. So timing matters. If you don't have what it takes to do a frontal assault, you do need to think about what your strategy will be. All right, you sir, and then we'll jump over to you. Yes, watch that debate. Yes, absolutely. Jill Stanek has compiled a book. I forget what it's called now, I'm in it and I don't even know the title. My brain has been abolished. I think the title is just type in Google Jill Stanek, S-T-A-N, you know who she is, Jill Stanek? She was the nurse that witnessed partial birth abortion and Congress, she testified before Congress that brought the house down on that procedure. She's the one who exposed it. And pro-life philosopher Hadley Arcus helped her do it and Arcus is brilliant. But just Google Jill Stanek and AHA and you'll probably have that come up or just go to her website and I think it's there on the menu bar. I wish I could remember the name of it now, but 14 of us contributed essays to there. And the first article is my analysis of the debate. And I walk through it, I represent each position, then I give my analysis. And no one at AHA has accused me of unfairly representing what they argued. I think I fairly represent it, so you'll be able to see what they argued. And then reasons why it didn't hold up. That's it, abolition of reason is the name of the book that Jill Stanek, yes you can, there it is, thank you. I'm in a bad way when I can't even remember things I've contributed to. Thank you, I need it. I need it, good question, thank you sir. By the way, what football team is that you're wearing? But you wear their stuff, you like Manchester United? Are you a Liverpool fan? Arsenal, listen to all of you. Well, you walk through Liverpool with a man you jersey on, you're dead. I mean, it's bad news. Okay, sorry, little British football trivia here. Who's next? Yes, no. I don't think it's wrong to have embryos on ice. I think it's wrong to have more embryos on ice than you can reasonably implant in the marriage that created them. So it doesn't hurt the embryos to be on ice. The technology's quite good. And it's not a sin to do that, especially when the embryo wouldn't come into existence anyway without the assisted technology. Where it's a problem is when we have the leftovers. That's when we have the problem. So no, I don't think it's a sin. Now, it would be if we showed that it was harmful to them, but it's not. In fact, the techniques are getting quite good. It used to be five years was the outer limit. I'm now reading it's more like eight to 12 years now. So it's going out. But I don't see anything in principle wrong with it. And then you're next. I'm just scared. Here's why the embryo wouldn't exist without the assisted technology in the first place. It's not like they took a healthy embryo and did some process to it. The in vitro process is what allowed it to come to be. Now here there is a rub with in vitro and I'll tell you what it is. At least there's a rub with it in some prolifers and I'm not entirely against what they say. Here's what they say. Perfecting the in vitro process, thousands of embryos were discarded and therefore the research is tainted. That's what they would argue. And you therefore shouldn't use it. I'm not persuaded by it, but I'm at least sympathetic to it. In this case with my friends, that embryo was not okay, but was put in harm by the in vitro. The embryo wouldn't have existed in the first place without the in vitro. What caused the embryo to die was conditions in the wife's body, not the in vitro process. Yes, right, but why did it miscarry? Was it because of in vitro? No, because in vitro is over at that point. Once you join the sperm and egg, in vitro is done. But in the implantation in the woman's body, her body didn't sustain the embryos at that point. The embryos wouldn't have existed in the first place without in vitro. They wouldn't have existed. I don't think couples who suffer miscarriage bear any blame whatsoever, whether it's reproductive technologies or natural. And here's why. It's not intentional killing. They didn't intend for their children to die. In fact, it was the last thing they wanted. So they don't bear any moral culpability at all in that. None. If you do something that puts your child intentionally at danger, well, then, yeah, we need to look at that. But that was not the case in their situation. All right, over here, I promised you, I disagree that it's 90%, it's not that high. I think it's more, the estimates are around 40, maybe 50, it could be. But I still don't think the couple that uses IVF and tries at life is morally culpable when the embryo wouldn't have existed in the first place without the technology. It's not like they took an embryo that was normal and created another way and then they subjected it to some kind of process that made it unable to live then. That's not what happened. The embryo would not have existed in the first place without this. And there was a failure to implant. Now, it works a lot of the time, but even naturally, as you say, it doesn't always work. All right, over there, you were next. By the way, don't you love bioethics seminars? We discuss sex, birth control, all the R rated stuff. Church will be full tomorrow morning. Okay, two questions there. What is my position on birth control in general? And what about birth control that allegedly may function not only as a contraceptive, but also as an abortivation in the event of breakthrough ovulation, meaning the woman gets pregnant despite being on the pill, for example. Let's take the first question. I am not opposed to married couples using birth control that does not end the life of the human being once it's begun. My Catholic friends would disagree with me because remember what we talked about, the unitive and procreative needing to be together. I don't ridicule them for that belief. By the way, you don't really wanna just ridicule Thomas Aquinas without giving him a little bit of a read. He was a pretty smart dude. So I do understand the background of their thinking. I just don't agree with it. I think the biblical view is that the primary purpose of sex is the unitive characteristic of husband and wife. That's the primary purpose, which is why Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7, sexual refusal in marriage is a sin. It's forbidden. That's why. When it comes to birth control that may be abortifacient, we need to be very careful here. And I'm about to tell you something that you may not agree with right away, but it's my best take based on the evidence I've looked at. The argument goes that certain kinds of birth control pills have two functions. They have a primary mechanism that prevents pregnancy, prevents conception, but in the event of breakthrough ovulation, meaning the woman gets pregnant anyway, despite being on the pill, there's a secondary mechanism, so the argument goes, that makes the lining of the uterus inhospitable to the developing embryo, thus causing a miscarriage. That's the argument. I'm not persuaded by it. And I'm going to tell you why I'm not persuaded by it. The evidence that's given for it is labeling. People say, look at the label, look at the physician's desk reference, look at what it says on the label. May cause miscarriage. Please note this. Labeling does not equal peer-reviewed evidence. How many of you have watched drug commercials late at night? Are you suffering from anxiety? Take high-lift. And then for the next 60 seconds, what happens? That guy talks a billion miles an hour listing every possible thing that could happen to you if you take that pill. Why? Side effects include being too happy, jumping off high cliffs, jumping in front of moving trains. I mean, you know, you've heard it all, right? Why? Because there's real evidence those things could happen? What's the reason? Lawsuit prevention, right? If you want to find out if birth control pills are abortivation, you have to go to the peer-reviewed medical literature like the New England Journal of Medicine, like the Journal of the American Medical Association, like Lancet, like nature, things like that. If the evidence there does not make that case, then I think we need to be very cautious as pro-lifers, claiming we know for certain birth control pills are abortivation. We do not. We do not. I'm about to go there. So here's where we land. I'm fine if you want to say, given what's at stake, given it's plausible the pills might be abortivation, I think we ought to err on the side of caution and not use them. I can support that statement. What I can't support based on the evidence currently in front of us is that we know for sure birth control pills are abortivation and we run to the mics and tell the media that and they laugh in our face because they know the evidence better than we do. I've heard pro-lifers run to the cameras. Millions of Americans are taking abortion pills. They ought to know better. Wait a minute. You got to have the evidence to back that up. So I'm fine if you say, given what's at stake and given it's at least plausible, their abortivation will go for it. Now, here's why I say the evidence isn't there. When you look at the peer-reviewed evidence and I had a doctor on our staff do this for me, run the evidence. I said, I want to know, Rich, you're the doc, you tell me. So here's the report back. First, the peer-reviewed evidence is rather quite spotty that the birth control pill thins the lining of the uterine wall. Secondly, even if it does, during normal pregnancy, the lining of the uterus thins and thickens many times with no adverse impact on the fetus. So on both sides of that, we could be skeptical that these claims are sound. So I would just show a little bit of hedging and say, look, given what's at stake, I'm choosing to err on the side of caution until more evidence is known. If you say that, you are absolutely fine. If you say, I know for sure this is an abortivation pill, I think you're overstating what the evidence will support. Good question, thanks for asking it. I saw a hand over here and then I'll jump back here. Okay, you're up. So I'm just curious, actually in China, it's a zero-child policy. You get one if the state says so. That's a misnomer, because people think, oh, China has a one-child policy. No, they have a zero policy. You get one if the government says so. Yeah. My co-author in the book, Stand for Life, back there on the table, John Enser, I'm not allowed to tell you where, but he works behind the iron curtain on pro-life work. Nobody does it better than him. And he has convinced that Satan rebels in child-killing, and he goes through and traces the history of it in the Bible. When God was getting ready to do a big deliverance with Israel out of Egypt, what did Satan unleash on the land? Child-killing, kill all the first-born males. When Jesus is born, our deliverer, what happens? Kill the children. Now, John, it's an interesting theory. I'm not, I don't think even he would say, look, I know this to be fact, he's just speculating, but it's interesting. He says it wouldn't be surprising to him to learn when he gets to heaven that Satan so hates the work of God and redemption in the culture that he kills children to either try to prevent it or in just outright revenge. I mean, it's an interesting theory. I can't prove it. He's not gonna try to prove it either, but it is interesting. You asked me to speculate, so I'm speculating. But I think we can say there's no doubt Satan hates children and rebels in killing them. And certainly abortion does that. Was that you next? Okay, have you asked a question before? You did, you were honest, so you may ask another. Yeah, yeah. I think commercial selling of eggs is deeply problematic for two reasons. Number one, let's remember what these women go through to donate eggs. I know, I know, but when you donate eggs as a woman, you're going through surgery. You're taking massive amounts of hormone stimulation to produce massive amounts of eggs that are then harvested by a surgical procedure that is painful and somewhat risky. And the question I laid out there earlier today was, is that something we should want fellow image bearers to go through just so somebody else can purchase those eggs and get a child of their making? I think that's a problem. Secondly, it exploits many poor women because you know what's happening right now? We're getting what's known as drive by surrogacy arrangements. Where rich people here go to India and purchase eggs from poor Indian women who will sell them at a much cheaper rate than what you can get them for here in America. And then these poor women are exploited for their eggs at a fraction of what they would make here. And then the eggs are sold or used in a surrogacy arrangement over here, but it's exploiting poor women over there. I find that deeply problematic. I also find it problematic that it's further down the road of commodifying children rather than receiving them as a gift. So I'm troubled by it. It's one of those things where I couldn't go to scripture and say, here's a verse, thou shalt not sell thy eggs. But if you look at just the cumulative picture of it, it's hard to see how that fits within biblical fence posts. At least in my mind. Over there and then, okay. Oh, you've been, all right, I will, you're next, okay? I promise. Yes. Hasn't the medical community redefined conception? In some cases they've tried to. Here's what they've tried to do. They say life does not begin at conception. It begins at implantation. And they try to argue that way on the basis of the high number of miscarriages. But here's the problem. We talked about this last night. How does it follow that because nature spontaneously triggers a miscarriage that A, the embryos in question were not human or B, we may intentionally kill them through abortion? See, it doesn't follow. They can say all they want to try to change the language. It does not matter. The language in the medical literature is so incontrovertible. In fact, even Peter Singer says, we know when life begins, it begins in fertilization. David Boonen, the guy who says his son Eli, it would have been permissible to kill him till he had desires, he says we know when life begins. It begins at conception. That was you back then, not something else. So even people on the other side are wise to this. They're just saying, well, we don't all have the same value at the same stage of development. Yeah, but yeah, they will try to get snarky there and sneaky with the language. Don't buy it. Don't buy it. Where'd she go? I was gonna turn to her and she left. Do you wanna read her question? Make one up for her and then we'll, how much what? How much does it cost to adopt an embryo? To buy an embryo. By the way, this is another thing to talk about here. Commercial surrogacy, where people make big bucks. Human beings are not to be sold as property. That violates our own 13th amendment. And it violates the image of God. Now, my colleague Scott Ray at Biola has a great example. He says, during the Civil War, there were many slaves that were treated as family members. They were treated very well, but they were still bartered for. Their value was not in themselves. They were bought and sold. And that's an affront to human dignity. So I think that the profiting and selling of children is deeply problematic in terms of selling embryos. With adoption, in most cases, what we're dealing with, with embryo adoption is there's medical expenses that might be considered or small reimbursements, but they are not commercial. They're more what we would call altruistic in nature. And I don't think that's problematic, but I think buying and selling children is. We just answered your question. No. We answered that it's deeply problematic to buy and sell children. Yeah. Well, a couple has embryos on ice and they try to sell them. Yeah, there's agents out there willing to help you do it. Yeah, there's things to do, but you're buying and selling human beings. Commercial surrogacy is the same thing. You hire a surrogate who makes a ton of money. You're using human beings as an object of sale, and I think that's deeply troubling. Great question. Yes, I think so. There are some. Yeah. There's no way to say. No way to say what now? There's no way to say. Yes, but there are plenty of people that you can adopt the embryo without getting into commercial surrogacy and buying and selling human beings. There's ways to do it all altruistically that don't require bartering human beings. It can happen, and it's been documented too. All right, over. Is there anybody that hasn't asked one before I jump? All right, over to my far left to the biblical principle, man. Go ahead. No, you're good, sir. Keep it up. That's a brand of men's slacks, by the way, if you're just wondering, but go ahead. Right, yeah, sure. No fair point, thank you. What about this? If God wanted me to have kids, he'd have me to have kids. I haven't had kids, therefore, he doesn't want me to. I think that logic is problematic, but I'm gonna skip that for the moment. What about scriptures that seem to indicate God has jurisdiction over the womb? Well, God also claims to have jurisdiction over who is blind, deaf, and dumb. Remember what he told Moses when Moses didn't wanna go to Pharaoh? I can't speak well. And God says, who makes the dumb man dumb? So if that principle applies, we can never treat anybody who's suffering from hearing loss, inability to speak, because that's how God made them. He has jurisdiction, we shouldn't interfere with that. Why would it be any different then with this? So I think the principle that's in play is the one I talked about earlier, the fence post of common grace, where God reveals ways to treat the effects of sin in the world. And as he gradually releases that knowledge, we are free as a matter of general principle to use it to reverse the effects of sin's entrance into this world. And we're not sinning by doing so. Otherwise it'd be wrong to take an antibiotic when you have strep throat or have any medical intervention where God might have willed it that way. I look more toward are we violating a moral principle based on those fence posts, the status of the embryo, marriage and family for procreation, those kinds of things as whether a given technology is okay or not. That's where I would land. All right, I need to look to my right. Boy, all of you are sticking around for this Q and A. This is amazing, Pastor, what a church. Are you taking a selfie or looking up a question? Okay, are selfies enhancement or repair? Yeah, T-Russell Hunter. Just Google debate, T-Russell Hunter, Greg Cunningham in my article will pop up and in my article there's a link to the debate, you can watch it. Hunter, other questions? Yes? Yeah, what about ADHD type medication? I view that as repair. There's something that is preventing the child from flourishing according to his nature. Yeah, people could abuse the drug. That can always be the case. Anybody who takes pain medication who suffers from chronic pain, they could abuse the drugs. Yeah, of course, but it doesn't mean that it's automatically enhancement because of that. So in this case, whether we're talking Adderall or whatever they're taking for that, I think we're still in the realm of repair. We're helping that student flourish due to injury or illness that has prevented him from flourishing in the classroom. Now he's able to. So I would call that repair. Any other questions? All right, you're on, they're all pointing at you. Okay, so. I knew we would get back to that. That's always where it comes back to, but go right ahead. So when we talk about repair, right? Yeah, I'll warn that. I mean, you know, what's that dude, Methuselah? He, 969, I think it was. Man. Yes, good question. There are general principles of pathology out there where we make a calculus about what is illness and is defined. It's not always an exact science. It's not. But we do know, for example, that a hedgehog that can't read isn't a tragedy, but a 16 year old young woman who can't read is one. We do know that. And she is failing to flourish according to her nature. In fact, our whole understanding of pathology presupposes human nature being something that's fixed, not socially constructed. And that's why we define certain things as illnesses. I think generally speaking, we have a pretty good idea of where normal operating zones are. Not exact, but pretty good idea. We know, for example, that if you can run a hundred yard dash in four seconds, you are not normal. You are a cheetah, right? That's not normal human flourishing. I mean, you look at the fastest times in the hundred yard dash, they're real tight in there. There's not, I mean, there's no dramatic leap forward. So there are some pretty fixed guidelines I think we can work with, but I'm not gonna pretend it's an exact science. There may be a little bit of a judgment call, but what we're talking about with that quote I read there, that's not a little bit of a judgment call. That's a dramatic leap forward. That's not on the edges. That's clearly going into a new realm. Well, keep in mind, we've got 6,000, but maybe 10,000 years at least, of human knowledge where we've learned some things about human nature. We kind of know what humans are like. We know what they're like psychologically. We don't know everything, but we know there are certain things you know. And you go, yeah, that's consistent with human nature. And I would argue that the same could be true here. There's just certain things we know to be true about human beings. They don't run 70 miles an hour. They don't eat their food off their ground, off the ground by sucking it through their nose. They don't hop and have a pouch. They hide their offspring in, offspring in. You know, they're just things we know, properly basic things we've come to know about human nature. So I don't think it's impossible to draw a line between enhancement and repair. I do think in some cases it's gonna be fuzzy, but it doesn't mean we can't do it at all. How much time, Pastor, do you want me to take? All right, I guess that means wrap up. All right, I am unable to enhance the Q and A any longer. There are limits that we must follow. We shall not transcend them. If you would like to get the life is best, case for life, stand for life packet. If there's any left back there, they're 50 bucks, or you can buy them individually. If you do not have the money, and you wanna say to me, look, I will send you the check, I actually do trust people. Human nature has not let me down in that regard. So I do trust you. And if that's what you need to do, that'll be fine. So Pastor, thank you for having me, and thank you for letting me be part of your church. And I look forward to worship tomorrow.