Transcription
Guys, want to make your way back to your seats. We will get started with the Q&A.
For those of you who are watching online. Uh, oh wait, hold on. Are we live online? Are we good? Okay, good deal. Um, for those of you who are watching online, we're going to do our audience Q&A first. And so I noticed a lot of you guys have already been pouring in some questions, which is great. But we want to make sure that your questions aren't asked by the audience Q&A. And so I'm going to have you guys hold off. If you guys want to do a super chat, super chats are going to be prioritized for the online folks. But we're going to do about 20 minutes, 20 to 25 minutes of questions here from the audience. And then uh, and then yeah, keep keep the questions coming and then we'll collect them. And if if they're not asked by the audience, we'll get to yours online.
So, all right, we'll go over to our first audience member in house. You can step up to the mic and yeah, and we'll try to keep the answers relatively concise and we're not going to have a whole dialogue because we've got a big line. So, generally try to keep your your questions concise as well. So, off to you.
All right, well, thank you. Good evening, everyone. I have two questions. So, I often hear people say that as long as we believe that we can save some babies by passing a bill that contains injustice and partiality, we should still do it. I think we heard that tonight here in the debate. So, I want to ask my first question in two different ways. Is the purpose of Idaho law philanthropic or to establish justice in our state? Second way to ask the same question. Is the job of the legislature to save lives or to do justice? So, that's my first question. And then the second follow-up question or the second question, if I could ask, should I should I hold off to ask the second question?
Yeah, we might just do one question per per audience member just because we've got a pretty long line.
Okay. Okay, yeah, yeah, okay, that's fine. We'll do two. Thank you. I'm I'm Senator Brandon Shippy for District 9, Legislative District 9 here in Idaho. Are we showing partiality?
Oh, man. That escalated quickly. All right, you get two questions. Yes, we're showing a little partiality. But not partiality in judgment. I would answer you do justice. You save lives by doing justice. I wouldn't want to set the two in opposition. So, I guess my second question is, do you believe and this question is for Pastor Wilson and Pastor Sumter. Do you believe that it was reckless for me as an Idaho Senator to to pursue justice and only justice and to reject all pro-life partiality last session?
I don't I don't think it's reckless for you to be promoting heavily a um, complete abolition bill. Um, we and so I would I would say no. Um, it could be reckless potentially to oppose all pro-life legislation. Again, if there was some pro-life legislation that could actually give us some progress. But at this point we have near bans and I'm not sure that it's I don't know what the situation would be. I would I would say that if if I were governor of Idaho, and what a glorious three days that would be. But but if in those three days the bill that you advanced got to my desk, I would sign your bill. So, I don't think you're I don't think you're wasting your time or doing bad things. I believe that even though we differ in the ways that we've discussed, I'm grateful for um, reasonable abolitionists who move the Overton window. And I I believe that the Overton window has been moved as a result of this debate and that part of it I'm grateful for. But I I would like others to recognize that others are also helping move the Overton window as well. We we had you on CrossPolitic for example to promote your bill. And we'd do it again.
If I could if we could just speak just quickly to these as well. So, yes, there were some trigger law states and when Dobbs happened and thankful for Bradley for the amicus brief he wrote in that a very consistent. You had trigger laws in place and so you have some abortion mills that have shut down in certain states, but I don't like the language of near total abortion bans because it actually isn't true. You hear the pro-life establishment saying things like we have abortion-free states. So, you hear language like near total abortion ban because of the pro-life regulatory bills, because of the pro-life establishment's position over 50 years of Roe v. Wade, we've taught the culture a doctrine about abortion. We've minimized and devalued the the value and dignity of human life. And so our culture actually state by state still kills their children and there's no near total abortion bans because in Idaho right now a woman is allowed to kill her own baby with a DIY abortion. And so whether it's pills or DIY abortions or seances or whatever else they're teaching people to do, um, there's no near total abortion bans because women across the nation even with abortion mills shut down are permitted via legislation given to us by the pro-life establishment to kill their children in their own wombs with impunity and immunity. And some of these states where we hear about near total abortion bans or we have abortion-free states, the abortion numbers are actually rising in those states via pills and DIY abortions. And so the language of near total abortion bans unfortunately isn't actually true. Because you close the mills doesn't mean you stop the pills or the mothers doing it themselves.
Very good. Thank you. I'm going to give you a right hook here. My name's Gary Pomeroy. I've been a pro-lifer ever since the early '80s when Randall Terry came to our church and preached and said if it's murder we should treat it like murder. Um my left hook is you remember baby Connor? Scott Peterson. He killed his wife and and unborn child. He got a double homicide. So, my concern is why can't the law be consistent on murder? If he got a double homicide and we're still killing children, then we're really inconsistent with our our moral laws. That's all I have to say.
Absolutely. Right. Thank you, pastors. I've greatly looked up to you guys. You've influenced me greatly. My question is for you, Pastor Wilson and Pastor Sumter. As pastors, we wouldn't be pragmatic in our approach when it comes to church practice. For instance, we would reject any church growth movement that would compromise the scripture. Likewise, in the scriptures, child sacrifice is completely outlawed and banned by God specifically in Exodus, I believe in 18. So, when it comes to um, approaching the heartbeat bill or anything like that on your in your position, would be a pragmatic approach on this. Would it would it not?
It would be if we hadn't appealed to the scripture repeatedly. So, again, I point to scripture and scripture says yes, we must preach. So, you're absolutely right. We must preach that abortion must end tomorrow. So, we must we must preach immediacy. We must preach immediate repentance. But the the law we you go in and preach and the law the the lawmakers say no. And you keep preaching. But lawmakers are there to try to do what they can to save lives. And scripture gives us example after example of righteous lawmakers, righteous kings doing what they can in the meantime. So, that's not pragmatism. That's obedience to scripture. I think the disparity that hopefully we're all seeing and we can all feel the weight of this in time. We're all all of us have inconsistencies. They know that with baptism. That's fine. No, is that when you have to when you when you when you say that what we're obligated to do is bring the law word of God to a culture. We're supposed to speak prophetically. These are the words of God, thus sayeth the Lord. And we're to do that in every sphere of life and we're to do it in the sphere of the the civil government. We're doing this sphere of the family and in our own personal lives. And then we're being told after these are the words of God, this is what we ought to do. When we go to the legislature, we can say okay. We'll we'll accept that injustice. Okay, we'll we'll allow you to do that. Okay, we'll actually praise a heartbeat bill, but we don't believe at all that what makes somebody human and worthy of protection is a heartbeat. That's against our own worldview. And so what are we doing? We're behind our pulpit saying one thing and then going to the legislature and saying something else. We're saying in the in the pulpit that this is not permitted by God, it's detestable to God. And then we're saying that we will go to the legislature and we will even encourage legislators to put um, laws into effect that will make these children pray. And as pastors behind the pulpit condemn it, but at the legislature praise it or tweet good job. What happens when you make all the children pray because there are no laws?
What And what do you mean by that, Doug? I You have the map I saw earlier where you had the different uh states where uh abolition bills have advanced to certain degrees in all these different states, but there's no state at all with an abolition bill.
Yeah, so it's interesting. We have 50 years of of Roe v. Wade. Right. 50 years of Roe v. Wade promulgating and promoting and and and putting in bills uh that that do all these things, all these injustices. And what it's done is we've said, "We'll accept these We'll accept these slow losses. We'll accept these slow losses over time to get to the ultimate goal." But what did it lead to? Over 60 million dead children. 60 million dead children is is a pretty significant loss for the regulatory practice. What I would say is actually I I believe, Doug, I believe that if we had in the first 5 to 10 years of Roe v. Wade, all of us proclaim the word of God, press the crown rights of Christ, demanded absolute abolition, I think we would have been in a better in a better place. And here's what I mean by that, Doug. I'll just say this quickly. Um we we were started doing these bills in about 2015. In 2015, we're starting all the abolitionists were getting these bills in across the country. People said, "Doug, we couldn't do it." They were like, "They're not going to do this for you. You'll never get a bill of equal protection, and it's not going to happen." But we've been able at this point to get bills across the country. The church's mind is changing on this issue. Now we're demanding abolition, and you're seeing now legislators Legislators saying, "No. No more. We won't accept these these bills of injustice any longer. We're demanding the criminalization." Last year, Doug, and I know this excites you. Okay, I know this is not an opposition on us. North Dakota, we had legislators uh surrounding our bill in the hearing where legislators throughout that room were refuting the pro-lifers and saying, "Nope. That's not true. We got to criminalize this. Absolute abolition." And this uh this January in Georgia, we have a bill of abolition coming to hearing that has over 25% of the house uh legislature Republicans as co-sponsors on our bill. And so that's just in 10 years of abolition work. We're seeing transformation happening across the country. What I want to argue faithfulness, trusting, and obeying is what God blesses, not the compromise. And I know you believe that.
>> I I believe that, but I think the abolitionists ought to say, "If you're fighting state by state for abolition, you ought to say, 'Thank you' to the incrementalists who gave you Dobbs."
We I think we might go on to the next Okay. All right.
>> Next question here. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Heather Lawless, and I am a national pro-life speaker I travel all across the country, and I lead a pro-life organization in Lewiston, Idaho. Um on the front lines I stand outside of Planned Parenthood trying to defend and save the lives of the unborn weekly. Um I promise I'm not going to pontificate, but I have a couple things to lead my question with. I fully agree I'm going to read this so that I don't talk too long. I fully agree that abortion is the shedding of innocent blood, and before God, it is murder. I like to say that I'm an abolitionist, I'm just a patient one. My question is this. Are we building a church worthy of the law we are asking it for? Because we're the church, right? We're the church of Christ, and our job is to help influence policy, help encourage our lawmakers to create those laws. Because the righteous law must reflect the heart of God, but God also commands that his people carry the weight of justice with mercy, protection, and sacrificial love. If we criminalize abortion, but the church has not repented for outsourcing its compassion to the government, we are not raising up men, housing, trauma care, discipleship, and protection, then we'll pass a law that will fail the heart of God. So this is what I'm asking you. Are we fighting only for a righteous law, or are are we preparing to become a righteous people who can uphold that law with the mercy and power of Christ? Because isn't the true win not just legal abolition? We want to We want to make abortion illegal. We want to abolish abortion. But we want moral obedience to actually look like Jesus. I guess I'm I'm not I guess my I'm The question is how can we have a law that abolishes abortion when the church isn't ready for it?
What do you mean the church isn't ready for it? I'm ready for >> ready for it. I'm ready for it. The rest of the church isn't ready for it. Uh I know I know lots of Raise your hand if you're here and you're ready for abolition. So So So does that mean that the church is willing to pay for medical care for women, to pay for housing for women, to >> that. End Abortion Now has raised up over a thousand churches worldwide that actually offer to adopt the babies at the abortion mill, pay for medical >> whole church is not ready for that. So until the whole church is ready for that, abolition laws are not going to work.
Well, I I think that it's it's a I'll let you answer that. Go ahead. Yeah, I was I was just going to say that uh abolition laws haven't passed yet, right? The the church >> hasn't been one that will work. >> The church is not where it needs to be period. Otherwise, abolition would be passing across the country. Right. Um it's it's so in in the Clear, we're not We won't be doing debates here with There were Okay. Okay. We did the debate. I appreciate it, but we but we will do questions just because we got a big long line. So the church has a long way to go. That said, there are churches out there represented right here who are helping women who are in these positions. You know, I'm on the board of an organization that has you know, pregnancy help centers around the country. And uh and so we need to be doing both, right? It's not an either/or. Um and yes, in some ways we're not ready, but but as we push these bills of abolition, right? We need the church will be rising up in support of them, and then also rising up as we call them to in support of, you know, helping these women and these children at the same time. Well, we all agree with that. Yeah, we agree completely. We need to do both. Okay. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. This debate came down essentially to whether or not we can approve in increments righteously or if we hold out until we have complete success. Like the analogy of the governor refusing a heartbeat bill in favor of something better. In regards to righteous incrementalism, Durbin said right near the end that it's not righteous to go from 1 million to 200,000 abortions, but rather to keep from it entirely. Uh as a firefighter, I really identified with Toby Sumpter's last point about a fire. That really meant a lot to me. And if I have a scenario where I have try to go in to save people, I would worry the abolition abolitionists would stand outside and say, "Don't try unless you're sure you can get everyone." But I would go in no matter what, and I would see what I could do. So my question is we cannot keep from it entirely. We are murdering children. So keeping from it entirely is already impossible. So we are here with child sacrifice happening. From an abolitionist point of view, how can you stand by and allow more babies to be murdered, picking out the issues which with each law that falls short of abolition, hoping the nation will suddenly have a change of heart and choose abolition?
Yeah, so you're a firefighter? So often times this argument is used, the portrait is is given, and I've actually received the same argument outside of abortion mills from uh the pro the the death squads. They bring the same issue up. Uh and they'll do it with regard to IVF. Same they'll do the same way If you could save some, you know, why would you grab Why are you here at this abortion mill, and why aren't you over at the IVF clinic where they have 10,000 babies on ice? The same thing is there like, you know, burning house, how many can you grab? It's It has a lot of powerful emotional weight to that question. I feel the emotional weight to it because you want to save all these babies from death. What I would argue is that it really is not a an appropriate way to put the discussion in that way, to frame it in that way, because what we're arguing as abolitionists that we don't just stand outside of the burning house with the children inside and decide who can we save. We're arguing like a firefighter. Let's throw water on the thing and put the fire out. That's what we're saying. Let's put the entire fire out. That's what we're arguing. We shouldn't just try to rescue what we can. We're saying, "Put the fire out. Stop it from spreading." We're saying, "Remove all the cancer." That's what we're saying as abolitionists. And what we're doing as abolitionists is speaking prophetically to the culture, to the hearts of the culture. The gospel is the power of God for salvation. We use the word of God and God's gospel to transform people's hearts and minds. We are going to be continuously trying to rescue only certain babies from burning buildings until we actually bring the force and full weight of the word of God into our culture on this issue and say, "No more child sacrifice. This is murder in the eyes of God. We will not accept it any longer." We need to go from uh not do 100 years of regulation, but let's say let's do 15, 20, 30 years of very solid preaching on this, and I guarantee you the numbers will be so much lower. So if you're concerned about numbers, if you're an abolitionist and you bring the word of God, I know God blesses the faithful proclamation of his word. And so when we faithfully proclaim his word, we're going to see a a dramatic reduction in how many human beings are slaughtered via abortion. That's my position. I would just say we should do both. We should put the fire out, and we should get as many people out of the burning building while we're putting the fire out. That's how it actually works in a structure fire, too. Uh I'll add one thing to that. I think we should not make laws and make it illegal to save babies. Um and that's what we're doing when we when we enact these pro-life laws that show partiality. They say "You cannot stop a woman from committing an abortion. You cannot go save that child in that burning building. You are prohibited from doing that. If you try to go if if if if even the father of that child says goes to court and says, 'I I She's got She's ordered these pills. She's about to take these pills. Judge, can you please do something to stop her? He can't He can't go into that burning building. He can't save even his own child. He can't even get a legal injunction against her. Why? Because the pro-life bill explicitly says that he cannot.
>> But the But the way it was before, there's 10 babies in the 10 children in the burning building, and you couldn't you weren't allowed to save any of them. And then the law is changed, and now you can save eight. We're saying to save the eight and fight for the two. So, we agree with you that it needs to be outlawed. The The prohibition of saving any baby has to be eradicated. We agree. And except Pastor Doug, you're you're teaching you're not actually saving the babies. Go look at the actual numbers. There's more more abortions today even than 15 years ago. >> not working, Pastor Doug. And what you're doing, Pastor Doug, and you and you know this better than me, you're teaching the culture. When you accept the sin, when you accept the murder, when you compromise on the issue, when you say, "Okay, fine. Um protect the babies that have heartbeats or the ones that can um uh feel pain." You're You are teaching the culture. You are training them. You're telling them what to believe even as Christian ministers.
>> Jeff, when you say to the legislature, "We're not going to take it anymore." And then you go home for dinner. Right? What do you mean don't take it anymore? Nobody's going to get their gun. You are taking You are taking it. So, it's interesting cuz it's it um frame frame it in this way as well. So, smashmouth incrementalism says, "We're not going to take this anymore. We want immediate We want abolition as well. We want this to be called murder." And then the legislator or even church members from churches actually put bills in that say that are that are against God's law, that are unjust. And what you guys are suggesting is that we actually tweet praise. We actually thank them for that. We say, "Praise God for that." Some Some of them. What about a heartbeat bill? Yeah. Yeah. Praise God for a heartbeat bill.
>> Yeah. I know for the same reason that God praised Jehoshaphat for getting down the high places he could get down,
>> But But our hearts weren't ready for that. This This is a good place I I was looking for an opportunity to respond to something you said in your closing.
>> Okay. All right. Because and it's the Oh, your quote. It's the slow It's the slow surrender point.
>> Yeah. There's a difference between a man who's worshipping at six idol temples, and then he wants to taper off to two. That's just a variation of staying compromised idolatrous. That's bad. But that's not the same thing as a man who's confronted with six idol temples, topples four of them, and has two remaining. There's a difference between participating in the evil uh and fighting the evil.
But isn't isn't approving of a heartbeat bill participating in the evil? Not if it's saving those If you're say If If you're wanting to teach the culture, this is a culture of death, and we can save eight of them. And if you're no If you're noisily preaching and declaring this whole thing is wicked. Everything about this is wicked. Um when the environmentalists come and ask for 6 million acres in Idaho, the reason their incremental incre incrementalism works is everybody in their dog knows that they're going to be back next session asking for 4 million more. All right. We They're not fooling anybody. All right. They They They're incre They're dogged in their commitment. We need The problem that we have, I think big part of the problem, is the the breakdown of trust where many many pro-life leaders have compromised, and they really aren't interested in incremental victory. They're They're interested in settling. What I wanted to communicate with smashmouth is that we are not going to be content with anything less than the total eradication of all human abortion. That's the goal. One One more thing on that that y'all brought up. The abolitionists, we would say, "You should tear down the high places." And yes, we may not be able to get to all If there's six, we may not be able to get to all six. We maybe we can get to four, but we should tear them down, not regulate them like they're legitimate.
All right. Yeah, let's go to the next question.
>> Okay. I'm just enjoying it. It's hard to It's hard to stop stop them, you know.
>> Yep, same here. Uh so, thank you guys for coming tonight. I appreciate your time. Um I just have two quick questions, one for each side. Um I think it's safe to say that we're all here because we care and love life. We care for life. Uh so, the first question to Jeff, please tell us how the twins are doing. We'd love to know. And uh second question is uh kindly and lovingly I would just ask, what would your response be if my noticing tonight if I were to say that it seems to me that you are in your position walking more by sight than by faith? On this side? On that side. Yes. I'll let you guys go first.
>> the twins doing? How are the twins doing? Uh they're amazing, 2 years old, and uh Nora is a as a little nutcase. Um She is hilarious and so sweet and beautiful. She kisses me all day long. Every time she can see me, she gives me kisses. Uh Piper is doing wonderful. She has cerebral palsy. Um and so, she's but she's got a new uh therapist that is just kicking her butt, which is great um uh cuz he's pushing her really hard so she can walk. And uh so, and she's lovely, and she Every time Nora comes to kiss me, uh Piper will crawl around the corner and just go and try to get me to kiss her, too. So, it's it's just amazing. They're They're just the greatest gifts. And if you guys didn't know, uh their their biological mother attempted to kill them both twice via pill. Uh so, um uh totally legal in the state, allowable. Um uh took the pill, thought that she killed them, and then uh she took it again just to be sure, and God preserved their lives. So, um big praise to God for that. Amen.
>> Yeah. I would say that faith is always believing the word of God. So, faith So, that's that's the difference. So, faith and sight is is a matter of us heeding the word of God and obeying the word of God. And so, um what we're arguing for here is that we need to do that as we God gives us in His word example and instruction for how to do that. And so, it would be faithless and living by sight um to say, "Well, we can't do anything about it. There's nothing to do." No, we have examples in scripture given in the law of God, given in the kings, um and elsewhere that demonstrate for us that God says, "Um in your pursuit of justice, which we must pursue, um uh there are steps in that direction which God set sees, and God says, "Well done. This is seeking me. This is seeking justice." And so, that's what we need to keep our eyes on is the word of God. That's what faith is. Faith isn't just um dreaming a little dream. Faith isn't imagine. Faith is trust the word of God. Run the plays according to the word of God.
Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Uh I'm going to do an online question here just to shake things up a bit. Um cuz we've got a I've had several questions like this, and it's it's for you guys for the abolitionist side of things. Um and it goes something like this. There's been a few of them. "Why can't I be an abolitionist and work towards abolition incrementally?" And a few other of the questions had to do with "I thought I was an abolitionist, but now that I'm seeing this debate, I'm wondering if I'm allowed to be an abolitionist. Do I count as an abolitionist?" And so, I guess for you that's that's something that I've worked through. I've been called a false prophet online by abolitionists myself. A lot I I said last week, and I got a lot of trouble for this in Turning Point. I said that there's a lot of abolitionists that are jackasses. And And And If you look at I I call out the reformed camp. I call out the abolitionist camp. If you can't call out your own camp, that's there's a problem. So, a lot of the resistance to a lot of abolitionism is because there are a lot of abolitionists that just just don't behave wisely and are abusive and things like that. So, I wouldn't I wouldn't uh doubt that you know, that's happened to you.
>> Yeah. I've I've been called worse, and I'm an abolitionist. Well, so where are the board So, where are the boards What some of the questions are getting at is are they abolitionists or they not abolitionists? Cuz one of the people asking the question was asking, "I thought I was. Can I still be even though I'm a little closer to them than I am to you guys? Am I an abolitionist?"
>> Yeah. And so, >> Sure. Just not too close. [Laughter] Well, there are distinctions between our camps, of course. Now, of course, Doug and Toby, we agree fully that this is murder. Um this is a sin that Jesus died for, that people go to hell for abortion. We are all in agreement on that. And they want the ultimate abolition of abortion. And actually, they're closer than the pro-life establishment cuz they do want the criminalization to go across the board to everybody. They don't want somebody to just be able to get out of it like the mother who brings a child in. And so, there's there's so much common ground there. Um but it's interesting cuz it gets to this point about can I be an abolitionist, but also do it in increments? And I think that when it's framed this way as incrementalism versus immediatism, people say like, "Well, can we do it incrementally, slowly, or do we do it sort of all at once?" I think again, like I said in my opening, that betrays an understanding of actually the debate itself over those issues. What we're arguing with {quote} immediatism is that it has to be a righteous increment in whatever area or category you're working in. In other words, if you are If you're working for the fatherless children in abolition, then whatever you're presenting as a law has to be something that is pleasing to God. The question is is on the last day, will God look at these regulatory laws on abortion? Will He throw them in hell or will they be praised in heaven? That's a good way to put it. Is this a law Is this a bill that God will hate? And so, we don't want to present as abolitionists any bill in any category that is something that is displeasing to God or that he actually hates. So that in terms of like increments and immediatism, I think it's important there to describe that. I don't know if you want to add to that.
Yeah, I mean I would say abolitionist position, you know, is that not only should we we should provide equal protection to all preborn children. The same homicide laws that protect born people should protect preborn people. On that part of it, we're in agreement. But on the next part, which is really what this debate is about, is that it's okay, but along the way, you know, yes, we can be geographical incrementalists. We're all in agreement that that's that's okay. Yes, we we can be you know, we can we can be, you know, hearts and minds, one heart and mind at a time, one organization at a time, one legislator at a time, incrementalist in that way. But what we cannot do is what God forbids. And what we must do is what God commands. And that's what the abolitionist believes. So so that's that's really what this debate about. So if you're in agreement that we should provide equal protection to preborn children and you agree that we should oppose regulations that God forbids and that are substitutes for what God commands, then you're an abolitionist.
Okay, so that answers the question. So essentially someone who holds their view, they should not call themselves an abolitionist. That Is that what By our definition.
>> Yeah, in the strict sense of abolition. Okay, great. Um next question. By the way, that was lead 365 paid $100 to ask that question. So thank you lead 365. Hope it was
>> Do we get to split that? No. Yeah, yeah, that's right. That's right. I I didn't bring 100 bucks, but I got a good question.
>> It'll just be 50 for you. Thank you. And so this was touched on during the cross-examination briefly. I wanted to bring it back up, but we're talking about the near total bans or the heartbeat bills specifically in the state of Idaho. So my question is first for Pastor Toby and Pastor Doug and then I want to pass it to Bradley after you guys answer. My question is just because many of these laws provide immunity for women who perform their own abortions. Can you guys point to one example of a heartbeat bill that does not provide an exemption or a clause that protects women giving them the immunity to carry out their own abortions and thereby make abolition more difficult.
I'm not aware of a particular bill, but I would just say I've I've said this from for years now. I think heartbeat bills in general, again, with the proviso that I don't want to go backwards. So if we get a if we get a ban, then I don't I wouldn't be in support of a heartbeat bill. But in the culture we live in, heartbeat bill is winning because every time we mention it, we're talking about a heartbeat of a little tiny human being. I think it's glorious. Every And so I'm I'm thinking the law is a teacher, law is a tutor, and our culture has been lied to, brainwashed, and all the rest of it. And so every time we get we get to say, that baby has a heartbeat. That baby is a human being made in the image of God. That's that's teaching our culture what they know in their heart. They know in their conscience before God, but it's proclaiming that loudly. And so I would agree with what Pastor Doug said earlier. I don't I would want to um if someone pointed out that this heartbeat legislation has written into it and, you know, women are never wrong or, you know, some some kind of feminist thing in there that's going to set us up for a problem down the road, then I'd I'd have we'd have to to talk about that. But I would say broadly speaking, if we're talking about legislation that is simply insisting that babies have heartbeats and if they have heartbeats, you can't kill them, I do think that's heading in the right direction.
I would add one other additional thing, and that is we can't have it both ways. On the heartbeat bill, we can't say that it's compromised because we're exempting the woman from prosecution and paying a penalty for for the murder. And then detach the penalty from the question when we're talking about her going to the penitentiary. Right. So you can't say the punishment is separate is that the punishment's a separate issue when we're talking about penitentiary, but it's the same issue when we're talking about the heartbeat bill that exempts the women. So I'm it it either is it or is it or it isn't. But I do believe that women just that abortion doctors and the women should be evaluated by the same law. I agree there should be no partiality. I believe if it's a scared 15-year-old who flunked biology and who believed what she was told that it's a clump of cells, etc., she's still culpable and should be um charged, but not charged with murder in the first degree. If the mother is a gynecologist and she's had three abortions already and she's knowing knows exactly what is happening, she should be charged with murder. The yeah, any examples of of No, there's no heartbeat bills. They they all have exemptions for the mother. And I I would say just as far as the difference between the penitentiary point, and that is that the penitentiary is the existing law, whereas the immunity for women is written into the pro-life law. It's it's it's in the pro-life bill itself. It's not just interacting with existing law. That's the difference.
Hi, my name is Eric Seely, former pastor, and I'm glad that we're bringing up context of laws. Um But what the gals said earlier bring brings home a really important part is how is this applied in the church? So when I read the book of Revelation in Revelation chapter two, I see two churches, one that is commended and one that is not so commended. You have the church of Ephesus there and the church of Thyatira. And in verse two, we have the same Greek word for tolerate. It says Excuse me, I can't find some lighting here. I know your works and labors and patience and that you cannot or that you cannot tolerate those who are evil. That is something that is being Yeah. righteous for that church. And the second one If we can just get to the question.
>> yeah. So the question is is in in in verse 20, they're saying the the doctrine of the Nicolaitans was they were tolerating Jezebel. It sounds to me like one side is all about tolerating evil and the other side is like, "No, we're not going to tolerate this doctrine of compromise." And what am I missing in the church? For example, here's the question.
>> Here's the question. Here's the question. Should there ever be church discipline in our own churches for those that support child sacrifice? Abs- Absolutely. Yes. Including voting for those that are
>> Yes, absolutely.
>> Absolutely.
>> Voting for Trump that supports child sacrifice. No. [Laughter] Okay, you guys can speak to that, but we'll we'll leave that question there. So um the there two boys that go to the vineyard. One says, "I'm not going to go." and then he does. And the other says, "I'm going to go." and then he doesn't. Right? So the reason I I don't have a problem with people who vote for Trump is because he is surrounded by evangelical pro-lifers. He um and and the reason Dobbs happened is because of him. And he doesn't I don't believe he understands what he's doing. I believe he's a transactional businessman. I don't think he understands the pro-life issue at all. I I agree with your assessment of his understanding of the issue, but I believe that he is a wrecking ball that God is using to destroy a an evil and wicked establishment. And I believe he's created more opportunities for people who think like us I believe there's more opportunities to sin.
All right, so we're going to enter into rapid-fire mode. All right, yeah. Rapid-fire mode. [Laughter] So uh so get your questions ready and then and rapid-fire question and rapid-fire response. Ideally, okay? All right, here we go. Hear that, Jeff? Quick one that I think cuts to the heart of the issue, uh primarily for Pastor Durbin and company. If you could push the favorable big red button that would abolish abortion, but only for baby boys in this country, would you push that button?
So say that again. If we could abolish If you could push a button that would instantly and effectively abolish abortion, but only for 50% I I think these questions are honestly silly silly questions that are just based upon emotion. If if you could push a button and I would rather I just I'll throw it back and say, you know, I'd rather because life is so valuable, boys and girls are so valuable, I'd rather have the button that actually saves all of them. So these are I think often times silly emotional questions people throw out to evade the major issues that are going on. That's my quick response.
My is I'm I'm Jacob I'm a freshman here at NSA and my question is kind of as an abolitionist I have a question for abolitionists. Um just preface did you two gentlemen vote for Donald Trump in the last election? In the last election? Like in November. You want to go first on that one? Uh I did not um but and again I know abolitionists are in different places on this issue. Um I did not because I hold that Matthew I'm sorry Exodus 18 standard is you know the standard by which we should judge who we may and who we may not vote for and I believe that he did not meet that standard. Okay. But it's not not just not exclusively on the abolitionist issue just I don't believe that he is a man who fears God. You can see that now for for sure too, right? Um so I will say I'll put it this way there were two you know two elections and one of them I did not vote for him in. Put it that way. Okay. So my question is then cuz I know like Dr. James White has said a lot that he you know he believed that was the right decision to do for for Donald Trump. And my question is is that consistent with abolitionism or is that a form of incrementalism?
Well I would say just I would say briefly to that in terms of the the president of the United States the president of the United States is not supposed to be the king who's giving decrees. The president of the United States is supposed to be like a manager of our thing, right? States are sovereign he's a manager over our thing. He's not supposed to create laws and those sorts of things. bottom with what he's doing now even if we like the executive decrees all we all we auction free and we say hey that's good transgender no bathroom stuff great but he's actually misbehaving and we don't want the next guy doing that and so there's there's problems all throughout it. And so I think there's a difference between say looking at an issue like like Toby brought up like taxation or like Doug brings up like um penalties in those different categories or even the issue of abortion there's a difference in looking at those issues and saying well what's the God's certain word on this particular law and then looking at the manager of the country. That's it's I think it's a different question altogether it's a different category.
Okay thank you very much. Thank you. Um we're going to go here to the super chats we've got from Brian Soldit. This is for you and this is uh it's a version of the red button thing but it's it's less um ethereal it's more about like as if there was a bill in front of you and so this person is asking
>> dot on it. That's right. If there if there was a a bill on the table that would save I'm going to going to give you his question then I'm going to kind of rephrase it a little bit. Um that would save a million babies but carved out certain circumstances to allow like a small number of abortions that it would greatly reduce the abortions basically million saved greatly reduce the abortions and that bill was on your desk would you sign it? If you had a high degree of certainty that it actually would save millions of babies um though it still would allow for like a very small let's say uh 6 week or something something where in the in the in the hypothetical Yeah very few would die.
Thank you Josh. Yeah. I just say just very briefly just as quick as I can to this. Um that I think I've already answered this in principle as to how I think we're supposed to prophetically undo this evil in our nation and it has to be the word of God it has to be consistency it has to be faithfulness has to be on God's principles trusting God to act and not being afraid of the future or fear of man. But let me just change that let me change it cuz oftentimes people put this in this framework and you feel the emotional weight of it. Let me change it in this way. Let's say we lived in a nation where sex trafficking women was legal. It was promoted it was legal it was accepted. And then same scenario um we're confronted now with with women being kidnapped and raped and it's universally done it's everywhere and it's accepted. And then you ask somebody hey if you had a bill put on your desk that said um all right we won't ban the sex trafficking but we will say that you must provide comfortable beds for the women or that um we'll keep the sex trafficking but you can't sex traffic children under 13 just over 13. How would we feel about it then? Change the scenario. Do you feel the weight of that now? Does it change it? Would we be willing as Christians to say yes I can only give more comfortable beds to the women? Would we willing to sign off on that? Or I will allow for
The rape and the kidnapping of the women 13 and above. Wouldn't we say as Christians, actually, this is such an abominable, disgusting practice? We just need to speak forcefully and prophetically against it and accept nothing else and call the church to stand in the streets and to compel the culture with the word of God to stand against this wickedness. Shouldn't we do that?
But what do you mean by accept nothing else? When do we get our guns? Well, I, so the first, the first step of the church is, we, we have the prophetic witness.
Preaching and prophecy, yeah, preaching. The prophetic witness. So that's what I'm, I'm Pastor Doug, that's what I'm saying. First is that the duty of the moment is our prophetic witness. I've, I've got a real example for you. In the medieval period, uh, the nobles and lords and stuff were constantly fighting with each other, just constant battles and fighting and bloodshed. And the, the Catholic Church made a rule: no fighting on Wednesdays. What, what they were doing is, uh, getting.
Sounds like something they would do. They were getting their, they were getting their foot on the brake. Right. He, um, how can we, this, um, uh, evil practice, and they didn't do it all, they couldn't ban it all, all together, but they, they were riding the brake, and long term, it had good results.
Can I ask a variation on that question? Do what? Can I ask a variation on this question?
Absolutely. I didn't pay any super chat money, but.
Well, you can pay me later. I got a Venmo. It's. What?
There's.
What?
So what about a complete abolition bill that had no penalties? I'm curious about that too. The abolition bills do have no penalties, right? The penalties are already in the existing law. What are you saying? But we would repeal penalties? Yeah, but exempted. So it's, it's completely abolished. No, no, no abortion is is allowed and or or in, you know, $15 fines. We would have to write that. That would be partiality. We would have to write in partiality into our law, which God forbids. So you're, the abolition bills are riding on an unrighteous system of penalties. They, well, they are interacting with that. Yeah, they're, they're changing the definition.
Dependent upon that. That there's already existing homicide laws, and we're making sure they apply to people before they're born. But if, let's say, oftentimes hypotheticals, big, even the big red button ones, are illustrate a principle. So let's say the penalty for murder was throwing people into a dungeon where they, they would be tortured for 10 years, some ungodly punishment, really ungodly punishment. And you had an abolition bill that simply applied the existing, uh, penalties for murder to women who procured abortions. Right. You can't detach yourself. Right.
Going to happen to the, right. People who are convicted. I think we can, I think we can take, I think we can take one issue at a time. We can take one issue at a time. All right, let's, let's, let's, let's rapid fire it up. Here we go. Okay. Yeah, I do have to catch a plane in the morning, so.
Okay, yeah. So my, my question is for the Smashmouth incrementalists. If Christ Church were to put forth a bill, would they put forth a total ban, or would there be any circumstances where they would actually do something incrementalist? And if there is no circumstance, what's the difference between that and abolitionism? If we had, the more likely scenario is we wouldn't put forward a bill, but let's say one or two of our members were legislators and they were asking for advice from the elders, how should we proceed? We would want to get as close to an abolition bill as possible. So, and if that was an abolition bill that stood a chance of making it, we would support that and encourage them in that. And we've passed around, by the way, as abolition bills have been proposed in Idaho, we've endorsed and and recommended people sign signatures and and call their senators and so on. So it's, it's.
I, I've done that also.
We've, we've been doing that for years. Pastor Doug, um, early on in the debate, you said that, uh, the things like a heartbeat bill save actual babies, uh, versus an abolition bill where nobody does. And then, and then later on in the, in the debate, uh, you, you made the point of where we, we actually know that the net, um, babies saved may not change, they go to other states or things like that. So, um, which one, which one are you landing on there? Does it, do things like that save, uh, save babies, or is there a net, a net zero? And then, I, and just so my pastors don't think I'm picking on them, I had a question for, uh, Pastor Jeff too. Um, but, uh.
Okay, this is rapid fire. Yep.
I would say that, um, basically, I think that we have actually reduced the number of Idaho women who procure abortions. Some of them go to other states, contribute to the surge. Some of what's going on in the other states is a is a reaction to, uh, the, the pushes in the states that are restricting abortion.
Okay. My question for Pastor Jeff was, if he, he changed the term from, uh, blood avenger to hangman, and if he recognizes that the blood avenger is a pre, um, pre, uh, judicial process role, whereas the hangman is a post-judicial process role, and if he recognizes the difference between those.
[Music] And he shall appear. Was that for me? Yes. That was for you. You asked a question. You asked a question. I wasn't in the room? It's okay. It's okay. I was hoping you would hear from me.
Okay, sorry. No, I didn't. So, uh, the question was, uh, you, you switched the term from blood avenger to, um, to hangman.
Yeah. Do you recognize the, the, the distinction that a blood avenger is a pre-judicial process role, whereas the hangman is a post-judicial process role? Yeah, I was just using language that people would understand in terms of what a blood avenger is up to and in terms of of bringing the execution. I was just using it in as, as a word to exchange what we might understand it to mean today or in our country.
Thank you. Very good. Very good. Thank you for moving the Overton window with this debate. Uh, I have a more ultimate question, but it's too big a can of worms, so I'll ask a more incremental question. Would practicing the bride price eliminate the main desire for abortion, namely free and easy relations, and if so, should we start practicing it?
He's, he says, should we reinstitute the bride price? To to help eliminate one of the root desires for abortion, which is free and easy marital relations. Make, in other words, make it make free and easy marital relations not free and easy. That was not on my bingo card. No. Doug, what would you say to that, Doug?
I would say, I would say, "Yeah, but." Um, and it says Paul says in Romans that what the law was powerless to do, in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending a son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. So, what the law cannot do, there's certain things the law can't get at. It cannot get at, uh, lust, it cannot get at fornication, it cannot get it, it can restrict the, the more, uh, social, uh, socially disruptive aspects of it, but in order to have people practicing courtship, bride price, and Christian betrothal, and all, you know, all those things, you need what I said in my talk, massive reformation revival that the law can't do. Gospel preaching alone, I think Jeff has mentioned that, uh, several times. We have to be preaching a hot gospel, and that's the only thing that's going to get us into the place where we could put up with any of this stuff.
Very good. Thanks, Doug. Very good. Hi, Jeff Durbin. Thank you, uh, for coming here. I'm John Crawford, uh, senior at NSA. Uh, my question's for you. Uh, I'd like to know more about your position, as up till now, I've mostly just heard ad absurdums, which is that you're so heavenly minded that you're no earthly good. No offense. So, I just like, in response to that, do you truly believe.
Argument that's, that's a claim, so I'm going to say I reject that entirely. What I've been doing is giving to you God's word. Right, yes. And God's law.
Well, I just like related to that. So, do you think like to respond to that, do you think that abolition, abolitionism is the way to do to achieve God's will on earth, to do good? Uh, the best way of achieving that. And if, if you have, let's say, a state where incrementalism is in place and achieves total abolition first, will that have discounted your side or what do you think incrementalism is? Oh, we're getting into a debate now. No, cuz I have to understand what you mean by the state that has abolition versus incrementalism. What do you think it is?
Strategy, as a political strategy, let's say. So, you, you heard me tonight saying that righteous incrementalism is is is is in in the increments or categories you're working in, you're doing it righteously in in a way that's pleasing to God, with the with the law of God as the as the certainty or the reference point. So, you could call me a righteous incrementalist in the area of abortion. So, you'd say I, I like, I just want to understand you better. So.
All right, last, this last little bit, and then we got one more question to get to. Well, I'll answer, I'll answer it this way. You said, so heavenly minded, you know, earthly good. That's, that's a weird thing to say to a postmillennialist. Right? What he did. He did. Which means you don't understand the system, I think, and I mean that respectfully towards you. Um, so, what I would say is, in terms of what we're trying to do, that which maybe you just haven't heard or hasn't been explained well enough by us, is very simply obey the word of God in Deuteronomy 16:20, where it says, "Justice and only justice shall you follow." That is what we're trying to do. Justice and only justice shall you follow in whatever category we're working on. I think Toby brought a phenomenal point with the area of taxation, cuz I, I feel the weight of that. I, I think it's oppressive. I think like Doug has described it perfectly in the past is like, um, you know, it's, it's theft, you know, via nice pen, sort of a thing. It's, it's wicked, it's evil. I personally don't have the bandwidth or the time as a shepherd and with my family to be able to engage that area, but I see that as a category that must be addressed for the sake of justice. I just don't have the ability right now to engage it. I'd love to. It's a terrifying thing to to think about in terms of going against the Internal Revenue Service. Um, but what we're saying is that in the area that God has in front of us, we have to ask the question, "Justice and only justice shall you do?" So, what ought I to do according to God's own word in this area? He's given me his certain word on it. That's all we're saying.
Okay. All right, we, we, we got to move on to the next question.
Right. Thank you. All right, last question. Boy, I was hoping there'd be another internet question with 100 bucks before I got up. So, I appreciate everybody being here. I, I, I know Bradley and I've signed on to his Dobbs, uh, amicus brief, um, as a, a pro-life organization. I appreciate the Idahoans. You guys are just fantastic. I watch your podcast, I read your books. Uh, I've been so edified by you guys. Um, Pastor Durbin, same. Uh, really appreciate your work. As a pastor and as an abolitionist, uh, I, I have a maybe a unique position that, um, you know, I, I'm a pro-life activist. Uh, I run the only pro-life organization in my state. Um, I think I would describe us as a pro-life abolition group. We separated from National Right to Life years ago. Yes, there is a point to the whole preamble. Please forgive me for the length in this last question. Um, I've noticed that pastors are more than willing to let me come to their churches and sign petitions, have their congregations sign petitions in support of both straight-up abolition bills, exactly like what Bradley and Pastor Durbin would and have been presenting. Um, and we pursue incremental legislation as well, uh, principled. Um, and pastors are more than happy to let me bring petitions in, have their people sign them, but then those same pastors turn around and tell me that I've got the wrong bill for the wrong time and the wrong purpose. And since, since Pastor Durbin and I think both of you guys have made the baptism jokes back and forth, it's not proper for for somebody, uh, say in the congregation to. Yeah. Yeah. How, how. It, it's not proper to for somebody in the congregation to to take issue with the pastor's teaching on baptism, whether it's baptized babies or baptized, you know, full professions of faith only, without reading the scripture and understanding the scripture and applying the scripture properly in working through that issue. But over and over and over, I hear pastors say, "That's the wrong bill for the wrong way."
We got to get to the question.
Wrong bill, wrong way, wrong time, wrong people, and our abolitionists have the right bills, but our pastors are undermining them in so much of their teaching from both sides. How do we get the abolitionists and their understanding of legislation and and their Bible to to the pastors to actually understand the legislation, so that you're actually promoting bills that protect babies, and you're not promoting bills that write in an a legal exemption for the women that kill their babies? Right. We have a real dilemma there. I, I can, I just say as quickly as I can, um, what, what are we doing to do that? With End Abortion Now, we're going state to state and gathering pastors together and leaders together to speak to them, to get them all on the same page and working together as churches as a team. And so, we've had huge success with that in Georgia, huge success with that in Kentucky, and, uh, in various other states. And so, that's what we're doing is is actually going to the church to say, "Pastors, can you meet with us?" And then laying out the the case in God's word for what we ought to be doing, and then we work together as a team. And so, that's again, Georgia has been, I think, one of the greatest examples of that. Uh, numerous pro-life organizations in Georgia have left National Right to Life and these organizations because of the inconsistencies and the foreign worldview, and they're all working together with us. I'm going to throw it right now with Georgia that has Georgia Right to Life and other pro-life organizations that have now left working together with pastors and churches, and then those pastors and those churches are working to communicate with other Christians and other churches on this particular issue. And so, that's one of the things we're practically doing to do that. I would only add that just leave legislation aside. I think there's a massive need for education about what abortion is. Um, in the, in the churches. So, uh, to pastors particularly. So when was the last time you heard a sermon going through scripture, um, defining the injustice of abortion, what it is, the scriptural arguments? Well, in a, in a country like ours that if we've killed 60 million kids and, and there's what? 10 sermons that have been preached. You know, that's just an abomination. Um, so there needs to be education of pastors just on abortion, and then we can talk about the legislative debates and so forth.
There's one more rapid fire for you guys, and I think I know you, this should be pretty easy, but, um, every pro-life law permits self-managed abortion so far. And, uh, basically, what is the point of a pro-life bill if they all still allow self-managed abortions?
There's a difference between still allow and does not address.
Mhm. So.
Okay. So, um, this does not address is I think a legitimate option. Uh, explicit carve-outs. Now, if a woman uses a coat hanger to, um, to procure her own abortion, then that's okay with us. Mhm. That was, and that were written into the law or anything like that. That is, uh, framing iniquity. That's establishing iniquity by law. But you, but if you outlaw certain kinds of abortion, and you haven't gotten to other kinds yet, but everybody knows you're coming for them. Mhm. You know, yeah. That's, that's not.
You guys have last word on that. Except it's not that the bills just don't address it. They do, and they explicitly say that she has immunity.
All right. Well, we could talk all night, I'm sure, but, uh, we're going to wrap it up. Jeff's got to get to bed. Um, well, uh, let's give a huge round of applause for our debaters. Yeah. [Applause] That's good. And thank you guys all for coming tonight. Um, the good news is we're all post-mill up here. So we know that the gates of hell will not prevail against us, the church, and ultimately this will be abolished. All right, we're working it out. We're working out the details, but this is going to be abolished by the grace of God. So onward. Let's, uh, doxology to close out.