Is It My Body

This is the Truth Network. Welcome to Truth Talk Live. All right, let's talk the truth. I can't hide it. I can't hold it.

A daily program powered by the Truth Network. This is kind of a great thing, and I'll tell you what. Where pop culture, current events, and theology all come together. Seek your mind. And now, here's today's Truth Talk Live host: Is It My Body?

Is it my body, or is my body separate from the baby's body? We've got Rebecca Haney on the line today coming out of Iowa. Is that right, Rebecca? Yes, sir, by the grace of God. By the grace of God, and you've got your own radio show, is that right?

Yes, I've got a couple of things we do. I've got Faith Works Live, which I've been honored to host for the last, I think it's five years now. And we have a show that we do on the Faith Radio Network called Faith Works Weekend.

So there's a theme there because we believe Faith Works and we're active in talking about all things biblical, but in particular, we have a love for life and a passion for life. And I've been a life advocate for probably longer than I care to admit without giving my age. There you go. And last week, we had an abolitionist from Abolitionist Rising, T. Russell Hunter.

You've probably seen him all over the internet. And Rebecca, you called in as well. Do you remember that? I sure do. I sure do.

And God bless Russell and his team. I think that they are very convicted. I think they have a lot of courage, and I really appreciate that. I think there's some things we see differently, which we'll probably get into, but I appreciate the opportunity to be talking about this issue at all because I do believe it is the pressing moral issue, the human rights justice issue of our time. And we will be accountable to God for what we do to our littlest pre-born neighbors.

So, let's start off with this. What do you guys agree on? Probably most things. I mean, when you and I were talking about it, you said, Would you call yourself an abolitionist? I said, It kind of depends on how you define the term.

I have in the past, but I we're probably like 90, 95% on the same page, which is why it's so funny to be positioned as though you know we're in a debate or in a conflict. But I think it's all message is the same. We all believe that each human being is created in the image of God and ought to have the same rights before and after we are born. Our rights begin when we do as human beings. And so we can't target the pre-born child just because they're small, because they're little, because they're still in the process of development, because they can't speak for themselves.

We shouldn't target them for execution. No. We should actually, that should move us to compassion. That should move us to help. And they should be, if anyone deserves the protection of the law, certainly our children, certainly our babies do.

They are innocent and they deserve the same human rights as anybody else would, born and pre-born.

So our circumstances do not define our worth.

So I'm sure he and I would agree on pretty much all of that. It's just kind of the way that we would approach law and how to get things passed in the representative system we have in America. That's where the disagreement tends to come up. Yeah, and there's a guy who just won the Senate primary seat for the Democratic Party over in Texas. Did you hear about that?

I'm given the bless your heart face really strong. For anyone who's not watching the live stream, this is my bless your heart face. Yes, he has a lot of interesting ideas about what God says. I don't think he's checked in with God. I don't think he's checked in with what the Bible actually says because a lot of my arguments against some of the frankly crazy things that Mr.

Tallarico has said under the guise of Christianity, a lot of that would be solved if he would just open up that Bible that he's holding. And I think that's true for all of us. I think we can all have strange, wrong, or dangerous ideas about God and about the message of Christ that have been put in our heads without actually going to the source.

So you have to believe, like if you trust God and his word, then you have to believe what he says and you have to do what he says. And I think Mr. Tallarico is claiming to speak for God in a dangerous way because he's going against what scripture actually says about things like gender, about life. And the reason this is relevant to this conversation is because he believes that. That God is pro-abortion or God is pro-choice, is what he'll say.

And he uses, I think, some spurious claims for that, which is, you know, far from being within the context of scripture. He just says things that are untrue and claims that God says them. And so I would just lovingly call on him to repent and open up God's word and see what Jesus actually says. Yeah, but I mean he's a he's a good Christian guy. He went to seminary, right?

Woe unto those who in that day, many will claim to be to speak for Christ or to be aligned with Christ. And I don't think it's about whether or not we claim that we are with Christ, but whether or not Christ claims us. And He's given us the perfect standard for how we know that we are followers of His. And that means we actually have to do what He says. We have to know the truth, and it's only the truth that can set us free.

So, if we are saying things like, Yes, I'm a Christian, but I still think babies should be torn limb from limb apart in violent death in their mother's womb, and that Jesus is okay with that, I would say, you need to read your Bible, sir, because that is completely inconsistent. That the God who knit together the child in his mother's womb and says that you are fearfully and wonderfully made in my image, who said, Let the little children come unto me and do not, uh, do not prohibit them, because for such is the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. Um, the father's heart that gathers the children together like chicks under his wings, so to speak, that metaphor. Um, that is not. Not consistent with the violent destruction and death of abortion.

Yeah, it's not uh but But I heard somebody say today that Jesus never spoke out against abortion. Jesus never spoke out about tax evasion. Jesus never spoke out about an awful lot of things. Jesus, in terms of if you're talking about the individual articulated noun that you care about at the time, Jesus didn't say, for example, you know, don't run your neighbor over with your car. But we all understand that the prohibition of those same principles that says don't be angry with your brother, don't hate your brother, do not, obviously don't kill your brother, that those same things apply.

And I think we can all use our brains and understand that this is being done for that's being a line that is exclusionary for the purposes of a specific outcome. And so to justify what is really the unjustifiable. Jesus did say, thou shalt not murder, which, you know, if we're being good biblical scholars, we understand that the word of God is the whole thing from the same author.

So Jesus always speaks through his word from Genesis to Revelation. It's the same God, it's the same Jesus.

So I just want to put that in like the underlying context box for us all to understand. It's not just about the four gospels and about those direct quotes, but it's every word that is said from Genesis to Revelation. That is important to understand. But also, Jesus did say, thou shalt not murder. Jesus absolutely did say, Don't kill that person.

And if you're unsure about the thing that Jesus said, I think the last thing that you should do is to decide: okay, well, we're definitely going to allow murder just because, just because, just to err on the side, like, wouldn't you err on the side of life? Wouldn't you err on the side of giving every person, every baby, a chance at life because you believe that God created them, rather than say, because I don't have it, thou shalt not, that we're then going to allow violent destruction and death, which is exactly what abortion is and does. We just have to be honest. Yeah, I heard a liberal pastor today online, and he said that a number that the Bible doesn't say anything against abortion, but it actually. Tells us to do it in Numbers chapter 5.

What do you say about that? Man, you have interesting friends. I think what we have to understand, if you want to go to that passage, we can. It's typically brought up as some kind of a gotcha where they say, actually, God provides a prescription for abortion. That this passage is not about abortion.

If you go to Numbers 5, which is again, we're talking about God creating the law for his people, the nation of Israel, to become, he has claimed them as his own. He has brought them to the promised land. And now, how do you live like a holy people when, I mean, they're still sinning and they're still influenced by all the other nations around them. And God creates the system of law so that his people can reflect his glory.

So that's important. And that would be the forerunner.

So when we have all the sacrifices and everything, while it looks different for us today, we can do all of that because Jesus is now our high priest.

So we're looking back on that from the benefit of understanding that Christ has fulfilled this law. But the law that's in question here in Numbers 5 is actually considered a test for adultery. That God said, because God is. values marriage he values that covenant it's supposed to reflect himself and the christ in the church it's a marvelous mystery the word of god says but that should not be um thrown away that should not be lightly torn asunder and so there is a test for adultery that the priests were allowed to administer wherein you have a maybe a suspicious husband uh and a a woman that denies the claims and so they're both supposed to come before the priest and to make basically a promise a covenant with that priest where they're telling it's it's to affirm that what she says is well and and i want you to hold that thought we're going to a break right now but when you come back you're going to share that 86634 truth is the number we'll be right back with rebecca haney is God pro-life. All right, we got Rebecca Haney back on the line, and we've got a caller, it looks like a Jamal right here out of Winston-Salem.

And Jamal hosted the show yesterday. But Rebecca, what were you saying? Oh, we were talking about numbers five. If we want to go to there, we can, or we can take Jamal's question either way. Go ahead and do numbers five, and then we'll take Jamal's question.

All right, sounds good.

So, this is often a claim that's thrown at Christian pro-lifers to say, hey, your God actually allows for or prescribes abortion in the Old Testament. That is not true, and here is why. In Numbers five, we're talking about a test for an adulterous wife. Um, and so this would be again a situation where the husband suspects but doesn't have evidence. He brings the wife before the priest, who is also acting as the judge or the arbiter of the law at that time.

And again, ancient Israel. And so there is a covenant. They both testify to the truth of the matter. And the priest is given essentially kind of this recipe of something that she is to drink. And then if the wife promises at that time that she is not, that she is then faithful.

And the priest says, Okay, well, if you're lying now, you're before the house of God, and this will become a curse to you.

So the part that makes this controversial is that it says that the curse is that the woman's So there's one word that I think is mistranslated that causes the confusion. It says, because if she swears for the oath of the curse, so this is Numbers 5:21, may the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by making your thigh shriveled and your belly swollen.

So forgive the graphic nature of this. Hopefully no one's eating, but that water will go to your stomach and make your belly swollen. Swell up and thigh shrivel. The NIV translates that as to make your womb miscarry. That is almost the only translation that I can find that actually does this.

Most other translations talk about the womb as though it is something that can happen or may happen in the future.

So basically, what they're saying is this curse would make this woman unable to bear children. It does not say that the purpose of the curse is that this shall kill a growing child inside of her. And I think this is pretty interesting that this mirrors, the misapplication of this mirrors another passage in Exodus 25, I believe it is, where there's an altercation described where two men are fighting, and one of them hurts a pregnant woman accidentally in the middle of the fight. And the language in the law says that if no harm is done, that the assault or the guy who was fighting should give her a fine, basically, he should pay a fee for hurting this woman. But if harm is done, then you shall repay life for life.

The pro-abortion side would look at that and say, hey, you know, obviously this means that the woman's going to miscarry and that God doesn't consider that a full human life. because otherwise you wouldn't just tell her to pay a fine and move on. And I look at that and I say, actually, what's consistent in scripture is that God does value life and values the human person. And what they're saying is if harm is done, meaning if the child dies as a result of this accidental altercation, that you shall actually repay life for life. If you as a third party come in and cause the death of this unborn child, even unintentionally, you're actually going to have to pay with your life according to that Old Testament law.

I think that's the consistent application of scripture.

So, neither Numbers 5, nor Exodus 20, nor anywhere do we see the specific either. Prescription or the allowance of what we see today, which is through abortion, the violent, intentional killing of pre-born lives. And we're not talking about accidents, we're talking or medical interventions and things like that. We are talking about the intentional slaughter of millions upon millions upon millions of children over the last 50 years. There's no way we can be confused about that.

And God most certainly will not ignore the shedding of innocent blood. That's it. Jamal, what is your question, sir?

Well, I'm not really sure if I had a question, more so rather a comment or just support. But first of all, thank you for taking my call and thank you for having the show. And thank you, ma'am, for what you're doing. You're definitely doing the Lord's work. And another reason why I'm calling is we have so many people, politicians, pastors included, Unfortunately, who are twisting the word of God to fit the societal.

I guess um Societal ideals. We're We shouldn't be twisting the Word of God at all. I forget the scripture that says not one jot or tittle that shall be changed.

So why why are we changing it now to fit certain people's Perspectives. And this covers a whole swath of topics. Covers the welfare, covers the border situation, covers Israel, it covers how you go from your home. And abortion is no different.

So uh a few scriptures that stick with me are regarding abortion is you are fearfully and wonderfully made.

So No matter what your situation is. You are made in the image of God. You're fearfully and wonderfully made. You should be celebrated. You should be.

Lauded, applauded. I thought that's what some people on the left want to want to say that everybody has a voice.

Well, everybody except for the unborn, right? That that doesn't make any sense. Another description that gives me is You know, I needed you while you were in your mother's womb. Meaning that God has his direct hand in forming who you are.

So, yes, we know there are certain circumstances when it comes to. life with a mother and Other uh you know I want to get graphic. But still. that life is still precious. And I like what you said earlier, life should not be dependent upon circumstances.

Right. How can I put it? They have survived abortions and they went on to live successful lives, healthy lives.

So does that person is their life now as an adult fully functional? Does it hold any less value than anybody else?

So if that person has survived that abortion, they come to live successful, fruitful. Contributing lives. then does that also mean that any other Potential life that should be that could be faced with abortion. Doesn't that life also hold value for the people that survived abortion?

Well, Jamal, Jamal, that would make too much sense, right, Rebecca? Yeah, I think that's that's really the crux of the worldview. Like, this is a spiritual heart issue. And because I know I'm among Christian friends, I can say it. That's that's what we have to address is the main deception and the lie that's at the root of all of this is that one side will say that really the baby is the problem.

The person is the problem. They look at someone who is, you know, tiny, vulnerable child where they should be at the safest possible place in their mother's womb. And they'll say, actually, that baby is the problem. They'll call them a parasite. They'll say that they don't deserve to have any rights.

Yeah, they're human, but they're not, you know, that my rights matter more. It's that same old lie from the garden. And our side says, actually, we believe humans are the blessing. Humans are the potential. Humans have this marvelous capacity created in the image of God that each.

and every individual is worthy of that same protection because they are equally they have the same worth and value all made by the same god but uniquely so and unrepeatable and eternally immortally valuable um so valuable that jesus came to die for just that person alone if it was just you then he would have come um to and and we forget that when it comes to other people we look at to anyone to any you know any student of history for five minutes looks at the side that says humans are the problem and we say well those are the bad guys those are the villains of history you know nothing good comes from devaluing fellow human beings or other groups of human beings and saying you're less human than i am you have fewer rights than i do just because for any reason it doesn't matter what your reason is you have to say if if you believe in human rights for yourself then you have to extend those same rights to everybody else and we do so on the basis of conviction that you are created wonderfully in the image of god Yeah, that's right. And thank you for the call, Jamal. You know, you and Russell, we've talked about what you agree on. What are some of your main differences? Um more a difference of method or maybe tone than other things which kind of makes Because I've been in this for a couple decades now.

I've been around the block when it comes to these debates. And we've been debating these questions for a long time. I am a big fan of the principle involved. Hopefully, we would all agree on that same principle, which is equal protection under the law for children born and pre-born, for any human being of any age, that we bear that dignity that comes from us the moment we are conceived. And so the law should recognize that.

We do recognize it, by the way, for children who are born two hours out of the womb, or two weeks out of the womb, or two years out of the womb, or 20 years. Like it's the same human being.

So, in order to be consistent, I think all of us recognize that. But what we don't see is that child at six weeks in development before they're born.

So we need a consistent ethic, and I can explain more about that when we come back. Yeah, we'll be right back. Are you an abolitionist or are you pro-life? I hope you're at least one or the other. We'll be right back with Rebecca Hayton.

All right, guys, we are back with Rebecca Haney. And one of the things that I was thinking about over the break was this, is that, you know, I think sometimes with the abolitionists, what they would say is that if we do not, if you, if you don't believe everything that we believe, or if you don't agree, you know, with everything that we're saying, then we're not going to vote for you. Or I think they may not even vote.

Now, the second thing is, Rebecca, there was something that actually happened recently in Iowa. Can you tell us about that? There is. I'm going to check and see if my audio is working. Can you hear me well?

I can hear you.

Okay, great.

So what's happened in our state is pretty interesting. We have obviously legislative session, just like most states, we had a couple of different warring bills, I guess you might say, from the pro-life movement. One was a more traditional life at conception bill, and it specifically exempted mothers who seek abortion from prosecution.

So it would have made abortion a felony, but only for the abortionist. The people who are making money from the essentially from the killing of children. But it did have certain exceptions.

So that was more of the mainstream bill, and the abolitionists ran an abolitionist bill, which says abortion is a crime because it kills a pre-born child.

So we're all on the same page as far as page one goes. But then they specifically say we would be prosecuting this equally. And so there's no such exception for the mother involved. And so that's really where the tension comes down to it. And I'll try to describe this as fairly as possible for both sides.

Hopefully God will help me out with that. But the tension seems to be about this method and how to move forward to protect all life. And the difficulty comes up when there's egos that get involved and it becomes my team versus your team. And I hate all of that because the impact of all of that was essentially, I would say, some feelings got hurt or some things were going on in the back rooms of the legislature. And in the end, no bill was passed.

No bill is going to move forward. And so we're in, it just seems like there's so much discouragement.

Now, in the pro-life community in Iowa and among the voting base, because we had this golden opportunity, and we're going to enter into the future where we don't know if we'll have pro-life or at least professing pro-life leadership in the House, the Senate, and the governor's seat, which is where we were right now. It was a beautiful opportunity. Unfortunately, because of that dissension and division, it just looks like there's nothing that can be done. And now there's a lot of people that have been discouraged.

So, my call today is to remember why we fight and to not be fighting amongst ourselves, but to remember the righteousness of the cause, what God has called us to do, and that we do, in fact, need to be doing. We do not need to grow weary and well-doing, we just need to remember our first love and to make sure our eyes are focused on the right targets so that we can be most effective and continue to move forward to defend life and to promote God's standard of both justice and mercy. Yeah, and so one of the things that I saw, I saw a debate between Russell and Doug Wilson. And before, I mean, right from the get-go, Russell said to Doug Wilson, who is a pro-lifer or an incrementalist, I guess you could say, is that he said, well, what they will say is they'll say, well, what we're doing as an incrementalist, which means, hey, we're willing to take a life at conception act, even if it's not going to target the mother for prosecution. They'll say that's going to save a lot of, that's going to save a lot of children.

And so I thought to myself, well, if you have to say that right from the beginning, so what you're saying is essentially, if you say it's all or nothing, it's really not going to save any more children at all. Is that right?

Well, that's the question about methodology, right?

So, again, Russell and I would agree an awful lot on principle. I don't want to undercut what he's doing and because I believe we share the same principle, but I think we have to have some questions and some real talk about the weaknesses of each strategy. They would say that incremental bills are not only don't capture the true standard, they're not the gold standard, but they would say that it's a betrayal of principle. And I would agree that some incremental bills certainly have been. I would agree that there are people that have operated under the pro-life umbrella, but have tanked bills that they should have supported.

I believe that there are, that we could have gotten a lot farther if we were all on the same page, but that there have been warring interests over the last 20 years at least among that has caused all this infighting.

So, it is he is not incorrect in some of those diagnoses. I think where we end up causing some difficulties is that we're not persuading people, even on our own side, of these proper. Methods.

So, we're all going to get pushback from the folks that believe that abortion should be legal anytime, every time. But it's the people in the middle that are a little unsure and they say, Well, I agree that we shouldn't be killing babies, but you know, they're also concerns about, well, what about this circumstance? Or what about this really tough question? And what about how will this impact medical care for women? And what about this really tough circumstance?

And so, we need to be persuasive with our arguments for the baby in every case, but also because we love the moms and the women that are being deceived into abortion, the women that bear the scars and the trauma of these same lies, the families that have been changed forever, the families that have been destroyed through Satan's lies. I think if we acknowledge the spiritual elements of this, we can't then say that the only solution is legal. It's because we're discussing it in a legal sphere, because we're in that jurisdiction that yes, we do need to talk about justice and crime and punishment and those types of things. I believe that every case. That we should establish the principle by law.

Let me just tell you what I advocate for. I believe we should establish the principle by law that every person made in the image of God should have rights, equal rights to life, liberty, property, everything that's outlined in the Declaration and the Constitution. And those rights must be protected by law from the moment we begin, and that we have solid footing for that under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. And that, therefore, since abortion deprives a person of life without due process of law, it is inherently illegal. It shall not be allowed in the state.

Because, or in the country, for that matter, you could apply it on a national level as well. I think we should. That's what I would advocate for. And I would say, and there will be no judicial review of this matter. Period.

That's the law that I would enact. That's the law I would advocate for. And then you'll have a lot of questions like, well, what about this? And what about that? And I say those questions should be adjudicated in the justice system the same way each and every case where there is a murder or a crime alleged would go through exactly the same process.

And then the judge and the jury can figure that out through the due process of law as to what the truth is and how that should best be punished if it comes to that. Yeah, and so this isn't just something that's in theory, and I've told you this several times before. But, you know, I was in a situation where my mom was pressured to have an abortion. She was encouraged to have an abortion by someone, and she said, No, and that's why I'm here. And you've actually had, there are, I mean, I guess if you take it a step further to think about, well, should we punish the mother or not?

There have been many mothers who had abortions. We have a local lady who had two abortions in our city, and she's now a pro-life advocate. And she gets women ultrasounds and she encourages them to be pro-life.

So So it is, I guess it is kind of tough there, but what they would say is that if you're going to murder anybody else, we don't care your age or whatever, but you're going to be prosecuted. And so, I mean, what are your thoughts on actually prosecuting the mother who was her idea, I guess, to have the abortion in many cases?

Well, and like I said, I think it should be a case-by-case basis. I think that both of those sides. Actually, they have some failures when they try to like see into the future and they say, Well, we're going to cover every case by doing this way, by a deliberate exemption or by a deliberate targeting. I think what you should do is establish the principle on which we can all agree because no law is going to stop every crime. We understand that.

The point of the law, as the abolitionists will point out, is to be a tutor. The point of the law and to empower the sword arm of the government, which is instituted by God, to reward good and to punish evil, to punish the guilty. Abortion is murder. Like, we just, if we recognize that that is the reality, that is what our laws should reflect. And that is the way that we provide protection for everyone.

Now, we know that just because we declare something to be murder, because it is, let's just say the law agrees with God's reality and that there is, you know, there's murder happening, and that that doesn't stop every murder, but it does provide the government a way to say this, they're the executive arm of God's law in this case, and they have to be consistent with God's law.

So, if we have a fair justice system, then every single case where this is brought up should be adjudicated in a court of law.

So that's where we are. It's not about throwing people in prison. It's about saying this is a crime. And if there is a commission of this crime, then we have to investigate and we have to hold people accountable once the fair justice system has been allowed to play out through judge, jury, whatever the means are of your ability to defend yourself, et cetera. That's what we do if we are not confused about this, if the child is two days outside the womb.

or not. And in fact, I saw this and it was a horrible case.

So I really don't want to be sensationalistic, but it really did happen. And there was a young lady that bore her child and she abandoned that child to die.

So basically, put that child in, I think it was like a laundry hamper. And the child eventually died, and she heard the baby screaming. Like, she could, I don't know how you could ignore that. But then, eventually, when she was questioned by the police, she was in full awareness of the fact that this was a baby. She didn't want this baby, and treated this child in such a way as led to its death.

So, we understand that a crime has been committed in that scenario. We do. And so that woman should go through the justice system and give whatever defense she has and then should be held accountable. None of us are confused about that. We're confused about what happens when there is no clear Evidence or witness or motive, or you know, maybe the woman was deceived, maybe she's being coerced, maybe she has limited capacity or diminished capacity, maybe she's addicted, maybe she's you know being held down on the table despite her protestations by her, you know, wicked uh trafficker pimp who decided that she, you know, we got to get rid of this baby today.

And she's saying no, no, no, and they still push her into that decision.

So, there's there are tons of exceptions that could be considered. I say we have to establish the principle. None of those change the fact that the child deserves to be protected, but we have to have both justice and mercy. And I think a righteous system of judgment calls both of those things into account. I think the only fair way to handle this is to say, yes, every child should be protected, but we're not going to adjudicate sight unseen certain cases.

We're going to let each and every person and each and every case be determined on its merits the same way we do with any other murder trial today. The same way we do if the victim is born and then allowed to die, or God forbid, a mom, you know, horrible, you know, situations where moms do snap and they hurt their children, or fathers, or a stranger down the street. Like, it's the same value of life. Um, so that has to be protected no matter what, but I don't think that we should be pushing the same solution on every single scenario because that's exactly what the justice system is for. That's why we have police to investigate, it's why we have judges, it's why we have juries.

The law declares the principle, and then we have to figure out the righteous application of that law as it applies to every scenario. Did that make things clear, as mud? Yeah, it did. And uh, when we come back for the final segment, uh, what we're going to be talking about is: hey, we've talked about the differences. What can we do to get involved?

What can we do to get involved? Uh, as every single Christian, we can all do something, and we're going to give you some ideas. Rebecca's done a lot, and uh, yes, we can get involved in the legal system as well.

So, we'll be right back with the last segment with Rebecca Haney. All right, guys, we've got Rebecca Haney back for the last segment. But we've been talking about the pro-life movement and why you're pro-life or abolitionist or whatever. But you actually have a lady that you know who did a quick video, and I thought it was pretty good on the magical birth canal. Is that right?

Yeah, Laura, she's fun. Laura Clausen. And she is just like, she's, she's got some snark, some good quality snark, but it's very true that she does this video where she's kind of like presenting it as the irony that it is, or as the logical fallacy that it is, that the child is not a baby, not a person, not a person. And then all of a sudden, we're traveling down the canal. It's suddenly, hey, this journey of just a few inches suddenly bestows this magical quality of personhood.

Yay. And we all recognize that we laugh because it's ridiculous. And yet, that's exactly how our laws and exactly how our philosophies have treated human beings in the womb for so long. And we just like, we get it. It forces us to defend the indefensible, right?

The inconsistency that has been present. But that's how we've operated. And that's why we can no longer ignore this issue. It's why, like, even kids understand when you put it to them that way, like, they know that the child growing in their mama's tummy, that's a baby. They get that.

It's only different, it's only dehumanized if we want some sort if that child's independent existence creates an inconvenience for someone else. And this is the only circumstance, just to get real serious, it's the only circumstance wherein we justify the elimination of an innocent human being based on a third party's best interest. We don't do that. With any other situation, we wouldn't say, Well, because this is going to be hard for you, we should kill your child. You would never say that for your five-year-old child or your 15-year-old child.

And teenagers can be pretty annoying. Like, they are dependent on their parents, they require an awful lot of care, they are not fully developed. Hello, but they are human persons and they should never be treated with anything less than full rights, love, respect. Obviously, it's so obvious. We just have to apply exactly that same logic to people from the beginning.

We're not protected because. Of any other circumstance or value, we don't have to earn our human rights. It's just because we are human, and to draw the line at any other place will automatically produce like the worst travesties in history as a result.

Well, and Rebecca, that's why I have you on the line because men shouldn't be talking about abortion, right?

Well, I mean, 50% of the kids that are aborted statistically, more or less, are male.

So, you do have a stake in this. You're also the dads. Women don't get pregnant by themselves. I don't know if I have to, you know, support that as a memorandum to the United States Supreme Court.

Some of the justices seem to be confused about what men and women do and how we're different and how to define those things. But, like, just biology 101, it requires both of us for the perpetuation of the species.

So, both of us should have a say in what is happening with our own children. And I think that's the voice that isn't talked about nearly enough: the voice of the fathers that are deprived of their fatherhood because women are, whether confused, coerced, whether committing a felony, whether in full acknowledge or not, just pressured. There's so many different situations, but dads have been deprived of their ability to defend and speak for their own children. And that is a crime in and of itself. That is wrong and should never be allowed to continue.

So, dads absolutely. We need you to speak up. You mentioned that's kind of the call to action here is that everybody can do something. And I would say, actually, men, don't believe that lie. You've been silent for too long.

We need you. We need you to stand up boldly and courageously for those who cannot stand up for themselves, your children or for your neighbor's children or your future grandchildren.

Some of the most powerful advocates that I have seen are grandfathers who step in and maybe, you know, through. you know, a variety of circumstances found themselves to be, you know, maybe their daughter has an unplanned pregnancy and the granddad stands up and says, we will love you. We will love this baby no matter what. You are always, you know, part of us. You always have a home here and belong here.

And they stand in the gap and they are extinguishing the fiery darts of the devil because when a woman is in an unplanned pregnancy situation, she is so vulnerable to all the lies and all the fears that the enemy can throw at her. And ultimately, that's what the abortion industry preys on is lies and fear. Among vulnerable women that are, you know, whether they're victims or whether they're just in the throat of lies and deception, like that's their target base. And they come in and they say, Well, we can make money off of that. We can kill the babies and make money off of that.

That is what we are up against. That is the true depth of evil that we're looking at. That is the enemy at work, plain and simple. That's evil on its face. But this is the invitation to step into.

Yes, it's a big fight. And yes, God has called us here for just this moment. I do not think we should be fighting amongst ourselves. I think that we should be approaching this from the shared principle and saying, What can I do? What can I do to make a difference?

That may be a vote, that may be advocacy for specific bills, that may be in the legal system, it may be, you know, whether that's the application of the law. But it may also very well be extending compassion to those who are in this moment where they are so afraid that they think abortion is their only option and showing them that you can walk along. Alongside them. It may be as an advocate for adoption and for the children that are allowed to be born but have parents who can't parent, then they need to find forever families. And we should be the biggest possible advocates for adoption, for healthy parents, for establishing healthy family units, for establishing healthy marriages.

That is the position of the church. That's the body of Christ that sees people that are broken, in need of a savior. They preach the gospel to them. They also live the gospel for them. They feed the hungry, they clothe the naked, and they must walk alongside women in unplanned pregnancies, as well as the death.

I mean, honestly, ideally, it would be both mom and dad. And we're bringing them together toward Christ, loving them as a Christian community, saying, Do not do this heinous wrong. Do not end the life of your child. Instead, we can show you new life in Christ. We can walk with you.

We can establish this beautiful relationship the way that God designed you. You're worth so much more than this. That is the message of Christ. It is the the truth spoken in love. The truth is, killing babies is wrong.

That's like bullet point, like you can't sugarcoat that. You must stop this, you must end this. But then, what do we do with those people on the other side? We say, Well, we love you too. Jesus died for you.

We love you enough to care for you, to care for your baby, to care for the whole family. We want to be to stand in. That's the place of the church in the jurisdiction of the church.

So, I say we have to have that both and approach. We must have laws that are tough on crime because that produces the justice that God requires, that defends the rights of every single person He created that He loves. But we must also have the arm of the church of families, of community that say, We provide the mercy, the heart of God, the kindness of God that spurs us to repentance, that woos us in with His heart that says, I love you. Because remember, each and every one of us is a sinner, each and every one of us has committed a crime against a holy God that we cannot repay, that we can't do enough good works. I was just listening to that.

The preaching and teaching from your station, we cannot do enough good works to earn our way back into the holy God's favor after we have stained ourselves with sin. We all know that the penalty of sin is death. That's all of us understand that on a first-hand basis. But the grace of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord, who took upon himself the punishment that we, the guilty, rebellious sinners who were spitting in his face, deserved.

So from that standpoint, how can we do anything else other than extend that same grace to others? To the Jesus who looked at the murderer on his left and said, because he professed faith in Christ, that he was willing to forgive his sins and today you will be with me in paradise. Like, what a God. What an amazing God we serve. What a beautiful Savior we have.

How can we do anything else but extend both justice and mercy the same way God does for us? That's right. And we must take action. But we must also pray. You know, the Bible says in 2 Chronicles 7, 14, it says, if my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and I will heal their land.

The Bible tells us in 1 Thessalonians 16, chapter 1, verse 16 through 17, I believe, it tells us to pray without ceasing. And one of the revivals, I believe it was over in the Hebrides revival, there were these two or three older women in their 80s who one of them was blind and couldn't even see, and they could do nothing else but they would sit and pray for hours and hours and hours every day. And after a while, the revival came. And there have been people who have been praying against abortion for over 50 years now, I guess 53 years now. And yes, it has not been eradicated, but.

When we pray, it forces God's hand to move. God is moving though. And there are things that we see now in our lifetime that we're told, we were told it was impossible. We were told that Roe versus Wade being overturned was really never going to happen, like pie in the sky, whatever. And it has happened now.

Now, where we are now is a different ball of wax, right?

So we are, we have to step up to the moment that we're in. But each and every. um situation each and every time you love somebody each and every time you tell them the truth you say i'm going to walk alongside you you say don't do this don't do this evil thing instead come to a pregnancy resource center come to my church we will help you we will provide for you um each and every time we advocate for again for adoption where we're saying children deserve a mother and a father and we are willing to be that family like there's so much that we can do we can vote we can speak out we can be praying outside abortion clinics there's powerful ministry that's all all there but there are many many ways to live out your pro-life convictions i don't think it's optional i think god calls every single one of us to speak out on this issue but to be the Voice of both justice and mercy consistently, empowered by his word and by his spirit in the same way as he reaches out to us in both truth and grace. Neither of the two is optional. Yeah, and I want to say this before we go.

Abortion, if you've had an abortion and you're listening, it is not the unpardonable sin. You can be forgiven for the sin of God. And God sent his son. God sent his son for you. Again, if we are guilty of Christ's blood dying on our behalf, he's the one that turns around and extends those nail-scarred hands to us, and he says, Come to me.

He says, come to me. And that's our message.

So Rebecca, if people want to listen to you, what what show can they listen to each week? Or how do they watch you? We've got Faith, sure, we've got Faith Works Live.

So come and find me. All the better podcast purveyors. We'll have Faith Works Live with Rebecca Haney, and then Faith Works Weekend is a separate feed on the Faith Radio Network. Thanks a lot for coming in today, Rebecca. I'm sure we'll have you on again soon.

God bless you.