Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 455 | Harry & Meghan's Two-Child Policy

Episode Date: July 15, 2021

Today we're talking about kids, parenthood, and progressivism, as represented in a few news stories that have been going around. First, we talk about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle receiving an award for planning to have only two kids. Apparently the Left is very impressed with their environmentally friendly approach to parenthood. One thing the Left gets wrong about kids is that they are most certainly not a burden on society or resources. Then, we talk about the bizarre story of a trans couple who have a baby and the trans woman (a man) tries to breastfeed the baby and is unsuccessful ... because he's a man. Lastly, we have the singer Halsey, who dedicated her new album cover to pregnant and postpartum women. --- Today's Sponsors: Good Ranchers safely delivers American craft beef and better than organic chicken, right to your door! You can place a one-time order, or better yet ... subscribe! Go to GoodRanchers.com/ALLIE & get $20 off your order, plus free express shipping. Fundrise makes investing in private real estate as easy as investing in stocks, bonds, or mutual funds. Go to Fundrise.com/RELATABLE & see for yourself how 150,000 investors have built a better portfolio with private real estate. --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in, conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed. You can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Thursday. If you are watching this on YouTube, you can tell that I am not in my studio. I know I wasn't in my studio on Tuesday.

I'm not in my studio today. It's been kind of a crazy week. But if you're just listening to this, I do have my same microphone. So I should sound the same. So just bear with me. What we're talking about today is more important than my changed setting. We are going to talk about parenthood and the reaction to parenthood and children in popular culture.

And then, of course, what the Bible says about it. And this is based on a few news stories that were sent to me that I think show the different kinds of perspectives that we see in secular culture about having kids. So this first story that made me start thinking about this. This was a crazy story that almost just sounded like some kind of, I don't know if it sounded like a satirical headline or something that you would have read in like Brave New World. But Population Matters.org reported that Harry and Megan are receiving a special award from Population Matters, a UK-based charity because they publicly declared their intention to limit

their family to two. They're helping to ensure a better future for their children and providing a role model for other families. So they've got that, they've got a two-year-old son and then they've got a one-month-old daughter. Great. I think it's great that they have a beautiful family. And if they wanted to limit their family to two kids, whatever, that's fine. But the fact that they're getting an award for limiting how many kids they have to supposedly save the environment is ridiculous. The idea that limiting the number of kids you have is actually virtuous. That's what I'm uncomfortable with. I don't think it's wrong for you to limit how many kids you have, but winning an award for that

for apparently helping the world. I'm not really sure that I can be on board with that, especially when you consider that I'm not really sure that that is that much of a credit to the future to limit the number of kids that you're having. This whole idea of the world being overpopulated and the more people that we have actually being a debit to society and a debit to the world rather than a credit, rather than a positive contribution to the future. I'm just not on board with that. Not only is it not biblical, it's also not moral. And you can lead or you can see what kind of mentality that would lead to to start seeing

every newborn child as some kind of liability, as some kind of burden that we need to get rid of. And you just wonder if that kind of thinking is also wrapped up in the push to, you know, subsidize abortions, not just here, but worldwide. So the federalist reported on this story, quote, for vowing to only have two children Max, Prince Harry, and Megan Markle have received an environmental award from the United Kingdom-based charity population matters. The group dubbed the estranged ex-royals role models for their enlightened decision. Back in 2019, Harry and Markle pledged not to have more than two kids out of global sustainability fears. I'm sure they're flying commercial, too.

Prince Harry said in a 2019 interview with British Vogue that the couple would only have two kids maximum. This is just so funny to me that this is being reported as something that is virtuous, or they're trying to say it as something that is virtuous, as if this is like some difficult sacrifice that is actually going to make the world a better place. because he and his wife believe that the earth is borrowed, borrowed from whom? Because surely being as intelligent as we all are or as evolved as we all are supposed to be, said Harry, we should be able to leave something better behind for the next generation. See, I just have a much more positive view of human beings and especially children than these people do.

I think that the more children that we have and the more we raise them to be responsible, kind, good stewards of not just the earth, but also the people around them, the better the world will be. I just don't see human beings as a burden on resources. I see them as adding to the goodness in the world, even though bad people exist. That's absolutely true. But we need more good and kind and thoughtful and smart, intelligent people having and raising good and kind and smart, intelligent, thoughtful, wise kids. Many experts, the federalists, goes on to say, do not believe population control will actually do anything to help the environment. Moreover, modern population control policies in places like India and China have had very negative

consequences like severe gender imbalance and forced sterilizations. Of course, that is true in China. You guys know we've talked about before, but you probably knew before we talked about it. China's one-child policy, they forcibly aborted babies up to nine months gestation for several years in China, trying to reduce the population. And now there are many more men than there are women because a lot of these were gender-based abortions discriminating against little girls in the womb. And also, they don't have a younger population that's going to replace their oldest population. And so they're facing a challenge there.

Anytime we try to reduce the population through these means, there are going to be human rights abuses. This actually happened in the United States in the mid-20th century, or actually earlier, earlier 20th century in the eugenicist movement. I think there were, I read the other day, there were like 20,000 people with different kinds of special needs that were forcibly sterilized as children in the state of California alone. And thankfully, I think it was in the 1970s that that was outlawed, but that was something that was going on in the United States. Now, the article that I read was, of course, a left-leaning outlet didn't mention that the person who started Planned parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was one of the pioneers of eugenics in the United States.

But you see how all of this is, like nothing is new, as Ecclesiastes says, there's nothing new under the sun. A lot of the depravity and the hatred of children that we're seeing right now and the fear of overpopulation and the desire for like a pure, a pure population with no special needs. For example, like in Iceland, when they decided that they were going to basically abort every child who was diagnosed in the womb with Down syndrome. Now they hardly have any Down syndrome children. All of this stuff has been going on for a very long time. Unfortunately, it just, it comes with, it comes with new technology that makes it easier. It comes with new political labels that makes it seem more sterilized or makes it seem more moral. And now that political label, that moral label,

even, is saving the world and saving the environment. And so, sadly, we see. just different forms of depravity evolving in different ways. And not only is it depraved, but it's also just not true that we need to limit the population in order to save the environment or to save the world, as the federalist reported. Harry and Megan are known climate fanatics. And Harry has even claimed that the coronavirus pandemic was a punishment from Mother Nature for humanity harming the earth. Just as a side note, that just goes to show how religious I think a lot of professing atheists are, I don't know if they profess to be atheist or not, but a lot of professing atheists who are what you would call climate change fanatics are very

religious about it in that they're not willing to challenge any of the dogmas that they have that they have so firmly implanted in their minds. And then they use very religious and almost mystical language like this. Like this is the earth punishing us. We're borrowing the earth. and Mother Nature is punishing us. And so I think that this is really just their world, their progressive worldview coming out. That is probably, that probably has more to do with their limit of children than actually any data supporting the idea that it's going to help stop climate change in some way.

And like I said, it seems like some of the biggest climate change fanatics too, or I guess anti-climate change fanatics. I don't know what you call them. They're not willing to make real sacrifice. It's like you're not going to see Harry and Megan take a dart bus from like New York to Texas if they want to travel. They're always going to fly private. They're always going to travel as much as they want to, eat whatever they want to, buy clothes from whomever, from wherever they want, without a thought to sustainability or their carbon footprint or anything like that. But because they can win an award for limiting their children to just to apparently that is what they were going to do. Unfortunately for Markle and Harry, their climate crisis cries have largely fallen on deaf ears.

Many point out that if the couple were truly concerned about global sustainability, this is going along with what I said. I'm reading again from the Federalist, the little family of four wouldn't live in an 18,671 square foot mansion with amenities and include a library, that includes a library gym, separate, wet, and dry saunas. I mean, that's just necessary. I mean, that's just something that everyone has. Who doesn't have both a wet and a dry sauna?

A game room, a home theater, and an arcade. They also wouldn't use private jets that have drastically increased Harry and Markle's personal carbon footprint. Of course, this is always what we see. This is just posturing. It's what you call a virtue signal. You do something that really has no lasting effect on you or maybe something that you wanted to do anyway. Maybe you only wanted to have. two kids, but because you can get some kind of award for it. And you know that people are going

to give you a pat on the back for it. You do it without making any other real sacrifices. So I just want to make clear that the person who lives in a small house and say the Midwest with seven children is doing a lot more to fight climate change than Harry and Megan are living in their mansion with their only two children. All right. I'm going to transition now into talking about this next point, which is seeing kids as social experiments. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political.

They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty.

over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. All right. I want to talk about this very disturbing story. So a couple featured on a show called Nine Months with Courtney Cox have both transitioned and

completely switched gender roles. So I know this is going to be super confusing if you're listening to this. With your kids might not be like the best episode ever to do that. What I'm about to say is kind of confusing and pretty disturbing. So this story came up on Instagram nine months with Courtney Cox about this couple having a baby. And so here's here's the summary from the post-millennial. The baby suckles Petrona, a two-spirit, nahua trans woman. Okay.

While what the Biden administration would call the birthing person, a Han new. a two-spirit, Kainai, non-binary, trans-masculant person looks on, okay, they're trolling us. There's no,

okay, let me translate this for you. So, because I've already read, I've already read and figured out this story for you. A two-spirit trans woman. This is a man,

a biological man, who identifies as a woman. Yes. And then a Hanu, the two-spirit, Kainai, non-binary, trans-mational.

masculine person is actually a woman. Okay, so this woman who identifies as a man had the baby, had the baby vaginally. And then this man who identifies as a woman and identifies as the mother is actually the father of the baby. So in this clip that was going around on Instagram for nine months with Courtney Cox, the family can be seen snuggling in bed under a multicolored blanket shortly after the child's birth, which was gestated in Ahanu's body. Ahanu Lai's. Popless postpartum belly exposed with mastectomy scars on her chest, a beard on her face by the side of Petrona who holds the child to their male chest. I'll say his male chest.

And the woman who identifies as a man asks, are they getting any milk? The baby is not getting any milk. And so not only do they identify themselves as different genders than what their biology tells them, they also are refusing to gender their child. And what's happening is in this clip that I'm about to show, but if you're listening, you won't get to see it, is that this man who identifies as a woman is actually trying to breastfeed this child and is very sad and frustrated that the child isn't getting any milk. So this man, who again identifies as the woman, says, the baby has been able to latch Patrona towels the camera as a Hanu looks on silently,

but I've not been able to produce any milk because you are a dude and you can't breastfeed. And this is super sad to me. This is super sad. And I know that I'm making light of this because it's ridiculous and what else can you do but laugh? Because if you don't laugh, you're going to cry about it. And honestly, I could cry about it. Because this is when it goes beyond that, okay, you know, whatever people, do in their bedrooms is none of my business whatever to you know consenting adults want to do however

they want to dress is none of my business and of course that is true to a certain extent but you see how this is having an effect on people who don't have a choice like this child doesn't have a choice and is trying and is forced to suckle at a man's nipple who is never going to produce any milk this poor child who is hungry as all children are i have birthed twice i have breastfed two children and I know what this is like. They're hungry. They want something to eat. And you are basically forcing this child to grasp for air knowing that nothing is going to come out of you.

That is child abuse. And if we had any kind of sane system in our world, everyone would be outraged about this. But we are told that this is beautiful, that we should just accept this, that this is great, that we can't even talk about this child being a victim of a social experiment, which is exactly what either he or. she is. And like I said, I don't know if this child is a he or a she. So we've talked about, we've talked about this before. Well, first let me say that obviously, and I'm not saying this about all people who just happen to be different or who lead lives that I don't agree with.

But these people, you can tell from how they're talking and what they're talking about and their behavior. There was obviously mental disturbance there. There is. There is a mental disturbance there. There has to be mental disturbance to think that this man, who is, who is is a man who identifies as a woman and wants to be called the mother is going to be able to breastfeed this child. Now, I know that there are instances, there are recorded instances throughout history of men being able to lactate, but it's actually like this dysfunction that can happen if a man, for example, is starved for a long period of time. It has something to do with the liver. That is not something that naturally happens. The oxytocin that is actually released both in men and women when a child is

born doesn't produce milk because it doesn't have body doesn't work the same way as it does in women. And so anyone who says like, oh yeah, man can breastfeed. That happened one time in some like pygmy tribe 3,000 years ago. Okay, it doesn't typically happen. That is not typically how it works. That's not how God made us and children are more than social experiments. And I've said before many times, progressivism always uses children as social experiments, whether it comes to population control because of climate change, whether it comes to the rearrangement of the family or the redefining of the family, whether it comes to the rearrangement, redefining of gender. Kids do not have the ability to consent in these situations.

And we throw them in there. We pretend like human nature doesn't matter. Like all of history doesn't tell us anything about how human beings are supposed to function in the environments that we thrive in. And we say, hey, hope you adapt and do well. And then we're surprised when a lot of kids, especially today, are unstable. This is super, super sad. And I'm afraid that we're going to see more of this.

And this is exactly why, by the way, we have to be bold enough. And I don't even think it should take that much boldness to be able to just say, look, like a man can't become a woman and vice versa. It just can't happen. And I'm not even willing to go any farther than that. There was this whole drama on Twitter a couple days ago where Tommy Leran, who I don't interact with, I think she blocked me on Twitter like a long time ago. I've never interacted with her, talk to her anything like that. But she was trending and she was defending Caitlin Jenner because apparently Caitlin Jenner was at CPAC and people were yelling at Caitlin and calling Caitlin all these names. and being really awful, which obviously I totally disagree with.

Like, that is, that is terrible. Like, there's no reason to harass or be unkind to anyone, no matter how they identify. Well, Tommy said that she supports Caitlin. She didn't just offend Caitlin against these people who were harassing, who were harassing Caitlin. She was saying that she supports Caitlin for governor because Caitlin has the same values is her. Caitlin is a conservative

and other conservatives should embrace Caitlin. And that I disagree with. Now, if Californians want to vote for Caitlin, like I understand that may be a better alternative to Gavin Newsome. I agree. But my argument is if conservatives

cannot conserve what is the most or at least one of the most fundamental facts of life, which is male and female, That doesn't mean that the most fundamental fact of life is how male and female always manifest itself. It doesn't mean that the most fundamental fact of life is that women have to wear skirts and men have to wear pants or that men have to have short hair and women have to have long hair. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the biological reality, the biological dichotomy of male and female is one of the most,

if not the most fundamental facts of life without which none of us would be here. Like if we accept this idea that trans women are women or trans men are men, whatever that means, that's some mantra without any actual substantive meaning whatsoever. If we accept that, then we're accepting every absurdity that postmodernism has ever produced. If we can't even conserve that, hey, yeah, biology matters and a man is a man and a woman is a woman, like, do we honestly think we're going to stand up for something as a, uh, that's less fundamental than that, like the Constitution. And I got all these, I said that basically on Twitter. I got all these libertarians mad at me and saying all Christian conservatives are the reason why Republicans lose. Okay, let's like, let's tease out that logic a little bit. You're saying because conservatives aren't more liberal, we're losing. If conservatives were just liberal,

like if we just gave more ground on more social issues, then maybe we would win more elections. I guarantee you it's the opposite. I guarantee you the reason why so many Republicans lose is because they've got the moral strength of a wet noodle. Like they won't stand up for these controversial social issues because they're scared to. If Republicans had a spine, then they would stand up for a lot of these things that are so obvious. You wouldn't have people like Asa Hutchinson in Arkansas refusing to protect girls' sports and girls' privacy, but instead citing, you know, the precedent of Ronald Reagan or something like that to say, oh, yeah, you know, we should just allow parents to allow their child to be chemically castrated in the name of gender transition.

No, thank you. I just, I don't buy that. And by the way, even if it were true, like, even if it were true that, okay, Republicans would win if they were just more socially liberal. And that's where the Republican Party is going, okay, well, the Republican Party is going to leave me. That's fine. I don't care.

You think that's my primary identity? If the Republican Party moves to the left on all the social issues, I won't say a Republican. I don't care. And by the way, I would say the Republican Party is more liberal than me on social issues in general. Like, I don't think privately. I think a lot of Christian conservative legislators probably think the same way I do about this, but publicly they won't say so. I would say the official like stances of the Republican Party when it comes to a lot of moral

issues are more to the left than I am. And if they just keep going, then that's, that's fine. And I just won't be a Republican anymore. And Republicans can just move to the left. And I'm sure that they will just start winning so many elections when they start saying that the, that men and women, that those categories just don't actually exist. The point to the segment, though, was that children are not social experiments. They cannot consent to be social experiments. and they are not like a prize that you, they're not like a prize that you win or that you get to put on your shelf to say, okay, I accomplished this in my life. Or I've always wanted to feel like a woman.

And so I'm going to have a child and try to breastfeed so I can have, you know, this, so I can have this proof that I'm really a woman. They're people. Like, they're people as Christians, we believe they're made in the image of God. They're people with souls. They have requirements. for certain kinds of nurturing. I've also said a lot that progressivism, I believe, gets human nature wrong.

And that in the debate between, like, between nature and nurture, progressives always pick nurture. They believe that human beings are basically just a product of our environment, that we can, that people can adapt. Like if, hey, we just implemented communism tomorrow, everyone would just be happy, man. And we would just not want to have private property anymore. We would just be happy for the federal government to distribute everything that we need. How's it going in Cuba?

Not very well. Or, yeah, you know, it's fine if we just redefine what genders are. If we just all accept that we're just, you know, genderless, non-binary people and we no longer have gendered bathrooms. We don't have to worry about things like sexual assault and sexual harassment and predators and things like that, things that were already seen, by the way. And for example, women's prisons. But they're wrong.

Like human beings have natures that just can't change. And that is one of the reasons why communism and socialism fail. So drastically is because it goes against the human nature to provide for yourself, to make a profit, to be able to care for your own family without the infringement of the government, to be able to own private and personal property. And progressivism in general just doesn't believe that there is a human nature that we actually have to respect. but that human nature can actually be changed by the people on top who want to socially engineer society to meet their grand vision of what they want the country to be. All right. Next, I want to actually talk about a positive example that I saw about pregnancy.

Well, it's kind of weird, but pregnancy and kids and things like that from a place where I didn't really expect it. Okay. So let me tell you. about this one last story that I saw that it was an interesting representation of motherhood that you don't necessarily always see in pop culture. So this is Halsey, who is a singer. She shared her new album cover on Instagram where she is holding her child and then she has like one of her breasts out. And she says that she is celebrating pregnant and postpartum bodies.

So this is according to Yahoo Life. Halsey's new album will be released on August. is 27th, 2021. On Wednesday, the bisexual singer, who uses she they pronouns, released the album cover art, which shows herself sitting on a golden throne with an adorable baby and a single breast exposed. And then Halsey writes this on Instagram and the caption, it was very important to me that the cover art conveyed the sentiment of my journey over the past few months, the dichotomy of the Madonna and the horror. The idea that me is a sexual being and my body is a vessel and gift to my child's or two concepts that can coexist peacefully and powerfully. My body has belonged to the world in many different ways the past few years, and this image is my means of reclaiming my autonomy and

establishing my pride and strength as a life force for my human being. Halsies fans have been sharing in their joy in there, I think that means her. I guess that means Halsie's joy. Since she first announced she was pregnant in January, gosh, this day. They, stuff is very confusing to read. It actually reads this. Halsey's fans have been sharing in their joy since they first announced they were pregnant in January. That's very interesting. Well, congratulations to Halsey. One thing that I do appreciate about this, even though it's kind of odd, and I obviously don't agree with Halsey's worldview, I do appreciate that she is showing one of the beauties of motherhood and that she is honoring postpartum and pregnancy and that she is

showing people that you can have a career. You can also have a child. Now, I don't know about her, you know, her motherhood tactics or mentality or anything like that. But I do appreciate that she isn't one of these celebrities that is pushing this kind of environmental nonsense, that your child is going to be a debit to society or a debit to the future, a burden on the future. And rather, she's showing the beauty of motherhood and the beauty of having a child. So I appreciate that. I know it's kind of like a low bar for what pop culture gives us in the way of in the way of celebrating motherhood. But I've actually seen a few celebrities recently post about like their birthing stories or giving birth at home. And I think that these are all really good things because

we live in a time when the birth rate is declining for a variety of reasons, whether it's economic anxiety, whether it's personal anxiety. I think a lot of it has to do with religious and cultural and political changes in general. Some of it might have to do with some kind of crazy environmental activism. But the fact of the matter is that children are a blessing. It's Christians, we know that for sure. I still get messages from women who are married who say, you know what? Like, I just don't want kids. I'm scared about the world that we're living in right now. I don't know what the future holds. And I don't even know if I'm really a kid person. And I always take the time to talk to these people. I always take the time to tell them, look, like, you were put on this earth at the exact

time and the exact place that God wanted you. Like, it wasn't arbitrary. It wasn't an accident. It wasn't a mistake. And the same is going to be true for your kids. In the same way that God has equipped you to be a part of this generation and to face the challenges that you are currently facing. He is going to equip your kids and your children's children to do the same thing. The last thing that we need is for godly people to stop having kids because we're scared. If we see the secular world doing that, it doesn't make sense for Christians to react in the same way. The things that we do, as I've said before, we don't do out of fear. We do out of love and obedience for the Lord.

And everything that we see in the Bible when it comes to children is positive. Now, I'm not saying that it's everyone's purpose to have kids. Not everyone will have kids because not everyone can have kids. It's not God's plan for everyone to get married. therefore it's not God's at will that that person have kids. But in general, as I talk about a lot in my book, it is. It is one of our purposes for a lot of people who are married to have children. This is what Psalm 127 3 through 5 says. Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord. So they're not a social experiment. They're not a debit to society. They're not adding to the

climate catastrophe. They're not things that are going to take away from the fullness of life. They're not going to enslave us. They're not going to inhibit us from doing all the things that we want to do. They're more important than traveling to all the countries you want to travel to. They're more important than checking off all the boxes on your list of career goals. They're more important than fitting into a certain size dress. They are a blessing, a heritage from the Lord. The fruit of the womb is a reward. A reward. Like how different is that? from a lot of the things that we have read today. Not again, not something that we have because we want to put it as a trophy on our shelf, not something that we just ended up with or fell in

our lap, but actually a reward from God. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth that go into the future with strength. So the best thing that we can do for the world is to have children and to raise them and enjoy. and in the Lord to teach them with everything we can to love the Lord their God with all their heart, mind, soul and strength, and to love their neighbor as themselves. Like that is the greatest contribution, one of the greatest contributions that we can give to the future, whether it's the political future, environmental future, social future, whatever, raise kids in a stable home with a good and a biblical foundation with a biblical worldview, teaching them to love God

and to love each other and to speak the truth and love and to hold fast to that which is good and right and true. And also to resist so much of what we see I talk about also in my book, but also here that toxic mommy culture that is constantly ragging on kids and ragging on motherhood and acting like you are a victim of motherhood and how terrible it is. I'm not saying we can't be transparent about how difficult and tiring it is to be a parent, to be a mom. I think that's all well and good. We need vulnerability. We need encouragement. But the constant joking about how terrible kids are, I meant to mention this at the top. I saw a recent TikTok video that ended up going viral that I actually saw a progressive that I never agree with. She actually ended up slamming

this person who said, you know, F kids, I hate kids. And so many people were sharing that original TikTok video. The progressive influencer who I disagree with on basically everything actually responded to that saying like, look, kids are the most marginalized group in the world. They're the most victimized group in the world. They're the most vulnerable group in the world. It is absolutely our responsibility to care for them, to protect them, whether you have children or not. That should be our mentality about children. They're not objects. They're not social experiments. They are people. They're made in the image of God. They have worth. They have value. and because they're young and because they're vulnerable,

because their minds aren't fully formed, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to protect them. However we can, whether there are children, or whether they're children in our church or children that you teach or children that you mentor or council, we absolutely have the obligation and the privilege, I think, of affecting change for generations to come by loving kids as people, as people. not as some, you know, political object, as unfortunately we're seeing with a mini segment of society.

All right. That's all I've got for today. I will see you guys back here on Monday. And on Monday we are talking about modesty. And we will also be talking about Matthew West's modest's hottest song and some of the pushback that he got on that. And then what we should actually be thinking about modesty and what the Bible says about it. So looking forward to that. I'll see you guys then.

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed,

you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.