The Michael Knowles Show - LGBTQ Pastor DEBATES Michael Knowles: Is The Bible Pro-Choice?

Episode Date: April 12, 2025

Abortion, Planned Parenthood, and the Bible—can they coexist? In this explosive episode of Pulpit & Politics, Michael Knowles goes head-to-head with viral LGBTQ pastor Brandan Robertson in a powerful, no-holds-barred debate on one of the most controversial issues in America.   From biblical authority and church doctrine to bodily autonomy and human rights, this debate dives deep into the moral, spiritual, and political battle over abortion and Planned Parenthood.   Get ready for bold claims, fiery exchanges, and critical questions that every person of faith—and every American—needs to hear.   - - -   Today’s Sponsor:   Hallow - Put your relationship with God first. Head over to https://hallow.com/knowles for three months free today! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Jesus would not consider a fetus to be a fully formed human being. I think you're on kind of weak ground here. There is no scientific consensus of when life begins because it's not a scientific question. It is a moral, philosophical, spiritual question. Randon, hold on, there is a scientific consensus on when life begins. The whole point of an abortion is to end a life. So you believe when a sperm enters into an egg, that is a human being? Yeah.

I am joined and I'm very happy to be joined by Pastor Brandon Robertson, Pastor of Sunnyside Reform Church in New York City to discuss the question that we were going to talk about off the top. Because President Trump is defunding Planned Parenthood, the pro-lifers are on the move. Is abortion biblical? Can Christians support abortion? Pastor Robertson, Brandon, thank you so much for coming on the show again. It's so good to be here and I'm grateful in God's sovereignty that it's me and you have an good conversation. It's wonderful to have you. Defunding Planned Parenthood is nothing new.

Republicans have tried to do this a number of times. President Trump, despite his sometimes ambiguous statements on abortion, has been the most pro-life president we've ever had. He appointed the justices who overruled Roe v. Wade. He is the first sitting president to show up to the march for life. He is going to defund Planned Parenthood. So I think his pro-life bona fides are pretty good. Many Christians, most Christians that seem to me, are celebrating that. You are not, because you think that a Christian can support abortion. I do think Christians can support abortion, but I do want to say also that it is just concerning the way Trump is going about

defunding Planned Parenthood. This broad use of executive power, I think, should be concerning to anybody who cares about democracy because especially for your side, what happens when liberals get in and use the same executive powers to go after Planned Parenthoods? No, Brandon, on that point, were you concerned when Mr. Obama said,

forget about the legislature, a pen and a phone and I can, you know, look, I didn't like that at the time, but your point on the hypothetical future use of power by liberals, sure, that's bad, but I don't need to worry about the hypothetical because they're already doing it. So from my perspective, at least, I think, look, would I like this stuff codified in law? Yes, but I'll take it. However Trump can do it, I'm in. I'm all for executive defunding of Planned Parenthood. But the way he's doing it is so interesting. He's defunding nine Planned Parenthood from a 55-year-old program because they support DEI and supposedly stand for immigration. It's a very backwards way to try to defund some

Planned Parenthoods and not all of them. And it's just bizarre from where I sit, from a political standpoint. Well, sometimes I think, you know, President Trump is wise as a serpent, innocent as a dove. He certainly aspires to that. And I think he achieves it quite frequently. And so, anyway, if you could defund Planned Parenthood because the Planned Parenthood lunch kitchen, failed the health inspection because they had one mouse in there. I'm all for it. Obviously, the real reason to defund it is because of their killing babies. But if it, beyond that, however you've got to do it, if it's because there's a crack in their roof

and it's not safe to inhabit, fine by me. What is the argument? I mean, what is the basic argument? You know, I'm a mackerel snapping papist, as I've mentioned once or twice, even in this very segment. And the Catholic Church has been consistent for 2,000 years that abortion is not. to be permitted, going back to the didache, going back to the earliest catechism that we have. Well, to that point, I actually, I mean, my position, I would say, actually leans on a lot of

some of the early Catholic saints and theologians. You know this argument. There has been a large degree of diversity in Christian theology about when exactly life begins. You have Augustine and Thomas Aquinas having this belief that sometime after conception, and there's varying degrees of dates and times when that happens. that they believe life actually begins. And I do think, to be very honest, that that is a question that's beyond all of our pay grade, including the Magisterium of the Catholic Church's pay grade,

to actually know the precise moment of when life begins. But it does seem to me from where I sit, understanding the science and with my theological perspective, that life does not begin at conception. Conception is a potential life, and that there are a number of reasons that a woman might need to have an abortion, and I don't think that she's

be outlawed or illegal. And I think most Christians in the modern era have agreed with that. In fact, you'll know Christianity today back in the 1960s published a whole entire articles that was pro-choice and advocating for abortion. So it's a relatively recent move that we've seen conservative Christianity really hamper down and say that abortion is this mortal sin that we must all avoid. Well, it's certainly true on the Protestant side. And so, you know, worth worth pointing out here for the, you know, we have our own liberals in the Catholic Church, too, and we call them Jesuits. But, you know, even they, even the liberals in the Catholic church tend to be ardently pro-life. I mean, some of the most, I think of one Jesuit in particular,

Father James Martin, who's my good friend. I'm not surprised to hear that. But even he is ardently pro-life. Christianity today is a Protestant magazine. And, you know, I like that the evangelicals kind of came over on the pro-life side. To your point on Thomas Aquinas, for instance, because this is a great observation that St. Thomas Aquinas, it's a little unclear, especially if you're not totally immersed in his thought, does Thomas Aquinas endorse abortion? Because he says that at a certain point, you have the insolment of the baby, you know, maybe around quickening or something. The reason for that, however, is based on a faulty understanding of how gestation works. And it's no knock on St. Thomas Aquinas. He didn't have sonograms at the time.

But the belief, coming from Aristotle's understanding of biology, was that the only active principle in conception was the sperm and that the sperm acted on the blood of the woman. So there was no conception really of an egg, that the sperm was acting on the blood. And it was in a vegetative soul for some period of time until quickening, say, until you could feel the baby. And now, not because of any theological developments, but because we have sonograms and things like that, we can, and because we have modern genetics and because we, you know, we have microscopes and things. We can actually see that that's not when life begins, that the new human person with the full independent genome and the principles of life, you know, growth and metabolism and all the rest of it, they all begin at conception, conception meaning the very beginning.

So your argument beyond, you know, when life begins, which you say it's beyond our pay grade theoretically. I don't think it's really beyond the pake rate at the very least of scientists and biologists, you know, whatever you wish is you could say, well, the baby doesn't have a soul or isn't entitled to dignity because he isn't quite a person or whatever, you know, which I think is silly. But at the very least, it's a human being, it's an independent human being, he has the processes of life. So let's get to brass tax. Why does a woman supposedly need an abortion? And why and when would Christians tolerate that? Yeah, I mean, I think most people are familiar with these arguments that a woman who,

for instance, is facing severe health challenges perhaps might die if a pregnancy moves forward. I think there should be an opportunity for her to consult with her doctors and figure out whether or not it's safe and good for her to carry out that pregnancy. The other common times that most people, I think, agree that abortion should be considered is in cases of incest, abuse, rape. And again, I think no one is flat out pro-abortion. I think most people are wanting some moderate abilities for people to make choices on this very, I think, gray ethical issue about when precisely life begins, that women have the opportunity, if confront it with one of these terrible situations to choose to not move forward with a pregnancy without being thrown into prison,

which is what many of these conservative states are actually advocating. Why would you say no one is pro-abortion? Seems to me the women who go out and shout your abortion, for instance, are pro-abortion. But I'm more interested in your take. Forget about those ladies for a second. Why is it the case that you would even be impelled to say, look, look, look, no one's pro-abortion. Why not? Why wouldn't someone be pro-abortion?

Well, precisely the reason I said, I think this is a great. Ray issue. I don't think we can know when precisely life begins. I think I'm pretty confident, based on my understanding of the science, that in the earliest stages of conception, what we are dealing with is not a human being with all the faculties and rights of a human being. Well, hold on. Facultyes and rights are certainly rights is not the purview of a natural scientist. But even faculties, sure, I totally grant. A baby at four days gestation does not have the faculties that I do right now. I know some people who seem like they have those faculties, but we are supposed to have more advanced faculties. But now we're getting into the realm of ethics, philosophy, and theology. Yeah. Or is it your belief that human beings get their rights or else their dignity from the exercise of their faculties of reason? Surely you wouldn't say that.

No, but I do think a human being needs to be born to have the fullness of rights. Why? And I think... Even in liberal states, we've had protection. of babies in the womb, like if a pregnant mother's murdered, it would be a double homicide until recently in New York. And totally. And I would agree that, again, the line is murky at when exactly we move from potential life to life. I do think towards the end of a pregnancy, we're dealing with a fully functioning human being. Quite obviously, science is clear. DeSotograms show a fully

functioning human being. But up until that process, that is not the same thing as a fully functioning human being. A fetus is not, does not have all of the abilities that we have as a human. A two-year-old child doesn't have all the faculties and abilities that I have. You know, I guess I'm just, I'm, no, I promise you, I have a two and a half year old kid, you know, and he's, and he's very capable and he's precocious and everything. But there are many things that I can do that he can't do. I can, I can, like, screw in a light bulb, I can drive a car, I can do math to some reasonable. But that's talking about learning. That's talking about learning. but the brain capacity is there and it will continue to grow into a full human brain.

It will continue to grow, exactly. And I guess that's my point for babies in the womb. I think you're on kind of weak ground here because I guess the question you have to answer is, on what grounds do human beings possess rights or dignity at all? And your answer seems to be something like, well, you know, when they can, when they look more like us or when they can move around a little bit more, who knows, when they can like cry out mama or something like that. But that's not my argument. My argument is human beings derive their dignity because we're rational creatures, because we are the sort of creature that reasons. And a little baby in the womb doesn't reason. And a two-year-old toddler doesn't reason. And a person who's severely

mentally retarded or in a coma or actually just asleep doesn't reason either. But it doesn't mean that you can kill any of those people. They are human beings. They have the material, you know, the matter of human beings, and I think they have clearly the substantial form of human beings as they are developing, even by your admission, into a fully grown adult. Again, well, first, did I hear you say that the dignity of humans comes when they can use those faculties? No, no, no, no, quite the opposite. Okay. Got it, got it. Human dignity comes because we are rational creatures, which is to say, we are the kind of creature that in principle can reason. Now, if someone has a traumatic brain injury, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he,

or if he's born severely retarded or something like that, or, as I pointed out, even if he's just kind of a sleeper in a coma, he no longer can reason. That doesn't mean that we can kill him. He doesn't lose his dignity. He doesn't lose his rights. He's just, he's still the kind of creature that can reason. Yeah. I think the big difference here, and I agree on so many of these issues, I think the difference between kind of the progressive theological community and the conservative slash Orthodox Christian community is your side calls things black and white that I don't think we can know in humility as human beings with limited capacities. There are things we can't know to be absolutely true black and white. And I do think, when does life begin is a question that we have

been debating in Christianity since the beginning. I reject the notion that you began this segment with that this has been somehow the consensus for 2,000 years. There has been a diversity of opinion for 2,000 years. And so, of course, my... Diversity of opinion on people. I made the, I suppose, more modest claim. Though I don't know if it's really all that modest in the end, that the Catholic Church, at the very least, has been consistent.

And you raised the good point of, well, what about Thomas Aquinas? You know, he's the greatest doctor of the church. And he says that, you know, babies aren't really like babies until a little while after. But then I pointed out, well, Thomas Aquinas simply thought the conception occurred later than we would now say, even a secular person would now say, conception occurs. So all I'm saying is the Catholics have been consistent, at least since the D-Docke,

and certain other flavors of Christianity have not been. But all flavors of Christianity read the Bible and see John the Baptist dancing in the womb at the visitation. How? Yeah. Elizabeth's health wasn't on the line, as far as I know, and that was not a conception that came out of abuse or anything like that.

But if it had been, would you encourage the murder of the prophet who is to make straight the ways of the Lord? Well, I don't think it's a murder to have an abortion on a potential life. Would you encourage the ending, the termination of the pregnancy to end the even possibility of the life of the prophet? Probably not for John the Baptist, because in God's will and God's plan, that was what needed to take place. But the point I wanted to make was that on your,

side, things do seem more black and white. You all take these very hard positions, which I actually do think, and I mean this with a lot of respect, is an exercise in hubris because it's humans declaring certainty on things that we cannot have certainty on. Whereas on my side, I'm willing to say, I think abortion is a very tricky ethical issue. And I don't think we should be drawing firm, black, and white lines on this. If a little orphan, if a little orphan shows up to your door and is very hungry and asks for food, do you think that, that, that, The person whose dory shows up to should feed that little orphan? Generally, yeah.

Every time, or are there exceptions? Assuming he has enough food. In the hypothetical, I mean, there are so many things that could be happening there, but yes. We'll say yes. Yes, every time. So you're drawing a clear black and white distinction in all of your hubris, in all of your pride and sanctimony. You're telling me that I need to feed that little hungry orphan every time he shows up

to my door. Where do you get off with this moral sanctimony? That's not what I said. I said there are certain issues that clearly are above the pay grade of human beings. And this is one of them. There is no scientific consensus of when life begins because it's not a scientific question. It is a moral, philosophical, spiritual question. Right.

Hold on. There is no scientific consensus of when we should be able to have abortions. There is a scientific consensus on when life begins. the whole point of an abortion is to end a life. If there were no life that were growing that had the markers of life, the seven markers of life that are agreed upon by scientists, that was biologically human, that was an independent human, not just like a fingernail or a hair follicle from the mother that isn't a parasite. You know, that fact is established. It's the reason we have abortion in the first place. They might say, well, this kind of abortion is bioethically defensible, but you, you, you, you,

Can't say it's not life. I can't say. I think it's a potential life. I would make that distinction. I think many, many people make that distinction that you've heard this argument. It's not perfect, but a seed is not a tree. And if you stop the seed from germinating and growing, that's not the same as killing a tree. A potential life is not the same as a life.

But a potential life. Like an egg, I would grant you an egg or a sperm. They're not a human being. But when they come together, they grow. not like a seed that you have on your everything bagel. They come together as a distinct creature, which is fully human and genetically totally different from the egg or the sperm in itself

and totally different from the mother. Beginning Palm Sunday, April 13th, you can join Jeff Kavins and Jonathan Rumi on Hallow for a prayer experience unlike any other. The Holy Week in the Holy Land is an immersive video prayer series where you will walk the sights of Christ's passion, death and resurrection,

alongside biblical scholar Jeff Kavans and Jonathan Rumi, who portrays Christ in The Chosen. This project is especially meaningful as Jonathan experienced the Holy Land for the first time while preparing to film the crucifixion scenes. You will have the opportunity to pilgrimage with Jonathan and Jeff going deeper in meditation and prayer on the last days of our Lord's sojourn on earth before the resurrection. And together, we will experience the Sea of Galilee. Journey into Jerusalem, visit Caiaphas' house, walk the Via Dolorosa, stand at the foot, of the cross at Calvary and visit the tomb, all while praying alongside scripture in the actual

sites where these events occurred. It's marvelous. I really love Halo. I've partnered with Hallow for years at this point, and Hallow has so much to offer the rosaries and the meditations and the podcasts. And this Holy Week, deep in your connection to Christ's passion as you journey with him to the cross and resurrection. There's more to look forward to. Stay tuned for exciting new Easter prayers launching Easter Monday to carry you into the joy of the resurrection. Download Hello Now get three months for free. So you believe when a sperm enters into an egg, that is a human being. Yeah.

Most people believe that. I don't think so. I think if anybody actually... That's why, for instance, when Planned Parenthood performs an abortion, kills a baby, Planned Parenthood was caught on camera admitting this, Planned Parenthood will take the baby and take the body parts of the baby and sell them to researchers who are doing work and performing research and experiments to develop drugs and other procedures for human beings. If the baby weren't a human being, if the baby's life had not been

ended, they wouldn't be able to do that. Planned Parenthood wouldn't be able to make that sale. I don't think I, first of all, I don't know that situation enough, but that does sound horrifying. And I will, but I will say that I do think we can say that up until the point, at some point in the period of gestation, that this person becomes a person, that at the beginning of a pregnancy, when a sperm and an egg come together, that is not the same thing as a fully functioning human being with all the faculties of a human being. Okay. So we agree on this.

We're kind of talking in circles. It's true, you know, the baby is six months old or five years old or whatever. It's not exactly the same thing as you, a grown person. But it would seem to me still a human being. and I don't see much argument against that. A more audacious claim that is made, not by you, but by one of your fellow progressives, is that our Lord not only would sanction abortion, but that he would work at Planned Parenthood.

Just take a listen to this clip that was going around. If Jesus were here today, he would be a clinic escort, distracting women from the hatred of the protesters. or an abortion doula, holding women's hands and offering support and love as they end their pregnancies. And I expect he would have a stern word for self-righteous legislators who use abortion as a political issue rather than showing compassion for the people seeking abortions. Okay, I don't know what denomination that priestess finds herself a clerican, but do you agree with that statement?

Not only would our Lord tolerate abortion, he would, he would, volunteer at Planned Parenthood to help them be performed? It might be unsurprising to you, even though I'm a very rational progressive, that I actually do agree with her. Wow. Because I didn't know. I actually didn't know if you would agree with her or not. Yeah. The reason is, I would say two things. One, 96% I believe of the services that Planned Parenthood provides are not abortion. It's cancer screenings. It's STI tests and things like that. I don't know. They haven't performed a lot of those. Well, they don't perform mammograms, though they used to say that they did.

But come on. Does Planned Parenthood exist to hand out a condom to someone? And each time they handed a condom it counts as a service. Or does Planned Parenthood exist to perform abortions? I have gone to Planned Parenthood many times in my own life for testings and general health treatments. And I've never had an abortion. So my own anecdotal. If I came forward then and I said, okay, 97% of what Planned Parenthood does is,

give tests to Pastor Brandon. And so, but that's, no one is really finds that controversial. So, you know what we're going to do? We're just going to eliminate the three percent. It's barely anything Planned Parenthood does anyway. These abortions that don't even really matter to Planned Parenthood. Let's just eliminate that. Some other organization can do that. Planned Parenthood is just going to do tests for Brandon and all the other wonderful services they supposedly provide. Good. We agree. We have political consensus, right? Would they go for that? Would you go for that? I wouldn't go for that because, again, I don't think abortion is a sin. I don't. think abortion is... But you don't even think it's a minor part of what Planned Parenthood does.

It's really my point here. You realize that's the heart of what Planned Parenthood does. Otherwise, you could spin it off. I don't think the numbers actually bear that out. But I do think that abortion is what Planned Parenthood is known for, primarily because of the right targeting Planned Parenthood as this leading organization representing abortion. But to the point, I think Jesus is going to be with people in the height of struggles and the height of the hardest decisions that we make. I think Jesus is with people in the height of those struggles. And I believe Jesus is with all of the women going to go into band-parison. He's with us. He's always with us. Would he facilitate abortion, which is her claim? Yeah, I think he would walk a woman

into a planned parenthood and sit with her as they're making a decision to go forward with an abortion. I don't think Jesus is a doctor, so I don't think he's going to actually carry it out. He certainly is a doctor. He's, doctor means teacher. He is the teacher because he's the divine logic of the universe. But our Lord speaks a lot about the little ones. Let the little ones come to me. Whoever scandalizes one of these little ones, it would be better for him to be thrown with a millstone into the water. You don't think he would take a little bit of issue with abortion, with murdering a baby? I don't think those little ones are fetuses. No, I think he's talking about fully... You don't think the fetuses are little? I think they're little.

you're good on that. I think that Jesus would not consider a fetus to be a fully formed human being. And again, I think many Christians, including Augustine, who says the law does not provide that what is not yet a man should be treated as a man would agree with me. But the baby's a man. He's a man in the beginning, God created man, both male and female, created he them. He's not a man like, he doesn't shave, you know, but he's a man in the sense that he's a human. man. He's a human being. To use Augustine's language, I will say it's not yet a man. It's a potential man.

To, he's a, ah, man, oh, man. Oh, man. He, you know, to say that he's a potential man, it's murky language, because would you call a five-year-old a potential man? Or would you say a five-year-old is a man? Well, I don't like to, let's use the word human. Well, now you want to use the word human. But hold on. We're trying to understand what St. Augustine is saying. Would you call a five-year-old boy a man or would you call him a potential man? I think the way that Augustine is using the word man, he would call a five-year-old boy a man. But he wouldn't, would he call a one-year-old boy a man? Yes. Would he call a baby two days before his due date a man in his mother's womb? Not two days before.

No, okay, all right. So where do you find that in Augusta? Where do you find that distinction? It seems to me you're conveniently flipping the meaning of the word man. On the one hand, to refer to a human being, and then on the other hand, to refer to a fully grown type of human being. Are you seriously suggesting that in Augustine's quote, the law does not provide what is not yet a man should be treated as a man, which is talking about the process of a fetus in a womb? That's what he's talking about. No, no, I think.

Yeah, I think one can understand at a broad level that we shouldn't treat a five. year old as a fully grown man for the purposes of say moral culpability. So that would be one way in which we shouldn't treat as a man, that which is not yet a man. We should not treat, going all the way back, we should not treat a sperm and an egg as a man. They are not men. They're not human beings even. But you believe something magical happens the moment of sperm meets a vegan. I think something natural happens. I don't think something magical happens. I think something natural happens when a spring is magical. I think conception is magical in a great way. But it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, wondrous and impressive, yeah. But if you think it's so magical in the sense that it's wondrous and all-inspiring and impressive, why would you? Why? Why is it? I thought it was just a little meaningless clump of cells that that we can just get rid of whenever we wanted. Why is the conception so magical? You got to stop listening to the far, far, far left. I think most of us are far more reasonable than that. I would never just say it's all just a clump of cells. I think the process itself is a remarkable process. Brandon, respectfully, the far left is much more reasonable on this issue than the position you've staked out. Because the

far left is wrong. I mean, they'll just pretend that the baby's not a baby and they'll, they'll, they'll change the law. Sure, but they'll, you know, they'll go so far as to change the law in New York to permit abortion up until the moment of birth. And you're saying, no, no, I wouldn't do that. But your view is, is totally incoherent to say, conception is this magical moment, this magical wondrous awe and spiring thing occurs. It's a beautiful, yeah, why is it beautiful? What's so beautiful? Because it's the potential for life to be formed. But that doesn't mean that. When a man and a woman go on a date and order a bottle of wine, the potential for life to be formed occurs, okay? And that's magical, too, but I think less so than what you're talking about with conception. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I'll give you that

one, although I've never gone on a date with woman and ordered a bottle of wine, so I don't know. But I will say, I think my position and I think the majority of progressives positions today on this issue is that this is a murky topic about when precisely life begins, but we are pretty sure that up throughout the process of conception and gestation, we are not dealing with a human being that deserves all the rights that a fully born human being has. I think the theological and philosophical tradition offers a lot of room for this perspective. There is murkiness about when precisely someone becomes an insouled human being, a fully formed human being with the image and likeness of God in them. And because there is ambiguity about this, the bigger question

that we're actually debating about here is whether this practice should be criminalized. Okay, last question. Last question. Last question, because you say, look, you don't have this clear-cut view of the far left. You have this murky view. You know, it's all just kind of murk. We don't know. We just don't know. It is. Life is pretty murky, Michael. Okay. So if that's murky, then do you, when there's murkiness over the question of, is it murder to perform a certain action? As you say, do you think it's better to err on the side of caution or on the, side of liberality. That is, if we don't really know at what point it becomes murder to perform an abortion, should we err on the side of doing abortions or not doing abortions? I agree with you that we should err on the side of caution, which is why those who advocate

for abortion and the scientists that work on pregnancies have done some... No, it's above their pay grade, this question. Well, I said the church, it's above their pay grade, But I think the point here is that we do have some general consensus that what is happening with an egg and a sperm coming together in a womb is not a human being. It's a potential for life. And so, yes, I think there are some serious ethical questions when we get into late-term abortions, although I don't think those should be criminalized. We don't even think the late-term abortion should be criminalized? What happened to your reasonable view? Your view now appears to be no different than the far left.

It's just they speak with moral certainty. and you say it's all ambiguous. Well, no, I think that if your wife is the one laying in a hospital with a potential for death, that is a really hard moral choice to have to make. And I don't think making that choice should end someone up. Well, you mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas earlier, and this, St. Thomas Aquinas is a good guide on most things. But here, you know, if, for instance, if one's wife had a medical problem and the treatment of the medical problem would result in the death of a baby, as does sometimes happen.

Ectopic pregnancy is a good example of this. Then through the principle of double effect, one could give the wife the medical treatment, even if the unintended but even say inevitable secondary effect is the death of the baby. So you move the goalpost, so it's not called abortion, but it's still, you're moving forward with a medical treatment that might likely end the life of a baby.

A woman has cancer, has chemotherapy. But this is not particularly complex moral thinking. The principle of double effect is like relatively basic stuff here. You were still not. the treatment is not the abortion. The abortion can, or the death of the baby can be a consequence of the treatment. Nobody disagrees with that. No pro-lifer really disagrees with that. A pro-lifer might make a different decision in his or her own life, but no one disagrees of that moral thinking. Well, I will say that is what I'm talking about when I'm talking about late-term abortions.

I would consider that abortion, but yeah. So you think we should criminalize elective late-term abortions? I think on these questions, I think that's a very strong, morally ambiguous question that. So you wouldn't even, day before birth, New York's law, the New York anti-formal law, day before birth, it should be illegal. Yes. Thank you for being more precise in exactly what that means. Yes, I think that generally that would be illegal unless it's a situation that I consider abortion, which is making a choice for the mother self. A week before birth?

Again, we're going to keep going down the timeline, and I do think that there is a scientific general consensus, and I'm not familiar exactly at this moment. Five days before birth? I think all of this is a strong, morally ambiguous. Four days? Yes, Michael, I think these things are wrong. Four days? Okay. So, all right, the difference between Pastor Brandon's view and the radical far left's view is the radical far left wants abortion up until the moment of birth to be legal.

And you, Brandon, say, four days before. That's the cutoff. Again, I will say this. Come on. I will say, the legal question is the scary. part here that I actually think is really consequential. I don't think that you actually have very many situations where women are walking into a clinic nine months of pregnancy saying, I just going to end. And there will be no, it's like with Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood does so few abortions, it's so unimportant to their business. Great. Spin it off. We agree. No, I think what this is is a great political talking point. And I think everyone in the pro-life movement knows this, that you're choosing a very extreme case that almost never happens and saying, well, come down on this so that you can keep gaining ground. The pro-abortion crowd can so easily dismiss that talking point by agreeing with us. Oh, this never happens. It's totally ridiculous. Forget about it.

Great, we agree. That can be illegal. But they won't do it. I think the reason they want to do it is because they support it. I don't think. I think that's a very interesting jump to a conclusion. I think that the point is that we don't want to see people criminalize for making choices about their life, their bodies and the future of their lives and families.

Should heroin be illegal? Heroin is not the same as... That's a choice about a person's body. Much more a mere choice about a person's own body because it doesn't involve another person or what you would call a potential person. So should heroin be illegal or are laws against heroin use and fentanyl use totally immoral? I mean, to be honest, on drug questions, I want to do a lot more research into that because I do think the over-criminalization of drugs has been a net negative for our country.

So I think... Legal heroin. Yes. I don't think heroin is a good thing to do. Do I think that somebody who does heroin should be thrown in prison? No. Or arrested? Or stopped in any way from doing it.

Well, arrest it means imprisoned, likely. Yeah, not necessarily. Should there be laws against, I don't know, maiming yourself or killing yourself even? Again, I mean, I think suicide is. is not a good thing, but I do think it's... But it's murky. How do you have a law against suicide? We have many laws against suicide.

I know, but like, how do you actually enact that? Somebody attempt suicide and you throw them in jail? I think, no, they need mental help treatment. Okay, if we're talking about treatment, and if that's how laws about drugs worked, I would say, yes. Often that is laws about drugs work. So then you support that. So you support some laws that prevent people from doing what they wish with their own bodies, but not others. No, not prevent.

That helps them get treatment. Yes. Okay. All right, Brandon, I have kept you too long. We've run over. But I'm glad. I'm glad we had this time together, Brandon. I look forward to the next time you're on the show. In the meantime, where can people find you? Follow me at brandonrobertson.com. And Michael, thank you. I appreciate your spirit of conversations as always. You're great at protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity theft. I thought it was safe. If that happens, LifeLock gives you a U.S.-based restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish. calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims, your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident restoration is guaranteed, pour your money back. Isn't it nice to have someone

like that on your side? Save up to 40% your first year at lifelock.com slash Spotify. Terms apply.