Article adapted from episode content.
The discourse surrounding the pro-life movement in 2026 is increasingly characterized by intellectual confusion and personal vitriol. To effectively navigate this landscape, one must possess a keen understanding of categorical distinctions and the fortitude to withstand character-based intimidation tactics. Pro-life advocates are currently facing pressure from both external critics and internal “purists” who demand that the movement be something other than it is: a specialized effort to protect the unborn from intentional killing. By examining recent cultural events and internal debates, we can identify a pattern of “category errors” that threaten to undermine the movement’s strategic efficacy and moral clarity.
The Problem of Categorical Distinctions
A fundamental error in modern Christian thought is the failure to distinguish between the mission of the church and the witness of public organizations. This was vividly illustrated by the reaction to the Turning Point USA (TPUSA) Super Bowl halftime show. The performance featured Kid Rock, who, after a segment of his typical provocative music, was reintroduced by his given name, Robert Richie. Richie performed an urgent song titled “Till You Can’t,” adding an original verse that explicitly mentioned a man on a cross dying for sins and urged the audience to give their lives to Jesus while they still had the opportunity.
While many were moved by this public profession, some evangelical circles criticized the show for offering a “watered-down” or “consumer Jesus” gospel. This critique represents a category mistake. As noted by Virgil Walker, Turning Point USA is not the church; it does not shepherd souls, disciple converts, or carry the weight of weekly exegetical preaching. It occupies a platform in the entertainment world—a space where Christ is generally mocked—and used it to exalt His name and encourage Scripture reading. Judging a public witness organization by the standards of a local church pulpit is a failure to recognize the proper lane of the organization.
Category Errors in Pro-Life Apologetics
This same categorical confusion frequently plagues pro-life apologetics. Many Christians argue that the pro-life movement must become a “gospel movement” to be legitimate, asserting that any defense of the unborn that does not include a full presentation of the gospel is a failure. This demand overlooks the fact that the pro-life movement is judged by a single standard: how well it saves children from intentional killing.
While adopting a pro-life worldview is a sign of proper discipleship, the movement itself is not primarily an evangelistic organization. If a pro-life group is effective at winning souls but fails to save children, it has succeeded as a mission agency but failed as a pro-life entity. Furthermore, when Christians engage the unchurched—such as a secular “Aunt Betty” from Boston—it is strategically appropriate to use arguments from science and philosophy that non-believers cannot easily dismiss. To criticize such a defense for not mentioning God or Jesus is to fail to recognize that the goal is to establish a shared moral premise with those who reject religious truth claims.
Similarly, critiques of sonogram images used in Super Bowl ads for “not conveying the fullness of the view” ignore the context of the entertainment venue. A clear sonogram image plants a vital premise in the mind of the viewer: the child in the womb is “one of us”. Expecting a Super Bowl commercial to perform the work of an exhaustive apologetics seminar is another failure of categories.
The Ethics of Cooperation and the Public Good
Another contentious issue involves ecumenical cooperation, specifically between Protestants and Catholics in the pro-life cause. Critics often accuse evangelical pro-lifers of “compromising the gospel” by speaking at events—such as the Live Action Young Adult Leaders Summit—where the audience is predominantly Catholic.
This objection fails to distinguish between an ecumenical religious service and working for the public good. Saving lives is a common good that transcends theological differences regarding justification or authority. To illustrate, no one would refuse a Catholic paramedic or doctor the right to resuscitate their own child based on theological disagreement. If one is willing to work with Catholics to save their own child, it is hypocritical to refuse to work with them to save someone else’s child.
Cooperation in the pro-life cause is akin to a “bucket brigade” during a forest fire; atheists, Muslims, and Christians all work together to save their neighborhood because putting out the fire aids human flourishing. While a Christian would not work with non-believers to conduct a discipling church service, they can and should work with all people for the protection of innocent human life.
Answering Character Assassination
As the intellectual climate grows more hostile, pro-life advocates are increasingly subjected to character assassination rather than reasoned debate. A poignant example involves Dr. Thaddius Williams, a professor at Biola University, who was attacked for choosing to speak on abortion. Critics labeled his focus “ridiculous and foul,” demanding to know why he was not instead fixated on the activities of ICE agents or Border Patrol.
These responses are intimidation tactics derived from the Marxist playbook, specifically resembling the “struggle sessions” of the Chinese revolution. Such sessions were designed to shame citizens into silence through personal attacks, focusing attention away from the “murderous regime” in power and onto the perceived moral failures of the dissenters. The demand that a pro-life advocate must be equally vocal about every social issue to be “legitimately” pro-life is a bluff.
The most effective response is a return to the pro-life syllogism: it is wrong to kill innocent human beings; abortion kills an innocent human being; therefore, abortion is wrong. An advocate’s argument stands or falls on its own merits, not on the advocate’s character or their silence on other topics. Pro-lifers must refuse to be shamed into silence by those who use “whataboutism” to avoid the moral reality of the unborn.
Internal Attacks and the “Profiteering” Myth
Perhaps the most insidious attacks come from within the pro-life world, where some “abolitionists” accuse established leaders of wanting abortion to remain legal so they can “profit” from the cause. Such claims are demonstrably false. As 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, groups like Life Training Institute (LTI) are required to make their officers’ salaries public record.
In reality, many pro-life leaders have made significant financial sacrifices. For instance, LTI’s leadership has functioned for years without a regular salary, often drawing less than $6,000 annually from the organization. Those with the skills to be effective pro-life speakers could easily find far more lucrative careers as life coaches, television ministers, or political pundits. Historically, pioneers like Joe Shidler labored into their 90s and passed away in “near poverty” after closing untold numbers of clinics. To accuse such individuals of “profiting off blood money” is a gross reversal of the truth.
Fact-Checking Legislative Misinformation
Finally, pro-life advocates must be equipped to refute misinformation regarding legislative reality. Former Congresswoman Liz Cheney has recently claimed that state-level pro-life laws are “preventing women from getting life-saving care” for miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies.
A rigorous examination of state statutes reveals this to be propaganda. No red-state pro-life bill contains language prohibiting life-saving medical care in emergencies; in fact, they typically make explicit exceptions for the life of the mother. If a doctor is “reluctant to save a woman’s life” due to fear of prosecution, the failure lies with the doctor’s ignorance of the law, not the statute itself. Cheney’s appeal to “hearsay” and “what might be” is not actual evidence. Organizations like the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) provide the factual medical and legal data necessary to debunk these “scare tactics”.
Conclusion: The Mandate for Intellectual Toughness
In 2026, the pro-life advocate must be both intellectually tough and categorically precise. Students and laypeople must be equipped through programs like Summit Ministries to recognize the bad ways people argue about abortion—including the five common ways people bring up things that are beside the point.
The movement must resist the pressure to become a general social-welfare organization or a substitute for the local church. By keeping the main thing the main thing, advocates can remain in charge of the conversation rather than feeling like they are in the “hot seat”. Ultimately, victory requires a refusal to be silenced by character attacks and a commitment to defending the unborn based on the objective truth of their humanity.
Episode Transcript
This transcript was generated from the episode’s YouTube captions and lightly edited for readability: filler words and the mid-show announcements have been removed. It may still contain transcription errors.
Hello friends, welcome to The Case for Life program. We’re delighted to have you with us. I want to begin today by talking about the Super Bowl. But before I do, I want to remind you of one of one of our primary sponsors, that being Summit Ministries. Parents, listen up. Grandparents, too. If you have a teenage son or grandson or daughter, granddaughter that is struggling with their faith or you’re not sure if they’re grounded well in their faith, can I tell you that Summit Ministries is the place where they can learn why the Christian worldview makes real world sense and you can use that training to equip them for the challenges in life they’re going to face when their faith comes under attack.
I teach there. I teach the pro-life stuff and I cannot recommend them enough. So, be sure that you take a look at our sites and see the links we’ve got there to Summit Ministries. I’ll be teaching there all summer long as will some of my colleagues like John Stone Street of the Coulson Center, Sean McDow of Biola University, and others. Jonathan Noise, Megan Alman of Stand Reason. I mean, the faculty is just blue chip all the way and will equip your students to make an effective defense of what they believe biblically.
Okay, what about the Super Bowl? Well, as you know, the Super Bowl traditionally has a half-time show. Now, I’m going to be honest upfront. I did not watch Bad Bunny. I read enough about him ahead of time to know I wasn’t going to be interested in watching what he performed due to launchy ron runchy lyrics due to the fact that there would probably be choreographical scenes that what I that I would find offensive visually and sure enough there was. But I did tune in to the Turning Point USA’s halftime show and I honestly will tell you I was quite taken by it.
But not all Christians agree. In fact, there are several voices out there on the internet right now claiming that this show not only offered a watered down gospel, but really contradicted itself by having a gospel message presented by a guy named Kid Rock who has lyrics and songs that are anything but Christian. And they’re right about that. Kid Rock’s music at times is quite runchy and is not the kind of thing that a typical Christian would listen to. I get that.
But the argument they’re making is that Turning Point USA missed an opportunity to present a clear gospel. And really what they did is just buy into a consumer Jesus. You have a guy like Kid Rock come on. You draw people in because of his celebrity status and then you give them some milktoast gospel presentation and think that somehow you’ve baptized the whole thing. Well, I happen to think that that take on the Turning Point halftime show was mistaken. In fact, I’m going to argue that it was quite artful.
Here’s what happened. When it came time for the Kid Rock portion of the program, Kid Rock comes out and does an abbreviated version of one of his previous songs, which I will admit has pretty trashy lyrics. And then all of a sudden, that song ends and we move right into this absolutely gorgeous and sublime string duo where a couple comes out and they’re playing very pretty music. And it’s somewhat jarring the contrast between what you just saw with Kid Rock and now we’ve got this string duet playing music.
And then after the string duet finishes, they reintroduce Kid Rock, but not as Kid Rock. They reintroduce him by his given name, Robert Richie. Now, that struck me as interesting, and only later did I make the connection. But then Robert Richie goes into a song. It’s actually a cover of someone else’s song. It’s called Till You Can’t. And the whole song has a very urgent message about, “Hey, you know, you could build that classic car with your grandpa. There’s parts sitting in the trunk of that thing.” And you always give excuses why you don’t have time to do it.
Well, one day you’ll go to do it and you can’t because he’ll be gone. And then he talks about, yeah, you know, your dad wants to take you big mouth bass fishing. And you say, you know, we’ll do that another day. We’ll rain check it. And he says, you can rainch checkck it until the day you can’t. And then he adds a verse. He stops the song and he says, you know, I was at home one Sunday morning and it came to me that I needed to add another verse to this song.
And he does. He adds us a verse that essentially goes like this. I’m paraphrasing the lyrics. He says, “You know, there’s a book in your house that’s gathering dust, and you probably need to dust it off. And there’s a man hanging on a cross who paid for all our sins. You can give your life to Jesus and get a second chance until you can’t.” In fact, I’m just going to roll the clip for you because I think it’s quite powerful. Here is Kid Rock, who is really Robert Richie, saying what I just said to you.
You know, I awoke one Sunday morning all alone with this song stuck in my head. And in that moment, something or someone spoke to me. They said there was still a verse that needed to be written for this song and to get up and write it down. There’s a book that’s sitting in your house somewhere that could use some dusting off. There’s a man who died for all our sins hanging from the cross. You can give your life to Jesus and he give you a second chance till you can’t.
Okay, that’s enough for you get to get the idea of what went on here. So, we have Robert Richie coming out after doing a song as Kid Rock and doing this very heartfelt song about, hey, time is of the essence. There are some things you think you’re gonna always have a chance to do later. And guess what? There will come a day when you can’t. And he writes an additional verse to this cover song that talks about, hey, you can always say, I can put off giving my life to Jesus, but there will come a day when you can’t.
And if you do give your life to Jesus, you get a second chance because he hung on the cross and died for your sins. Okay, that’s gospel, folks. And there was a lot of criticism though from some evangelical circles that this was somehow a sellout to a celebrity Jesus culture. And I think that’s a very shortcircuited or shortsighted way to look at this. A colleague of mine, Virgil Walker, has written something that I think is just absolutely fantastic on this. And I want to read you a little bit about what he says.
He says, “Some Christians don’t understand categories. Turning Point USA isn’t the church. It doesn’t shepherd souls. It doesn’t disciple converts. It doesn’t carry the weight of preaching Christ week in and week out. It occupies a public place, a platform where in this case Jesus was mentioned, but it’s not the job, says Walker of Turning Point USA to disciple believers to preach an exogetical gospel week in and wake week out. It’s rather a public witness organization. And in this cultural moment, meaning the show, we got something very rare.
We got Jesus talked about in a way that was not disparaging, was not negative. You actually got gospel. And he goes on to say this, and I would agree with him. He says, “Do I know where Robert Richie stands with Christ?” No, that’s not my lane. I don’t pastor him. I can’t see his heart. What I can see is that Christ’s name was spoken, the cross was mentioned, scripture reading was encouraged in a public space that generally treats Christianity as a punchline.
That’s not nothing. In other words, we ought to be glad that in a public place like a halftime show, the name of Jesus was exalted. We were admonished to read scripture. Why is that a loss? And I agree with him on that. That’s spoton about what happened on that show. Now again, keep in mind the distinction that Walker is making. There’s a difference in categories between a church service where we do exoggetical preaching, we do discipling of believers, we worship God in spirit and in truth, and a halftime show that occupies a different space.
It’s not a church. It’s not a discipling environment. It’s a public place. Or if you want to put it, the halftime show in this case is in a different place. It’s in the entertainment world. And in that entertainment world where Christ is seldom not mocked, we actually had him lifted up in a meaningful way. I think that’s a very good distinction. And I was quite moved by the Turning Point USA show. I thought they did an excellent job showing the narrative of a conversion story.
You go from kid rock doing this rather runchy, jarring song to an inter interlude with gorgeous violin music and then he is reintroduced as himself, a new person if you will. In fact, some people have commented and I admit I was fooled by this too. I didn’t even know it was the same guy. And that’s exactly the point they wanted to convey. This is a different guy. He is now converted. Now again, we don’t know if that conversion is genuine. Time will tell.
We all have nightmarish memories of guys like Kanye West that appeared to be believers and then time seemed to undermine that. But what I want to talk about today is the tendency of some Christians to malign the pro-life movement in ways that fails to recognize categories. The same way that many Christians here failed to recognize categories when it came to the segment on the halftime show involving Kid Rock. Okay, so let me give you some examples of this. Last May I spoke at the Coulson Center conference in Louisville, Kentucky, and I was speaking there to roughly 3,800 people on this topic.
What does it look like for a pro-life church to be genuinely pro-life? And one of the points in my talk, I gave five things that a pro-life church does, and we’ve talked about those on this show, so I won’t go over them all here, but one of the points was this. A pro-life church equips its members to convey a persuasive pro-life case to those who are unchurched. In other words, to non-believers. And I said the church should equip its members to do that.
And then I gave an example of a sound bite you can use, a one minute soundbite to convey your pro-life beliefs to someone who’s not a believer. In this case, I made up a fictional character, your aunt Betty. She’s not a believer. She visits you on the holidays from Boston. And I’m going to play you the clip of what I said to that conference and come back and comment on it. We need to teach people how to make a very quick and decisive defense of the pro-life view.
In fact, I’m going to teach you right now how to defend your pro-life view in a minute or less. And you’re not leaving till you demonstrate you can do it. We’re locking the doors. So, you better pay attention. All right. Suppose you have an aunt Betty who lives in Boston and she says to you, “Why are you pro-life?” Here’s your answer in a minute or less. Okay, here we go. Start the clock, somebody. Aunt Betty, I’m pro-life because it’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
And the science of embryology is clear that from the earliest stages of development, you were a distinct living and whole human being. You weren’t part of another human being like skin cells on the back of my hand. You were already a whole living member of the human family, even though you had yet to grow and develop. And you know what else, Aunt Betty? There’s no essential difference between you, the embryo, and you, the adult. That would justify killing you back then.
There it is. Did I get that done in under a minute? I did. Okay. Notice the intent here. The intent was not to say that that pro-life never involves the gospel. The point was to say, here’s what you convey to non-believers who do not understand biblical truth. And it was interesting the comments I got online when the Coulson Center posted this clip. Here was the first comment. So Scott, nothing about God or Jesus? Obviously said with a little bit of heat behind it.
Now this is again an example of failing to recognize categories. I was not preaching a sermon that was exeetically grounded at a church service. I was speaking to Christians about how to use their pro-life training to convey pro-life truth to people who reject religious truth claims. And therefore, I stuck strictly to arguments that secular people cannot easily dismiss. But the comment back was, “Well, you failed. You didn’t mention anything about God or Jesus.” As if to persuade secular people about the truth of the pro-life position, you have to.
Well, this is again a category mistake and it troubles me when Christians attack you and I as pro-life Christians for not getting the job done because we don’t bring an exogetical sermon or a complete presentation of the gospel into our pro-life apologetic. I think that’s a mistake. It’s a category error. Another thing I would point out is this. Sometimes a variation of this goes like this saying. Well, in order to be effective, the pro-life movement must become a gospel movement. In other words, if the pro-life movement does not become evangelistic in proclaiming the gospel, it is a failure.
Now, this is again another category mistake. And here’s why. The pro-life movement, as I mentioned a moment ago, is not about discipling believers. Though I will argue that adopting a pro-life worldview is part of a sign that you are being properly discipled. I’ll admit that the job of the pro-life movement is to save children from being intentionally killed in the womb. All right. If you tell me that you’re a pro-life organization and you’re doing a great job presenting the gospel and seeing people come to faith, I’m going to be happy that you’re getting that result.
But guess what? I’m not going to judge you as being effective as a pro-life group. I’m going to say you’re doing a great job at evangelism, but you may be failing in your efforts to save children if you don’t show any fruit that you’re saving children and instead you’re preaching the gospel and people are being converted. That’s a good thing. But I would say why not rebrand yourself as being an evangelistic organization rather than a pro-life one? The pro-life movement is judged by one standard.
How well do we do saving children? That’s the standard we are judged by, not are we winning souls to Christ. So I think again another category error here that people make. I’ve had people on a related note say to me the following. Well, how does your pro-life work relate to the gospel? You know, it’s funny. Nobody ever asked me that when I was selling insurance or when I was working in a medical organization. They only ask that question when it comes to my pro-life work.
Well, how does your pro-life work relate to the gospel? Why don’t we ask that of the doctor who’s saving lives at the hospital or the tech analysis guy who solves troubleshooting issues with clients. We only ask that about pro-life advocates where we demand that they be something else other than they are. And somehow they have to justify their work because they want to save children. This is nonsense. It’s another category error where we are making an unfair demand based on a wrong idea about categories on a group that’s saving children.
That should not be what pro-lifers are subjected to. A related pro-life note, I remember a number of it might have been two or three years ago now. I don’t know. I’m losing track of time, but there was a Super Bowl ad that actually had an image in it. I don’t know who did it, if it was Doritos or who it was, but it actually had a sonogram image of an unborn human in the womb. And it was quite compelling. I mean, very clear ultraography and you got to see the child in the womb.
And there were some pro-lifers with their noses been out of shape because they their comment was, “Well, that really didn’t convey the fullness of our view.” All right. The question is this. In a Super Bowl ad where the obvious room we’re in is one of entertainment and you had a chance to show the truth of our position, would you not take it because you couldn’t fully explain it? I think that image went a long way to at least conveying the truth that the child in the womb is a real human being.
And it leaves a planted premise in the mind of viewers that wait a minute, that’s one of us there. Now, is it a full throttled defense of the pro-life position? No. But why complain that in an in an entertainment venue, we got a little bit of our message out? It’s not like we’re at a pro-life apologetics seminar where we do an exhaustive presentation on the defense of our view. Again, it’s a category mistake. And I’m troubled when pro-lifers fall into this category air and when other Christians fall into this air and end up attacking efforts aimed at either convincing people of the truth of the biblical worldview or the pro-life worldview, we end up shortch changing ourselves because we don’t have perfection.
Not every category demands a perfect full throttle defense to be effective. All right, we’re going to take a break. When we come back, I want to talk about an upcoming event I have that I’m already getting a little bit of chatter about, and I’ll tell you what that is and what my response is to that when we come back.
Welcome back everyone. I want to remind you again about the importance of equipping Christian young people to defend their faith in the public square. And nobody does that better than Summit Ministries. I’m very happy that they are one of our sponsors and I want to encourage you to look at their site and see if maybe this is a good fit for your son or grandson or granddaughter or daughter because I will tell you your kids will be exposed to ideas that run very hostile to everything you intended to train them to think about.
So Summit is in the business of equipping Christian students to make a solid defense for what they believe. I don’t think there’s a finer program out there for doing it. So, take a look at our sites to get information on that. Okay. I mentioned before the break that I have an upcoming event. It’s actually going to happen in Southern California in March. And this event is Live Action’s Young Adult Leaders Summit. Now, let me tell you, I like the work of Live Action.
That’s Llaya Rose’s group. I think they do wonderful work exposing the reality of abortion. They have a genuine desire to equip Christian students to defend the pro-life view. I’m totally on board with them and I’m delighted they would invite me to speak. But I’ve had a little bit of push back from a few evangelical friends who are like, “Wait a minute. You know, that conference is going to be nearly 80 to 90% Catholic students, right?” Well, first of all, I don’t think that’s necessarily true.
I think Live Action has a much wider influence than just the Catholic student population. I think they have inroads to evangelical students on the pro-life issue that I’m grateful for. But set that aside for a moment. Let’s assume it were 90% Catholic students at this event. Again, I think we need to think about categories here. And of course, the comment I’m getting from people is, “Why are you working with Catholics when you differ from them so much theologically?” And it’s true.
I’m an evangelical. I’m a Protestant. I have a different view of the doctrine of justification than my Catholic friends. And I have a different view of authority than my Catholic friends. All right, that’s true. But let’s get something straight here. This event is about training pro-life students to be pro-life in the culture. It is not an event about how to go proclaim the gospel. Again, let’s keep our categories straight so we don’t bleed one into the other in a way that’s going to be problematic.
But I do want to talk about something that does bug me here. This idea that we shouldn’t work with Catholics, if we’re Protestant evangelicals, on the issue of abortion strikes me as incredibly hypocritical. And once I was asked this, I had a staffer who worked for a ministry that I like. And this staffer said to me, you know, you’re working with Catholics. I’m very bothered by that. I think you are compromising something there. You’re going to have to give up the gospel.
Now, I never have had to give up the gospel working with Catholics. I’ve always been able to say exactly what I want to say. And never once has a Catholic pro-lifer said to me, “You’ve got to espouse our doctrinal positions to speak at our pro-life conference.” They’ve never once said that to me, and I’m grateful for that. But here’s the interesting thing. I asked this guy who went after me for working with Catholics. I said, “Would you work with Catholics to save your own child’s life?
For example, if your toddler fell into a swimming pool and was lying at the bottom of the pool and the paramedics came to save him, would you work with Catholics to save your own child’s life? Would you let the Catholic paramedic try to resuscitate your child? Would you work with a Catholic doctor at the hospital to save your own kid?” And he said, “Well, of course I would.” And then I responded this way. So, you’ll work with Catholics to save your own child, but not somebody else’s child.
I mean, I’m sorry. If you think that somehow that’s a compromise because you’ll work with like-minded people to save innocent human lives, something is deeply wrong with your theology here. And I’m not talking here about working with Catholics to do a so-called ecumenical religious service. I’m talking about when you work with Catholics to save lives. I’ll give you another example. Your house is in danger of burning down. Suppose you live in Southern California where there are brush fires that are just rampant.
And especially during the months of September and October when the brush is really dry, the Santa Ana winds kick up and those winds feed the fire and cause these fires to spread dramatically in the hills surrounding Southern California. In fact, I have vivid memories growing up of the entire encirclement of fires in the hills above the San Fernando Valley where I lived growing up. And what’s interesting is if you lived in Southern California and there was a fire approaching your property, your neighborhood, would you work with people who differed from you theologically to put out the fire?
The answer is yes. You would form a bucket brigade. You would have people who were atheists. You’d have people who were homosexual. You’d have people who were Buddhists. You’d have people who were Muslims. You would have Christians. And you would have full-on secularists working together to save their neighborhood. Would that be a compromise? And the answer is no. Because the purpose of working to put out the fire, forming that brigade of buckets, is different than working together with someone to conduct a religious service where you’re discipling believers.
Obviously, I’m not going to work with people who deny the tenants of the Christian faith in the name of discipling believers for Christianity, but I can work with them for the common good of my fellow man. I can work together with him for what we call the public good or for human flourishing in general. Does it aid human flourishing to put out that fire? You better believe it does. And it aids human flourishing to work with people who have different worldviews to save the unborn.
So this idea that somehow I’m compromising is just wrong. I also think it’s wrong when proiffers say things like this. Well, Jesus was pro-abundant life. Jesus cared about all life, not just a few humans. Okay, that’s true. And as a Christian, I will care about a lot of different issues related to human flourishing. However, it doesn’t follow that the objectives of the pro-life movement have to take on a broad agenda to legitimize itself. That’s not a fair comparison, and it confuses categories.
There is nothing wrong with working to save children. It doesn’t require justification. It’s a good in and of itself. Thanks for joining us today. I’ll see you on our next episode.