In the highly polarized debate over abortion, advocates of the pro-life position consistently maintain that the morality of the act hinges on a single, scientific, and philosophical question: What is the unborn? The answer, according to embryology and biology, is that the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings, leading to the inescapable conclusion, framed by the pro-life syllogism, that intentionally killing them is wrong. However, when confronted with this formal argument, opponents often employ a ubiquitous tactic: they shift the question from the identity of the unborn to a broader discussion of social welfare and systemic issues, effectively excluding the unborn from the category of those worthy of care and protection. This argumentative shift exposes a fundamental flaw in the pro-abortion position, revealing its lack of true inclusivity and its reliance on arbitrary boundaries to justify intentional killing.
The young pro-life apologist Micah Kungl recently demonstrated mastery in exposing this flaw during a series of online debates with pro-abortion activists. When Kungl presented the scientific case for the humanity of the unborn, his opponent, named Tim, offered no counter-argument but immediately diverted the conversation. Tim shifted the focus to advocating for better care for “the people that are already here,” stressing the need to protect those seeking refuge across the border, address maternal mortality rates in red states, and combat infant mortality.
The Exclusionary Appeal to “Us”
While addressing societal injustices and public health crises are worthy moral concerns, introducing them into the abortion debate serves a distinct rhetorical purpose: to change the subject and assume the unborn are not human.
The central issue is not whether we should care for those who are already born, but who exactly is included in the categories of “us” and “people”. The opponent, Tim, wished to appeal to a concept of “us” to justify abortion, but the very question of whether “us” includes the unborn is the core dispute. By focusing on external issues, the advocate assumes the unborn are not human and hopes to receive a pass on challenging that assumption.
To expose this exclusionary logic, one need only apply the same standard to other groups. Would an advocate argue that we should trust women to make personal decisions about killing a five-year-old or a ten-year-old? No, because the assumption that toddlers are human beings with intrinsic value prevents such an argument. Similarly, the argument that we should prioritize caring for those already here instead of focusing on abortion only makes sense if one arbitrarily assumes the unborn are non-human. The attempt to appeal to a concept of inclusivity (caring for refugees, mothers, and infants) is fundamentally undermined by the exclusion of the developing human being in the womb.
The Arbitrary Boundary of Location
Another significant way opponents attempt to justify exclusion is by asserting that personhood only begins at birth. One commenter argued that until an entity is born, it is not a “person”. This assertion, however, presents no logical argument as to why a mere change of location—the journey from inside the womb to outside—suddenly becomes a value-giving event that transforms a legally killable, non-human entity into a legally protected human being.
This argument breaks down completely when confronted with modern medical realities. Today, physicians are capable of performing fetal surgery, removing a child from the womb (often between 22 and 26 weeks), repairing a condition like a herniated diaphragm, and then placing the child back into the womb to continue development. Even non-pro-life sources have referred to these children as “babies who are born twice”.
If birth bestows value, then we are left with the absurdity of “episodic personhood”. Does the child go from being a non-valuable, non-human entity prior to removal, briefly gain human rights and value while outside the womb during surgery, and then revert back to being an entity that can be intentionally killed once placed back inside?. Such thinking, which defines status based on location, is “crazy” and irrelevant to the actual status of the unborn.
Peter Singer, an infamous advocate of infanticide, at least recognizes the logical inconsistency of the birth boundary, admitting that there is “no essential difference” between a fetus and a recently born child, as neither is self-aware or desires to continue living. Singer consistently argues that since the fetus lacks the necessary characteristics for rights, so does the newborn. He “chides” pro-abortion activists for believing birth is “somehow magical,” asking how “a journey of 7 inches down the birth canal suddenly change the nature of the being in question?”. The fact that advocates cling to this arbitrary spatial threshold underscores their inability to offer a principled, inclusive definition of humanity.
The Arbitrary Boundary of Cognitive Capacity
A third exclusionary argument centers on cognitive development, championed by a commenter named Nick, who argued that self-awareness or consciousness is what bestows value and a right to life. Pro-life critiques demonstrate that basing value on an “immediately exercisable capacity” like self-awareness leads to profound moral and logical dilemmas.
First, defining value by actual self-awareness would mean individuals could be killed while sleeping or under anesthesia, as their immediate capacity is absent. If the advocate chooses the “natural capacity” for self-awareness as the basis for rights, then the embryo and fetus are instantly included, as they possess the inherent nature to become self-aware, even if they cannot exercise that trait at their current developmental stage. The amoeba will never be self-aware because it is not in its nature; the embryo is “simply not yet self-aware” because it has yet to mature.
Second, using cognitive capacity as the sole determinant of value proves “too much”. Current psychological research suggests that true self-awareness does not fully manifest until after age two. Therefore, basing rights on immediate self-awareness would logically disqualify newborns and toddlers, as they “don’t value their existence over time” or see themselves as separate from their parents. While many abortion advocates want to draw the line at birth, their own argument—that cognitive development is value-giving—forces them to exclude born children as well.
Most troublingly, basing value and rights on a trait like self-awareness that is not shared equally among all human beings destroys the concept of human equality. If value is grounded in a trait that comes and goes throughout a lifetime, those who possess “more” of that immediately exercisable trait (e.g., someone fully awake and functional versus someone who hasn’t had their morning coffee) would inherently have “more fundamental rights”. The pro-life view, conversely, offers a better foundation for human equality, grounding value not in arbitrary or accidental traits, but in the shared human nature (which, in the biblical worldview, is grounded in the image of God). By selecting specific, highly developed cognitive functions as the threshold for personhood, abortion advocates enforce an exclusionary standard that is self-defeating and anti-egalitarian.
False Equivalencies and the Refusal to Intend
Further complicating the question of inclusivity is the tactic of manufacturing false moral equivalencies. Critics frequently attempt to link the pro-life position to opposition to all forms of contraception or to a willingness to let women die from ectopic pregnancies. These attempts are designed to muddy the water and force pro-lifers into defending positions that are separate from the core syllogism.
The case of ectopic pregnancy, where a developing child presents a direct and unmanageable threat to the mother’s life, requires a physician to act to save the one life they can (the mother). In this situation, the death of the embryo is foreseen but not intended. If the physician had the technological ability to transport the ectopic pregnancy to a suitable environment, they would. Abortion, however, is defined by the intention: we not only foresee the child’s death, “we intend the death of the child,” as that is “the whole point of it”. Therefore, the two acts are “not parallel at all”.
Similarly, contraception prevents the coming into existence of a human being; it does not end a life once it has begun. The moral logic used to condemn contraception (such as the Catholic teaching on separating the unitive and procreative aspects of sex) is fundamentally “different or separate from the argument against abortion”. For critics to claim that opposing abortion necessitates opposing all contraception is “simply false” and an attempt to smear the pro-life position with irrelevant concerns.
Conclusion
The challenge, “Just how inclusive are you?”, reveals the weakness of the pro-abortion advocacy. When confronted with the necessity of defending the intentional killing of an innocent human being, opponents habitually retreat to arguments based on arbitrary exclusion—whether by shifting the focus to unrelated social welfare issues, relying on the magic of location (birth), or imposing unequal standards of cognitive performance. These tactics fail to refute the core ethical argument. The task for those defending the vulnerable in the womb, therefore, is to continually return to the moral clarity of the syllogism: It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. By demanding consistency and focus, proponents of life can expose the exclusionary nature of arguments that seek to define the human being out of existence.
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 everyone. Great to have you with us today on The Case for Life show. We’re going to roll the tape in just a minute and I want to show you a very common mistake that opponents of the pro-life position make and it’s almost universal. They make it all the time. We’ll talk about that on this edition of the Case for Life Show. Glad you’re with us. And by the way, if you have not yet visited our sites and gotten material on our organization, we hope you will do so.
We also have a course there that you’ve heard me talk about before, Prolife 101, where in just one week’s time, 7 days, we can equip you to recognize some of the errors like the ones we’re going to talk about today that pro-abortion act activists habitually engage in. Well, I mentioned a tape. We’re going to roll a clip from a young pro-life apologist that I am very impressed with. His name is Micah Kungl. If that last name sounds familiar to you, his parents are Brett and Aaron Kungle.
They run the wonderful organization called Maven, which equips students and parents to defend a biblical worldview. I hope you’ll check them out. But Micah Kungl, their son, has been engaging in a series of online debates with pro-abortion activists. And I have to tell you, I’m very impressed. I love seeing young pro-life talent come forward. That is not only impressive in the way they speak, but they know their stuff. They’ve done their homework. They’ve read the books. They know their opponent’s position better than their opponent knows their position.
But I want to focus right now on a part of this debate that I think is so indicative of many of the discussions you and I have with people who support abortion. So let’s roll the tape, then we’ll talk about it.
Third of my generation is gone. They are gone because of abortion.
Let’s protect the people that are fleeing and want to come to this country to have a life for themselves. Let’s protect people mothers who you know in disproportionately in red states who are dying in childirth. Let’s protect the kids let’s protect infant mortality.
Do you have a single argument for why the unborn before a heartbeat is not a human being and we can kill it?
Yeah. Single argument.
Yeah. No, my argument is basically that it’s a tough judgment call.
Okay. This was just classic of what we get from abortion advocates when they try to defend their position. Now, here’s what happened. Micah laid out a case using the science of embryology that the unborn are distinct living and whole human beings and therefore intentionally killing them is wrong. And as Micah pointed out in this clip, his opponent did not offer a single argument to counter that. He just went into a new diet tribe on something else. And here’s what his opponent did.
The opponent shifted the question from what is the unborn to well why don’t we do a better job caring for the people that are already here. And what he was trying to do is change the subject. The issue is what is the unborn? Now I want you to listen to what this advocate for abortion whose name is Tim said. He said, “Let’s care for the people that are already here. Let’s care for those that are coming across the border that are seeking refuge in our country.
Let’s be people who do that. Let’s care for those people.” Now, stop right there. If you’ve watched this show for any length of time, you’re beginning to sense already what the problem was. Not only was this changing the subject, but Tim was assuming the unborn are not human. And here’s the question to expose it. Hey Tim, does us and people include the unborn? Now, obviously, he does doesn’t think so. But instead of arguing that, he simply assumes the unborn aren’t human and hopes he can get a pass on that.
And Micah didn’t let him get away with it. Called him out on it and said, “You presented no argument to refute my case that the unborn are human.” And that’s exactly what you should do. But that simple question, does us and them or us and people include the unborn? That’s the issue. Now, let me help you with this, too. When you hear people make these kinds of claims where they’re assuming the unborn are not human, you always want to challenge that assumption.
You don’t want to just let that go. You want to challenge it. I mean, think about it. Would Tim make this same argument if we were talking about killing toddlers or 5-year-olds? The answer is no. He only makes that argument when talking about the unborn because he assumes they’re not human. And this is something we see again and again. I mean, just think about the most popular pro-abortion cliches you hear out there. We should trust women to make their own personal decisions.
Would anybody argue that way if we were talking about killing 5year-olds or 10 year olds or 2 year olds? No. They only argue that way on abortion because they assume the unborn are not human. And then let’s take what Tim argued here. Well, instead of caring about abortion, what we really should be concerned about are the people who are already here. Let us care for them. Okay? You cannot appeal to a concept of us to justify abortion when the very question of who is part of us, namely does it include the unborn or not, is the central question in the abortion debate.
He wanted to get away with just assuming the unborn aren’t human, and Micah didn’t let him get away with it. Now, what was interesting is to watch what happened in the comment thread. I read through some of the comments and it was just amazing to me how pro-abortion activist after proabortion activist entirely missed the point. Now, one guy got on there and said, “Hey, listen. Until they’re born, they’re not persons.” Now, right away, you should notice something here. He’s presented no argument at all as to why a change of location from inside the womb to outside the womb is valuegiving.
In other words, how we suddenly go from an entity that is nonhuman, nonvaluable that we can intentionally kill to one that is valuable and human that we are required to legally protect. How does a change of location from inside to outside change that? He gave no argument for that. And you know, if you stop to think about it, think about where our medical technology is today. We are now able to do fetal surgery on children roughly 22 to 24 26 weeks in the womb.
And here’s what they do. The physician will remove the child from the womb, repair perhaps a herniated diaphragm or other problem, and then place the child back in the womb to be born normally at 40 weeks. And even the New York Times, which is no friend of pro-lifers, referred to these children as babies who are born twice. Well, if birth is what suddenly bestows value on the fetus, what happens then? Does that child go from being a non-human, nonvaluable thing we can kill prior to removal for surgery, then briefly becomes a human being with rights during the surgery while it’s outside the womb and then when we put him back goes back to being an entity we can intentionally kill?
I mean, this is absurd. Does personhood act on an episodic paradigm? Does it mean we can go from being a non-person to being one briefly and then go back to not being one? That’s just crazy. But that’s what follows from what happens when you define something that has no value is having value. Look, birth is irrelevant in terms of the status of the unborn. Even Peter Singer, the infamous advocate of abortion and infanticide, admits there’s no essential difference between the fetus in the womb and the child that’s recently born.
Neither one is self-aware. Neither one desires to go on living. Neither one has a sense of itself existing over time. And what Singer does is he simply says, “Okay, we can kill both fetus and newborn.” His solution isn’t to graduate the fetus up to the status of the newborn and say, “Let’s protect both.” No, he consistently says, as barbaric as it may sound, look, if the fetus is not a human being with rights, neither is the newborn because the newborn lacks the same characteristics and valuegiving properties that the unborn does.
He’s at least consistent about that. And he would argue a change in location is absolutely meaningless. In fact, he chides pro-abortion activist for saying, “Look, you think birth is somehow magical. How does a journey of seven inches down the birth canal suddenly change the nature of the being in question?” And of course, it can’t it doesn’t. I mean, think of this, too. We could have a preeie born at let’s say as late as or as early rather as 24 weeks in this country and that child has a reasonable chance at survival depending on where the nearest NICU unit might be and if they have a good neonatal unit at that particular hospital that child thanks to our current state of our technology stands a reasonable chance of making it.
All right. So, let’s take a child, let’s just say 26 weeks, born prematurely. Now, that child at 26 weeks, born prematurely, has less cognitive development than the child still in the womb at say 37 to 40 weeks. And yet, if we’re going to say that it’s brain development or cognitive development that gives us value and a right to life, as some of these commentators went on to assert, then it follows that the child already born has less of a right to life than the one still in the womb because the one in the womb actually has greater cognitive development than the one born prematurely.
So these are the absurd things that happen when we try to arbitrarily assign a point a threshold at which you suddenly pop into personhood. It’s just crazy thinking. Now some of the other comments that came up are worth looking at as well. One commenter said, “Aha, if you think abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being, well then that follows that you want women to die from ectopic pregnancy.” Now, any of you that have followed this show know that we always tell you the three most important words are syllogism.
And what we’re referring to there is the pro-life formal argument that says premise one, it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Premise two, abortion does that. Conclusion, therefore, abortion is wrong. It’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Abortion does that. Therefore, it’s wrong. Now notice with ectopic pregnancy, we don’t have an abortion. And here’s why. What the physician is trying to do in that case is save the one life he can when dealing with an ectopic pregnancy that cannot be managed where both mother and child can be treated as patients.
And there’s a sizable number of ectopic pregnancies that pres present a direct threat to the mother’s life. Now notice I’m not talking about health here. I’m talking about her life. As that child grows in that narrow fallopian tube, the chance of that tube rupturing and causing the mother to hemorrhage to death is a very real threat. So you’re a pro-life physician. What do you do? Do you do nothing and let two humans die? Or do you act in such a way that you save one life even though the unintended but foreseen result is the death of the developing embryo.
Well, if I’m a pro-life physician, I’m going to act to save the one life I can, that of the mother. I can’t save the child. We don’t have the technology to transport an ectopic pregnancy to a suitable environment that will allow the child to live. We don’t have that technology yet. Maybe one day we will. In fact, I’m aware of research being done to do that, but right now we don’t have it. So, at the current moment, if I’m a pro-life physician, I’ll do the greatest moral good I can and save the one life I can, that of the mother.
Now, for abortion advocates to scream, there you go. You too support abortion. See? See? See? No. Let’s go back again to our syllogism. It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the pro-life physician would foresee the death of the embryo that he can’t save anyway, but he doesn’t intend it. If he had the way, if he had a way to save the child, he would. With abortion, we not only foresee the death of the child, we intend the death of the child.
Indeed, that’s the whole point of it. So, the two are not parallel at all. Now, another one that came up which is so typical, the commenter said, “Oh, well, you must also oppose all forms of contraception and birth control.” I mean, basically, the threat being, or I should say the snark version of this would be, “Oh, you want to come into my bedroom and take away my condoms?” you know, that kind of stuff. Well, again, no parallel to abortion. Here’s why.
Contraception properly understood prevents the coming into existence of a human being. It does not end the life of a human being once it’s begun. That’s what abortion does. Contraception, which by the way, I’m not going to debate the rightness or wrong wrongness of it here. I just want to point out that there’s no parallel to abortion here. One could be against abortion and still support married couples, for example, using contraception to space children. Now, of course, my Catholic friends have arguments as to why that is not acceptable.
But notice the argument they’re going to make against contraception is different or separate from the argument against abortion. On Catholic Church teaching, contraception is wrong for this reason. Whenever a married couple comes together and celebrates their love through sex, the Catholic Church teaching is that the unitive and procreative aspects of that sexual act must be fully present. And if you split those two, there’s a disjunctive break that is immoral. A structural break in the act of marriage that is immoral. Now, that’s Catholic church teaching.
By the way, I don’t think that’s an irrational argument. I’m not convinced by it for reasons I don’t want to get into here, but it’s not irrational. But notice that’s different than the argument against abortion. And again, this is why syllogism is so important. The pro-life argument is that it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Abortion does that. Therefore, it’s wrong. That is not the same moral logic that would condemn contraceptive use even on a Catholic view. So for the critic of the pro-life view to say, “Oh, you oppose abortion, therefore you must also oppose all forms of birth control and contraception.” That’s simply false.
Now, we’re going to take a break here, and when we come back, I want to take up one of the more interesting comments that came up. A fellow named Nick tried to argue that cognitive development is what gives value and a right to life. And he tried to do so while pressing other commenters to give a basis for why the embryo or fetus in the womb has any value or right to life. We’ll talk about why his own position self-destructs on that question when we come back from the break.
Welcome back everyone. We’ve been talking about a wonderful debate that my colleague Micah Counle did debating an abortion advocate and he’s been doing a lot of debates online and doing very well at them. In fact, we’re going to include a link in the show notes where you can go watch his exchange with this particular abortion rights advocate. And I think you’ll agree with me that Micah handles it masterfully. We were talking about a commenter before the break named Nick who in the comments on the debate argued a bunch of stuff.
First of all, he argued that the unborn are parasites. Now, this comes up occasionally in debates on abortion. And let me tell you why that particular argument does not work. It’s a non-starter. Parasites are of a different species than their host. And as a result, you would have to argue that the unborn are therefore of a different species than their parents. But that of course raises a very problematic question for the abortion rights advocate. How can two human parents produce offspring that isn’t human but later magically become so?
They would need to present an argument for how that can happen. And Nick did not do that. But the key thing to remember here is that parasites are of a different species than their host. Then Nick decided to argue that it’s cognitive development that ultimately matters and bestows value and a right to life. Now, of course, when you argue that something like self-awareness or self-consciousness is what gives us our value, the proiffer can ask a number of important questions. Here’s the first one I would ask.
What do you mean by self-awareness or consciousness, whatever you want to pick out there? Do you mean actual self-awareness? Well, that would mean we can be killed while we’re sleeping at night. Do you mean having the immediately exercisable capacity for self-awareness? Well, that would protect us while we’re sleeping, but not while we’re under anesthesia for a surgery. Or do you mean having a particular nature that gives rise to self-awareness? Having the natural capacity for self-awareness. Well, if that’s the case, then not only are you protected when you’re sleeping, not only are you protected while you’re having surgery, you’re also protected as an embryo or fetus because the embryo or fetus has the natural capacity for self-awareness.
They just can’t exercise it immediately at this point of their development. One way to think about that is this. To borrow an example from my colleague and friend Stephanie Gray, what’s the difference between an amoeba and an embryo? Neither one is selfaware. All right, that’s true. We can admit that at the moment of development of the embryo, they are not at that point of development self-aware. But how are they different from, for example, an amoeba? Well, the answer is the amoeba is not self-aware because it’s not in its nature to be self-aware.
It will never exercise self-awareness because it will never develop it. The embryo in sharp contrast is simply not yet self-aware. And that’s because it is yet to mature and develop and grow. But it’s in its nature to be self-aware. So when people try to argue that our rights should be based on immediately exercisable capacities like self-awareness, a lot of troubling things follow counter examples that should cause us all to quake a little bit. For example, you would have to point out that newborns would also be disqualified because newborns are not yet self-aware.
In fact, the latest research from psychologists and medical personnel that I’ve read in peer-reviewed journals suggests that true self-awareness does not manifest itself until somewhere after age two, which means toddlers and newborns could be killed because they are not yet in possession of the ability to immediately exercise self-awareness. And they certainly don’t value their existence over time. They certainly don’t see themselves existing separate from their parents and existing through time. So if we want to use the def if we want to use the definition of self-awareness that people use, you end up proving too much with your argument.
You not only disqualify the unborn, you disqualify newborns. And a lot of abortion advocates don’t want to go there. They want to draw this arbitrary line at birth. As we mentioned at the outset of the show, but never tell us why that arbitrary line matters. And that raises the second question about the self-awareness objection. Why is having an immediately exercisable capacity for self-awareness, valuegiving? In other words, why is it that thing that gives us value in a right to life and not something else like say having the ability to count to 200 or having a belly button that points out rather than in.
It’s got to be more than just an arbitrary assertion. And I have found very few if any abortion rights advocates who can give me an answer to the question, why is having self-awareness value giving? They need to argue for that. They can’t just assert it. Now, another thing this is going to do, if you’re going to argue that having an immediate capacity for self-awareness is what gives us value and a right to life, you’re going to have to forego any claim to human equality.
And here’s why. If our value and right to life as humans is grounded in a trait that none of us share equally and in fact may come and go in the course of our lifetimes, then it follows that more the people with more of that immediately exercisable trait have greater rights than those with less. So maybe I wake up one morning and I haven’t had my coffee and I’m still functionally an agnostic. I usually am until about my second cup. Well, in that case, it would follow those of you that wake up ready to go.
You’re firing your synapses on all cylinders. You’re more of a person and have more fundamental rights than I do because you at that moment have more of the given trait that has been arbitrarily selected. The pro-life view has better explanatory power for human value. We are not valuable because of some arbitrary trait or accidental trait that none of us share equally and that may come and go. Rather, we are fundamentally equal because we all share the same human nature, which those of us committed to the biblical worldview know that is ultimately grounded in the image of God.
Now, one of the things that Nick tried to do is force the discussion into a discussion about, well, you’re going to have to ground your claim for human value for the fetus in some theological concept. You’re going to have to bring religion into this. Okay, this is a non-starter for a lot of reasons. Let me just start with this one. The claim that the unborn are human and have value in a right to life is no more religious than saying a teenager has value in a right to life or saying that Nick himself has value in a right to life.
His worldview is what is known as philosophical naturalism. And let me explain that worldview to you very briefly. Philosophical naturalism says the universe came from nothing and was caused by nothing. Everything we see is a cosmic accident. Okay. In that kind of world, how do you get intrinsic value for anything born or unborn? How does a born person have value that we are required to respect? The answer is you can’t get it. You cannot get fundamental intrinsic value in a universe that came from nothing and was caused by nothing.
And this is exactly why our founding fathers promptly grounded the concept of human rights in a transcendent creator. That’s why when you read the Declaration of Independence, all over it are references to nature and nature’s God. Well, they’re grounding it in a transcendent source because if there is no God, if there’s no transcendent source for human rights, then rights are arbitrary. The same government that grants rights can take them away. And the funny thing about people with like Nick, if I say to Nick, hey, where does the right to an abortion come from?
His answer will be, well, it came from the Supreme Court in Ro v. Wade. Okay, fine. The very court that granted a right to an abortion can take it away, which is precisely what it did in the DOS decision. It says there is no constitutional right to an abortion. States can decide for themselves what they’re going to do. But Nick would be upset with that. He’s not happy that the court did that. But why? If the court is the final arbiter of our rights and they’re not grounded in a transcendent source that supersedes government, if there are no natural rights that are transcendent, then you can’t really complain when the same government that grants a right to an abortion reverses course and takes it away.
So, these are some of the major problems that we had with this video, not only in the video itself, but with some of the comments. It’s worth reading through these comments to get a sense of the kinds of questions that were coming up. And again, I hope you’ll do that. And I also hope you’ll visit our primary sponsor, Life Training Institute. We have information there on our speakers. Whether it’s a pregnancy center banquet you need a speaker for or a school assembly, we can help you with that.
Thank you for joining us today on The Case for Life show. We look forward to seeing you next time.