The BEST Pro-Life Arguments Around with Seth Gruber
Charlie sits down with one of the best communicators of the pro-life movement, Seth Gruber, to articulate some of the best pro-life arguments any of us could use to defend the lives of the unborn. The son of a pregnancy resource center director, Seth Gruber was raised in the pro-life movement and has been speaking publicly on behalf of unborn children since the age of 19. He has spoken across the U.S. educating and equipping pro-life advocates to be a gracious and persuasive voice for unborn children. Seth is also the host of the podcast Unaborted! If you have been looking for water-tight arguments to defend the repeal of Roe v Wade, or simply to defend your pro-life values to the staunchest of pro-abortion advocates in the country, this is the episode for you. Be an ambassador for Christ, for the unborn, and for the right for life, and listen to Seth articulate why this is the most humane, Godly, and rational argument any human could adopt and spread to all those who will listen. Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Get Involved With Turning Point USA00:01:54
Hey everybody, my conversation with Seth Gruber about SLED.
What does that mean?
Well, you'll know by the end of this episode, it is a pro-life episode for those of you that are looking for how to articulate your pro-life beliefs.
You can email me your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com or get involved with turningpointusa at tpusa.com.
That is tpusa.com.
I want to tell you guys to get involved with turning point USA.
As you know, turning point USA is America's best hope.
We're making hope happen at tpusa.com.
Our high school and college students are fighting on the front lines for America, for liberty, for freedom, where it matters most.
It's tpusa.com.
And you can get engaged and get involved.
You can start a chapter.
And so maybe you are a young woman and you want to come to our young women's leadership summit and see Candace Owens and Kaylee McEnany and more.
Go to tpusa.com slash ywls.
That's tpusa.com slash ywls to come to our young women's leadership summit.
Or maybe you want to come to our student action summit in Tampa, Florida, where we now have President Donald Trump confirmed in Tampa, Florida in late July.
Come to tpusa.com slash SAS.
That's tpusa.com slash S-A-S to check that out.
And just get engaged.
Get involved.
Start a high school or college chapter on the front lines.
That's tpusa.com, tpusa.com.
You can always support the Charlie Kirk Show at charliekirk.com slash support.
That's charliekirk.com slash support.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
The Power Of Youth Organizations00:02:52
That's why we are here.
Hey, everybody, welcome to this episode of the Charlie Kirk Show.
In person, the man, the myth, the legend, Seth Gruber, who is the most talented, charismatic, and I will say, wise pro-life male voice.
I think just pro-life voice in general is amazing.
Seth, welcome.
Thank you, Charlie.
You have helped me so much to clarify my pro-life views.
Not that I have different beliefs, but to better articulate them.
And so you do this for a living.
I do.
I was raised in the pro-life movement, actually.
So my mother was actually the director of a pregnancy resource center in Azusa, California in the late 1980s.
So back then, there weren't very many pregnancy resource centers.
I say this to, I have to interrupt you.
You know that a lot of our listeners don't know what a pregnancy resource center is.
That's right.
So what is a pregnancy resource center?
So the pregnancy resource center is the pro-life alternative to an abortion clinic.
They provide all of their resources for free.
And most of them, Charlie, provide all of the same non-controversial medical resources that an abortion center does, minus the baby butchering part.
And they're entirely privately funded.
I think a couple centers recently have gotten a little bit of state support, but usually it's all private donations.
I keynote their banquets all around the country.
And we outnumber abortion clinics, Charlie, about two or three to one.
But most people don't know what they are.
Most people don't.
And, you know, I think the pregnancy resource centers, I've spoken at some great ones.
I spoke at a phenomenal one in San Antonio.
One, you were at the one in California I spoke at.
Yeah.
But a lot of them, and I won't say where, not those two, they got to get their act together.
And they think, oh, everyone knows who we are.
It's like, no, most young people have never heard of a pregnancy resource center.
Yeah, I talk to pastors who've never heard of it.
Yeah, pastor.
And it's just hard for them to kind of comprehend and believe that.
So there is this kind of raging debate around abortion in our country.
It shouldn't be much of a debate.
And let's just kind of start at the basics, which is for a listener right now who might be agnostic on it without knowledge or just kind of, people can make whatever decision is they see fit.
What's wrong with that perspective?
Why should a listener of the Charlie Kirk show care about life?
Yeah.
Amen.
I gave a talk to a Republican women's group recently in Simi Valley about why conservatives actually have to be pro-life if you want to call yourself a conservative.
You know, and our founder said, we hold these truths to be self-evident, right?
The translation for that for Gen Zers is duh.
You know, we hold these truths to be duh.
This is obvious.
It's axiomatic that we're endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.
And of course, they put the right to life first.
And Reagan talked about this at length in his book, Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation.
Reagan, former governor of California, used to be pro-choice and actually had some blood on his hands because of pro-choice.
Life Begins At Conception00:15:47
Signed some bad bills, didn't he?
Yeah, he did.
And Dr. Mildred Jefferson, the first black woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School, who started the National Right to Life Committee, once gave a defense of the pro-life position so persuasively on TV, Reagan watched it, wrote her a letter, and said that he had become pro-life because of her presentation.
And he wrote his book, Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation.
And he makes this point, I think, to your question about why life is the most fundamental right and why we as conservatives need to get that right right.
He says that Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free country as long as some men could decide that others are not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves.
Likewise, we cannot survive as a free land today as long as some men can decide that others are not fit to live and should therefore be abandoned to abortion and infanticide.
So there is no cause more important than affirming than the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.
Well, the other side will say, Seth, look, the fetus is the size of a pebble.
You can't possibly say that's the same thing as a six foot three person.
Right, it's ageism, right?
So that's what they say.
We hate racism.
We hate sexism in this country, but apparently ageism is not just acceptable, but it's been normalized.
The child is not the same size as us simply in virtue of their development.
So let's look at, excuse me.
Yeah, I got some.
No, you're good.
Let's look at what the science of embryology says.
The type of science, by the way, that you're not going to hear from UC Berkeley or from Fauci, the high priest of progressivism.
The science of embryology has been basically uncontested for decades.
And yet you don't hear this anywhere in the mainstream media or in universities.
From the moment of conception, there's a distinct living and whole human being.
Distinct because it's obviously not your DNA, not your choice, as you like to say.
The body in her body is not her body.
And we know that because the baby could be a different gender than the mother.
Obviously, pregnant women don't have male genitalia, so the baby's distinct.
The baby's living because dead things don't grow.
The unborn child meets all the requirements for a living thing.
And the unborn child is directing her own internal growth from within.
So, right, I have two kids.
Charlie, my wife never woke me up in the middle of the night shaking me saying, babe, come here, come whisper to my uterus.
Come remind baby to grow.
Because unborn children actually, they develop themselves from within, independent of the wishes of their parents.
And the child is whole.
A whole human being is simply a human being who already has everything they need to realize their full growth and development as a participating member of the human species.
And this is where our opponents, Charlie, get very confused when they say, well, I mean, maybe it's like biologically human.
Like it has like human DNA.
It's like cellularly human, but it's not like a full human.
Oh, you mean like Untermensch?
You mean what the Nazis called subhuman?
Oh, right.
Not full human, just kind of subhuman.
Same type of bigotry with abortion.
But they say it might be biologically human, but it's not a human like you and I.
So, this last concept is the most important for us to articulate to the next generation and to the pro-choice moderates and pro-choice activists in our country.
A whole human being is similar to a Polaroid photo.
So, when you take a picture and this photo gets spit out and you start shaking it, waiting for it to develop.
Now, let's say you captured a picture of a phenomenal sunset, Charlie.
And right as that photo gets spit out, I rip it out of your hands, I tear it up into little pieces, and I throw it to the side of the road.
Now, you might be frustrated with me, but what if I said, Charlie, calm down, chill out?
It was not a picture of a sunset, it was just a black smudgy on a white piece of paper.
You'd probably say, Seth, what are you talking about?
The sunset was already there, we just couldn't see it yet.
Everything that was necessary for the photo to realize its full development was already present when the photo got spit out.
It just needed time.
The same thing is true with our development.
And in virtue of being human, the unborn child already has everything he or she needs to realize all of the different cognitive abilities, functions, and accidental properties that will come along with the level of development, but they have an underlying nature to realize those capacities.
Similarly, my wife recently found out that men don't reach their mental peak until they're 40s.
And our wives are probably very encouraged by that, right?
They're really holding out hope for us.
But that doesn't mean we're not whole human beings now.
So, we all find ourselves on a different tick mark on the continuum of human development.
But when did the continuum of human development begin?
Well, follow the science back to the moment of conception.
So, that's what the science of embryology teaches.
So, our value doesn't come from our size or our appearance and how we look like other born people.
It comes just in virtue of our humanity.
So, that tiny baby at three, four, five, six weeks old actually looks exactly how a human is supposed to look like at that stage of development.
And so, that would be the size argument, right?
So, you talk about sled a lot, and let's go through it for our listeners.
What about level of development?
Right.
I mean, come on, we're sophisticated people, Seth.
You're trying to tell me that we have to get rid of birth control and all this.
These are wonderful technological advancements, we're told, and it makes life easier.
Why should we inconvenience people if come on?
It's just a smidge.
Just get rid of the smidge.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
There's a lot there, right?
But that's the problem of living in a culture of death that has abandoned the moorings of a Judeo-Christian worldview is now we're lost at sea.
And so, what you said is very common to what we'd hear someone saying, of course.
I hear it all the time.
But by the way, I don't believe any of this stuff.
Of course, we both, yeah, but the point is everything you say there is packing pounds and pounds of worldview assumptions.
Yes.
The window's been moved so much.
That's right.
And Reagan once said that the most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued for, or I'm sorry, C.S. Lewis, are not the ones being argued for.
They're the ones being assumed.
Yes.
Because assumed premises, especially when undetected, can destroy a nation.
You see, people tend to work out the logic of their position through their choices.
And those choices reveal their deeply held worldview assumptions.
But, Charlie, how many people know why they believe what they can believe and can articulate a political and worldview vision that motivates and animates their beliefs?
Very few, but they're still operating off of those deeply held assumptions.
And so, when for the listeners of your show, whenever we're talking about these pro-abortion arguments, people will just drop these lines that pack thousands of pounds of worldview assumptions, but they have no idea what they're operating off of.
And so, the job as an ambassador for the unborn, an ambassador for Christ, a watchman like Ezekiel is in scripture, is to be able to understand that and articulate that.
Okay, so, you know, well, I guess it's a human, Charlie, but I mean, come on, it's it's not very developed.
And so, because it's not very developed, it's a penny.
Come on.
Because it's not very developed, Charlie.
Don't you know they're not self-aware?
They're not viable.
They can't feel pain.
They don't have any desires.
These are some of the arguments we hear.
Those all fall within that level of development argument.
So let's see.
Let me do this in about 90 seconds.
Okay.
You could take as long as you want.
It's not viable, Charlie.
What does that mean?
Able to survive outside the womb.
Okay.
Well, that's kind of strange because if you're only pro-choice up until the point when the baby can survive outside the womb, then medical advancements every few decades enable us to make the child viable at earlier and earlier stages.
So are you saying that one's intrinsic dignity and natural right to life is dependent on the external advancements of scientists and the ideas that they come up with to make children viable at earlier and earlier stages?
That's a very strange political vision of natural rights.
But of course, that doesn't make any sense because our babies fully viable.
No, if you leave an infant in a crib, they die.
You know, and what if mom tells the judge in a court of law, Charlie?
Well, you know, Judge, my lesbian dance theory professor at UC Berkeley, she told me I have bodily autonomy.
She told me I have bodily autonomy, my body, my choice.
My breasts are part of my body, so I didn't nurse my infant because I have bodily autonomy.
What judge would accept that form of argument?
A baby has to fend for itself.
Very few.
A six-week old once born has to fend for itself.
That's right.
Yep.
So obviously the viability one doesn't work.
And if, and if you really want to go that route, that you only have rights if you're not dependent on someone or something else, then everyone dependent on insulin, heart pace makers, kidney machines, life support, caretakers would all be non-personal.
50 million people.
And you know what's funny, Charlie?
The left says that, right?
Mother Earth.
Mother Earth.
What are they saying?
We're all dependent on this Mother Earth goddess without which we cannot continue to live.
Oh, you mean like the baby can't continue to live apart from their dependency on their mother?
So I guess all of us are non-persons because we're dependent on the earth.
Ridiculous.
Okay.
So viability doesn't work.
Well, they're not developed enough, so they don't have desires.
Then this is a more fine-tuning philosophical argument, Charlie.
If you don't have defined will, then you're not.
Exactly.
Yeah.
Or that you don't have a claim to X unless you have a desire for X and can understand that you've been denied X.
And so unless you're aware of your right to something and can articulate it or have a desire for it, I guess you don't meet that limit.
This is Enlightenment thinking gone wrong.
Oh, totally.
Yeah, this goes right back to the Enlightenment period.
Yeah.
And right back to the beginnings of what became postmodernism, relativism.
It all started with Machiavelli.
You're exactly right.
And relativism is just the bastard child of postmodernism.
That's correct.
And that's continued to be a very important thing.
So say why that's wrong.
So, okay, so listen, Charlie, here, okay.
I'm Peter Singer.
I'm at Princeton University.
Okay.
I'm David Boone and you're talking about pro-abortion philosophers who make hundreds of thousands of dollars defending their bigotry that not all humans are persons.
And so listen, I don't violate your rights, Charlie, unless I violate your desires.
So if you don't have a desire for something, if I take away that thing, I haven't violated your rights because you never desired it.
So the baby in the womb, oops, I said baby, sorry.
The untermensch non-person blob of tissue, which is a Nietzschean phrase.
They don't have a desire for a right to life.
They don't desire to go on living.
So in killing them, you actually haven't violated their rights.
Okay, what's wrong with that?
People with suicidal tendencies do not have a desire to go on living.
By the way, suicidality is out the freaking window right now, thanks to Democrat policies who shut down the country and made young people stay at home.
So, and young people, more people are dead from suicide in California than from COVID.
Of course, that's the part of the fault of the Democrat Party.
So I guess all those people were non-persons, right, Charlie?
Because they didn't have a desire to go on living.
What about Buddhists?
Buddhists try to reach something called nirvana.
Nirvana is eradicating all desires.
Now, I'm not convinced that's possible, but let's say it is, Charlie.
The Buddhist nirvana would not have a desire for anything, including the desire to go on living.
So hey, pro-choicer, can we genocide Buddhist nirvanas?
Because, you know, they, like the pre-born, don't have a desire to go on living.
I guess it's wrong that you don't have a right to something unless you have desires for that thing.
Then they say, well, the baby can't feel pain.
So what's it matter to them?
Okay, if I anesthesize you, can I murder you?
What about people with the condition congenital insensitivity to pain?
It's also called congenital analgesia, a condition in which you cannot feel any pain.
Can we kill those people, pro-choice?
Or, oh, I don't really like it when you apply my bigotry this side of the womb.
Right, because it has consequences.
Because as Lincoln pointed out, we're putting in place the premises that justify our own enslavement.
So those are some of the arguments they make to say the pre-born is not a person.
They're not developed enough to have realized these capacities.
Therefore, we can kill them.
Last one, I think, is self-awareness.
The baby doesn't know that they exist.
They're not aware of themselves as a unique autonomous individual.
So what difference is it to them?
Well, infants are not self-aware either.
If you dress up your cute little two-month-old and you stand in the mirror, your two-month-old is not going to say, oh, hi, I'm baby Jack.
I look very cute.
Thanks for the cute outfit, mom.
Infants are not fully self-aware.
So with that same litmus test, we could murder infants as well who don't meet the left's botched litmus test for personhood.
But here's the main point I want to make.
This is actually the same worldview that we have been contending against for millennia, Charlie.
This is what conservatives actually need to understand.
And I want to make this point, if I make none other, which is that the pro-choice position is not a new ideology or worldview.
It's not a new political vision.
It's a very ancient and old one.
It goes all the way back to Genesis 3 when the serpent tells Eve, try that apple, eat it.
You'll get woke.
And then you'll truly see.
You'll see an alternative way to flourish.
And then your eyes shall be open and ye shall be as gods, right?
Because a God gets to decide who lives and who dies and a god gets to live forever.
People have always been asserting power over others and coming up with certain litmus tests, grounding them in cognitive functions, abilities, accidental properties, and then wielding that litmus test for personhood against the class of human beings that they don't like and had a vested interest in dehumanizing and mistreating.
So the litmus test for personhood, Charlie, in 1940s Germany, they argued was appearance and religion.
The litmus test for personhood in 1850 slavery America was, they argued, skin color and intellect.
And the litmus test for personhood today that they wield against the pre-born is that the baby is smaller, less developed, in a different location, and more dependent.
We've simply swapped one form of bigotry for another.
And we're doing the same thing that Lincoln warned southern states we're doing, putting in place the premises that justify their own enslavement.
So Dr. Mildred Jefferson, who changed Reagan's mind, famously said, Today it is the unborn child.
Tomorrow it is likely to be the elderly and those who are incurably ill.
Who knows but that a little later it may be anyone who has political and moral views that do not fit into the distorted new order.
Well, that's where we are.
So let's talk environment.
But people say it's this is more of the women's sovereignty argument, right?
Right.
Which is, I'm a woman.
You don't get to tell me what to do.
I get to make all my own choices.
And how dare you come into my uterus, my body, and I'm the most important thing in the world.
Yeah.
Yeah.
My body, my choice.
So Democrats, Charlie, once said that blacks were the property of plantation owners whose land they lived on.
And now they say that babies are the property of their mothers whose bodies they live in.
But as Frank Beckwith, the philosopher says, where one is has no bearing on who one is.
Your value does not change based off of where you find yourself.
We'll have people watching this conversation from all around the world.
They're not less valuable because they're not in Arizona.
Okay.
Our value does not come from our location.
But thanks to American abortion law, Charlie, you can murder a baby through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason or no reason at all.
Why?
Because it's in that location, because it's in the mother's body.
So, what happens during the six-inch journey called birth?
Well, I guess the fetus fairy floats up and sprinkles magical personhood-conferring fairy dust on the child.
And when that last toe leaves the vaginal canal, oh my gosh, it's a person now, Charlie.
This is ridiculous, right?
But that is the conclusion of the premises of the pro-choice position because you and I don't usually meet pro-choicers who defend infanticide.
Now, Peter Singer does, and I guess every senator except Joe Manchin and the Democrat Party actually does because they vetoed the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act that Ben Sasse sponsored right after Ralph Northam said if a baby was born alive, we'd make them comfortable, resuscitate them if that's what the mother wanted, and then we'd let them talk about what to do with the baby.
That's right.
The Slippery Slope To Personhood00:04:46
And they vetoed an anti-infanticide bill dozens of times.
So they actually are for infanticide, but most Americans who identify as pro-choice are not.
So then the only conclusion you're left with saying is that the baby literally gets personhood and inalienable rights when the last toad leaves the birth canal.
So unfortunately, the womb, Charlie, has become the most dangerous place for a human being to find themselves in America in 2021 today.
You are more at risk of being murdered in the womb than you are residing or living in any dangerous city or crime-ridden slum.
And it's so tragic and perverted because it was the location that you were created to be protected and valued.
People don't understand the beauty of the womb.
Some people, Charlie, and mothers who are pregnant and get cancer will opt for treatment anyways.
And in most circumstances, the baby is completely unaffected by the chemo because that's how resilient the womb is to protect a child.
And we've made it the most dangerous location.
Then it's degree of dependency, right?
That's right.
So, but the baby, look, you touched on this earlier, but the baby requires other help.
Yeah.
I think this is, they focus on this one the most.
I think it's the weakest argument.
Oh, it really is.
Yeah.
The one that gets most young people motivated is the sovereignty.
I'm important.
You can't tell me what to do with my body.
Like, get out of here.
But talk about degree of dependency.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So their primary claim and assumption is that one doesn't have a right to life or personhood until one can survive on one's own.
But as we said earlier, that would disqualify the newborn as well.
It would also disqualify the 92-year-old.
Yeah, your grandpa on life support in the hospital.
But if I snuck into the hospital, pro-choicer, and I slit your grandpa's throat, something tells me that you would say that was wrong.
Or how about car crash victims that are 17 years old that have to be assisted with breathing for a couple of weeks as we reconstruct their bodies?
Yeah, that's right.
Ultimately, this vision just leads to eugenics, right?
Chesterton once said that if Darwinism was the doctrine of the survival of the fittest, then eugenics is the doctrine of the survival of the nastiest.
Who said that?
Chesterton.
That sounds like Chesterton.
And of course, that is the survival of the fittest, the conclusion of that, which is that, oh, those who require more support, we should just give up on them.
If you're not fit enough to survive on your own, you know, too bad for you.
So here, so this is the way I want to finish this conversation because this is important.
So when I speak at a lot of churches, you do too.
And I learn a lot when I speak at churches.
Churches are very, very pro-life.
Sometimes they don't talk about it, right?
But you know what?
Churches are not?
They are not necessarily pious.
So when I say we have to have a real conversation about telling our children not to have sex before marriage, golf collapse.
Parents don't even agree with that.
Isn't that kind of the root driving here?
Root driving cause?
Because married couples, they usually don't have abortions.
It does happen, but it's incredibly rare.
Yeah, that's right.
Yeah.
I heard you mention this with Abby Johnson and Candace the other day.
People don't like hearing it.
And it's well stated.
Is because this is just sort of the natural trickle-down effect of abandoning a Judeo-Christian worldview of an objective moral standard that makes sense of the moral law and our duties and responsibilities to our neighbors.
And so, you know, when conservatives talk about slippery slope arguments, right?
And the left goes, oh, come on, that's just stupid.
Well, we've been right on pretty much every slide.
Every slippery, slippery slope prediction.
I used to say it was a fallacy.
I think it's a predictor.
Yeah, no, it totally is.
That's right.
And because ideas have a certain sort of ideological consistency to them.
It goes back to my first point.
People tend to work out the logic of their position through their choices.
And so, you know, everyone's got to serve someone.
So if you're not serving Christ, if you're not serving some transcendent moral order that makes sense of your liberty and your virtues and the choices that you should and ought to make and those that you should not and ought not to make, then man is his own God and he gets to decide.
What is it, though, about the church and parents that are so excusing of children doing this?
Yeah.
A lot of, I haven't thought deeply about this.
I really haven't.
Like, this is a new thing because it's so obvious, right?
I was speaking at one of the churches.
I kind of was like, oh, yeah, kind of as you're speaking, you're thinking, because speaking is thinking.
It's the logos.
I was like, well, yeah, obviously this is happening because everyone's having sex before getting married.
And this is like a last chance thing.
People like, oh, it's because of rape.
What percentage of abortions are for rape?
Yeah.
Less than one percent.
According to Planned Parents, Guttmacher's Institute, right?
Statistical Research Branch Gutmacher, it's less than 1%.
So 99% is a form of birth control, right?
So that's the problem.
And yet, why are people so afraid to talk about this?
Abortion As The First Lie00:08:14
Well, you might have seen some of the polling recently, Charlie, about the percentage of people who identify as Christian who believe that scripture is the inerrant, infallible word of God.
And that what it teaches is therefore correct.
I mean, there are now a minority of Christians who do not believe that the scripture is infallible and inerrant.
And so minority, that's a double negative.
What do you mean?
There's a minority who, the majority who thinks it isn't.
Sorry.
A minority believes that it's a perfection.
So the minority believe what we believe, that the Bible is perfect.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Got it.
Okay.
Yeah.
And so, and so much of this, of course, as you and I always talk about, and both of our pastor Rob McCoy always talks about, as the church in the pulpit has abdicated their spiritual obligation to preach the full counsel of God, we're just sending those people and our sheep into the arms of an alternative religion, which has their own very strange answers to fundamentally religious questions.
They're just very different answers than what the church teaches.
And so I think one of the reasons to your question, why is the church not talking about this?
Wait to have sex till you get married.
You'll be happier and you won't be faced with raising a child that you feel like maybe you're not prepared.
It's also the way God tells you because many of them are not living that way.
Well, yeah, I guess you're right.
I just, but isn't that the root cause of this is kind of sexual anarchy?
Of course.
It's anything but God's way.
And that's what the serpent tells Eve.
Yeah.
Is if you eat the apple, your eyes will be opened.
You'll see my way through.
So let's talk about that.
I've never heard it put Genesis 3 the way you put it to go get woke.
It's the first woke story.
Yeah, it's really interesting.
Obviously, I love early Genesis.
The first 11 books of Genesis are awesome because they're not written in a chronological form.
Because as soon as Abraham comes on the scene, it's written very, this happened and this happened.
And I'm not saying that the things in the first 11 books didn't happen.
That's not what I'm saying.
But the timeline is very, you have to infer a time.
Yeah, yeah.
Not with Noah, it's a little bit more clear.
But kind of between Genesis 1 and 3, you don't really know how much time has passed.
You can infer it, except for the creation story, right?
So, but what do you mean by Genesis 3?
That's the first woke story.
It's really interesting.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And, you know, I think that abortion is the ultimate fulfillment of that first lie, the lie that led to every other lie.
The lie of the serpent to Eve, who says, For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof of that fruit, it's the King James version, then your eyes shall be opened.
But what's wrong with your eyes being opened?
Don't we want to because the secular interpretation is enlightened, yeah, right?
We want to, yeah, yeah, yeah.
But of course, what the serpent's telling Eve is that essentially God's holding out on you, right?
For he knows that when you eat of that fruit, your eyes will be opened, you'll live forever.
Uh, and so do it my way.
It's like, well, no, you were already going to live forever.
The insinuation assumption is that God's holding out on you.
Do it my way.
Why is he trying to keep the delicious fruit away from you?
Because he knows your eyes will be opened and ye shall be as gods.
But they were already like a God.
They were sinless.
They would have lived forever.
But they chose an alternative way.
They got woke.
They saw a different way of living and being disobedience.
Yeah.
So how does that tie to abortion?
So abortion is the ultimate fulfillment of that first lie, Charlie.
Because if we're God, then not only do we get to decide who lives and who dies, but we also get to live forever.
A God, in virtue of being a God, is eternal.
A God gets to live forever.
And so this is the point that I make a lot in churches, Charlie, to try to rattle the souls of Christians awake to see the spiritual realities before them that the left has slapped the sticker science over and politics over in order to disguise their true agenda.
Abortion is the greatest sacrament of the religion of secular progressivism.
That's right.
And Peter Kreft put this perfectly once.
He said that abortion is the demonic parody of the Eucharist.
That's why it uses the same holy words.
This is my body, but with the opposite blasphemous meaning.
Yeah.
So Christ says, this is my body broken for you.
This will definitely resonate with your Catholic listeners in remembrance of me.
That's right.
But the left and the secular progressive movement, Charlie, not ironically, actually says the same words, don't they?
Yeah.
This is my body, my choice, and I'll kill whatever's inside of my body because the serpent told me in Genesis 3, ye shall be as gods, and I get to decide who lives and who dies.
So not only is abortion the ultimate fulfillment of that first lie, Charlie, in man killing man and deciding who lives and dies, but it's also the fulfillment of that first lie in that we kill babies in order to extend our own lives and attempt to live forever.
Let me break that down for your listeners.
1 Corinthians 15, 26.
The last enemy to be defeated is death.
Amen.
It has been.
Christ defeats death on Calvary and says, I've defeated it for you.
Repent and believe, and you'll live forever with me in eternity.
The left is seeking to procure and secure, Charlie, what has already been secured for them on Calvary.
The prenatal deity, the God-man, who entered human history in a uterus in order to redeem mankind from their sins, has already been beaten, abused, sheds his innocent blood for the remission of sins.
But the culture of death, rather than accepting the broken body and shed blood of Christ for eternal life, demands that we break the bodies and shed the blood of babies for eternal life.
How do we do this?
Embryonic stem cell research.
The left insists that we kill babies to get their stem cells, Charlie.
To use vaccines with them.
That's right.
To use them to find cures for diseases.
Do you want to know how many diseases are right now successfully being treated with embryonic stem cells?
I have no idea.
Zero.
You know how many diseases are being successfully treated with adult stem cells?
Over 75.
So I'm interested because they're always talking about how wonderful the aborted fetuses have been for development.
You're saying that.
Well, that's embryonic stem cell research.
Okay.
But then I don't know that field as well.
So adult stem cells you can get without killing the human.
You can't get a baby stem cells without killing the baby.
But they say we need to kill the baby.
Why?
So we can extend our own lives.
They demand that we kill babies to get their parts through fetal tissue research and fetal tissue or fetal organ harvesting in order that those of us who need organs can get them.
Or, so if you're Dr. Fauci, you fund the University of Pittsburgh where they scalp babies aborted between 20 and 24 weeks old, take the scalp of that child, insert it subcutaneously on lab rats to create humanized mice to test solutions to staph infections.
Oh, yeah.
Fauci funds the University of Pittsburgh.
People are more mad about the beagles.
That's right.
What happens to a society, Charlie, that's more mad about the abuse of beagles than babies?
We are in deep duty.
We have lost our moorings.
That's where we are.
They also insist that we kill babies, Charlie, to experiment with prenatal gene editing.
Two stories came out earlier in 2021.
The same scientist behind both, Charlie.
One was, we're trying to drop the unspoken 14-day limit on growing human beings artificially in labs.
They want to see, Charlie, how long can we develop a human, a baby in a lab?
Because the more developed and older we can get it without it being in its mother's uterus, we can experiment with prenatal gene editing.
Now, that will kill the baby, but on nuts, chucks for the baby, too bad, because if we can perfect gene editing with babies and sacrifice their bodies, maybe we can perfect it before we practice it on ourselves and just edit out from the gene code certain susceptibilities to diseases that we don't like.
So the baby simply becomes a sacrifice on man's pursuit for eternal life.
Same scientists are creating human-monkey hybrids right now.
I saw that.
And they're developing them, growing them, murdering them.
Why?
To get their organs so that, oh, Charlie, you need an extra organ?
Well, the little baby-monkey hybrids have some.
In all four of those examples, the left insists that we murder human beings and sacrifice them in order to live longer.
And pagan societies have been doing this forever, sacrificing infants, children, and adults to the weather gods, the sex gods, the crop gods, because their belief was in sacrificing a person, they would receive a blessing in return from that deity and their lives would be extended.
Sacrificing Babies For Organ Harvest00:07:02
But it's still demon worship, isn't it?
Because if Yahweh is Yahweh, that means one God, which means any other small G god is not a god.
We know that.
It's Satan masquerading as a little freaking bronze dude.
Satan is Molech, whom the Israelites and Canaanites were sacrificing their babies to.
Satan is the dragon in Revelation, waiting for Mary to give birth to Christ to eat Christ.
And of course, he's behind the killing of babies by Herod in Bethlehem and by Pharaoh in Egypt.
Satan doesn't care what name you call him, as long as you continue to shove children down his throats, he will be satisfied and say yes and amen, for he is the god of the religion of secular progressivism whose greatest sacrament is abortion.
So, Charlie, when we say, if you don't get the right to life right, you won't get any other rights right.
The left has the antonym of that.
They have an inversion of that statement that animates their entire political project.
It goes something like this.
If you can invert the right to life, there's nothing else you can't invert.
And if you can indoctrinate the public to celebrate and champion the genocide of babies under the euphemisms of reproductive justice and reproductive health care, then there is no end to your political project.
So the entire liberal regime is actually built on the mutilated, murdered bodies of 63 million children.
It's how they prop up their political regime, which is why every time a Supreme Court seat opens up, what's every Chiron?
What's every statement from the mainstream media?
Abortion.
They don't talk about immigration.
They don't talk about transgender.
They don't talk about guns.
They don't talk about drugs.
Every time a Supreme Court seat opened up during the Trump administration, they're going to take away abortion.
If that doesn't tell your listeners how much they care about abortion, I don't know what will.
That's always been the goal, though, to entirely upend society so that they can recreate it in their own image.
And murdering the baby and championing their slaughter is how they do that.
In closing, are we winning?
I think that we won't win until the church decides to abandon, and let me quote you, their comfortable Christianity and embrace a comprehensive Christianity, to get our boots off the ground, to do what our friend Heidi St. John says, to get off the bench and start contending on behalf of the pre-born child, to learn from our spiritual forefathers, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin E. Moeller, Eberhard Bethke, Sophie Scholl, Oscar Schindler, William Wilberforce, Frederick Douglass, Jonathan, Harriet Tubman.
Let's go down and down the line.
That's right, who put truth and loving their neighbor before their own reputation.
I think you and I sense a stirring happening in the country.
I think we all sense it.
But until the bride of Christ wakes up and decides to contend on behalf of life first and then procuring every other right, liberty, pursuit of happiness, then we will not.
I will say this, though, in closing, I think is positive.
And it's not all positive.
Number one, the Texas abortion law is a good start.
It really is.
That's right.
And I do believe in incrementalism because some pro-life people say, it doesn't go far enough.
I was like, man, you got to be a little more prudent about this.
Seriously.
You didn't abolish slavery overnight, right?
You had the Fugitive Slave Acts.
You had all sorts of things that you had to get rid of before you were able to get to the Emancipation Proclamation.
But when you look at Texas, it's actually popular.
Yeah.
And that's a good thing.
It's winning.
And what's also interesting is if you read Barry Goldwater, who I have a lot of respect for, but he was pro-abortion.
He wrote, he was right on so much.
He was so wrong on this, mostly because of his second wife and all sorts of stuff.
But he wrote that Republicans must abandon the abortion issue.
There was a lot of chatter about that in the 70s and 80s.
Yeah, that's right.
And it shocks a lot of people now that it's actually the most non-negotiable issue.
That's right.
And this is something that I tell churches that are pro-life, but not political or conservative.
They're like, oh, I don't like Republics, all this.
I'm like, you do realize that if you go give any pro-life one-liner at any of our events, that'll be the number one applause line of the entire event.
Number one.
That's right.
I was like, there is a home for it, and it's growing.
And so the fact that pro-abortion Republicans, there's no place for them in our party.
End of story.
That's right.
That's a really good thing.
That's a good thing.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It is a winning.
Because you need a political home for this stuff.
That's right.
Because some people say, oh, we have to win culture.
We have to do both.
We are political animals, Aristotle said.
If you just, if you get rid of the political apparatus and the vessel, I think it's a huge mistake.
Yeah.
That's right.
And I'm not saying it's everything, though.
Don't go.
And we have to wake up to this.
You know, Aristotle once said that tolerance and apathy are the last virtue of the dying society.
That's right.
And we are in that phase right now.
We're at the end of the road.
We don't wake up and start contending on behalf of the pre-born.
This American experience.
We're tolerating.
It's over.
We're tolerating the destruction of the pre-born.
And we're so we wonder why every other right we've taken for granted is deteriorated.
Exactly.
Why are they putting masks on kids?
That's right.
Well, everyone pushing it's pro-abortion.
Well, no, I'm saying that's the same sort of moral slide.
That's right.
Seth, this is great.
How can people follow you or support you?
Yeah, thank you.
So I have a podcast called Unaborted with Seth Gruber because we're all unaborted.
And you're born unvaccinated.
That's right.
As Reagan said, I've noticed everyone who's for abortion has already been born.
It's one of the most beautiful lines.
Pro-choicers get very frustrated with that line because it is so ironic that you sanction the slaughter of children in a womb you once came from.
So unaborted with Seth Gruber, I do two episodes a week, one with me, one with a guest.
And so if you want to become a pro-life ninja and flipping around, demolishing abortion, bigotry, wherever you find it, my podcast is home free.
Pro-life ninja.
So you can watch it on YouTube.
We got to get you going to campuses.
That's right.
And I have before.
I was scheduled at UC Berkeley, actually, Charlie, the day that it shut down in March of 2022.
We got to do it the turning point way, though.
We got to get it with like some controversy, some spice.
You know what I mean?
And we're working on some stuff and we're working on a new season here.
And then my website, SethGruber.com.
Charlie, you and I have a friend and a very generous church partner of mine who has offered to underwrite all of my travel expenses and honorarium for churches, youth groups, or Christian schools who would like to bring me out to equip and fire up their people to defend life, but maybe who don't have the defense to make all that happen.
So you can contact me through SethGruber.com.
How do you spell Gruber?
G-R-U-B is in babyboy, E-R.com.
Good job.
That's right.
That's right.
Or my email is Seth.
at SethGruber.com.
Follow me on Facebook and Instagram.
So that's available as a sponsorship to people who want to get pro-life education.
You're going to have some people hit you up.
And I'm telling you, Seth is awesome.
He's magnanimous.
He'll charm the audience, but he'll tell the truth.
There's no wavering, as you guys could tell.
It's terrific.
Seth, we have to have you back on more often just to talk about all this sort of stuff to build a cultural life.
That's right.
It's so important.
And if anyone has any questions, you guys can email us, freedom at charliekirk.com and take Seth up on his offer.
He'll travel to you and he'll turn you into a pro-life ninja.
All right.
God bless you, Seth.
Thanks so much.
Thanks for listening, everybody.
Thank you so much for listening, everybody.
Email me directly, freedom at charliekirk.com or support the Charlie Kirk Show at CharlieKirk.com/slash support.
Thank you so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.