Hello relatable listeners. Welcome to theological Thursdays. I hope that everyone is having a great week. So as I said, we are going to talk a little bit about theology, but I also want to talk about some abortion news because you know, some things just happened during the week and they need to be covered even if they don't fit into our categories for Tuesday Thursday.

As most of you guys know Tuesday, I typically do news Thursday. I typically do a Bible type stuff or approaching some kind of cultural issue from a biblical perspective or something that's happening within the church. Today, there's a lot to talk about, but I do want to talk about this item in the news, which is that the born alive abortion survivors protection act that was authored by Ben Sass was shot down by mostly Democrats in the Senate. And I want to talk about what that bill was. What that means for the pro choice movement or the pro choice

is that we decide what that says about Democrats, what we as pro lifers need to be sane and doing. And we're also then going to transition into purity culture, which is something that I ranted about on my story last week, I think.

And where that is within the Christian church and the different ideas of what purity culture should be, how it's been damaging, how it's been beneficial, and I'm going to give my take on it.

I have time I want to talk about the Methodist Church and the vote that was just held in St. Louis for the Methodist inomination. I'm not sure if I'll have time to get into all of that, but a lot of you guys have messaged me about the Methodist Church and this there stands there.

Well, I'm not going to talk about it quite yet, but there stands on LGBTQ matters. So first, let's talk about the born alive abortion survivor protection act very long name of the bill. Like I said, it was authored by Ben Sass.

This bill does not address abortion. Okay, shouldn't be controversial. We shouldn't even be talking about whether this is a pro life bill or whether this is a pro choice bill. This is just a practical bill has nothing to do with abortion.

Doesn't have to do with late term abortion. Doesn't have to do with partial birth abortion. This is a bill that says that a baby who survives an abortion, who is out of the womb. So laying next to the mother, laying in the operation room is alive because it survived.

It's a botched abortion that that baby has to be taken care of just like you would take care of a wanted child that you have to attend to that child's life and care for that child efficiently, effectively and diligently just like you would care for a wanted baby or any other patient. So this is what the bill says, would you can read at congress.gov.

It says one if an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States and entitled to all the protections of such laws to any infant born alive under an abortion or within a hospital clinic or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn or for any person who comes to a hospital clinic or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.

So what this means is child is immediately and diligently cared for him, so reading from the summary of the bill, by the way, child is immediately and diligently cared for as you would any other child.

Child is admitted to a hospital as soon as possible requires any employee of the clinic or hospital who witnesses a failure by the provider to care for the child and admit them to a hospital must reported to a state or federal law enforcement agency.

The guilty abortion provider, so the abortion provider who fails to care for the child and admit them to the hospital would be subject to a fine or up to five years in prison.

Personally, that's not enough of a pinnacle, a pinnacle. What's penalty? I don't know what I was trying to say.

Penalty for that, I think it needs to be much harsher, whoever intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive, described under subsection A.

Shall be punished as any as anyone else would for intentionally killing the human being. It also says the mother of the child will not be prosecuted. So like I said, nothing to do with abortion, no restrictions on abortion.

There are no loopholes that makes it harder to get an abortion in this particular bill. In fact, in 2002, there was a similar bill that was signed by George W. Bush called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

That bill defined infants as persons under U.S. law, but it didn't give requirements for how an abortion provider would have to care for the born alive child who survived an abortion.

That bill, though, that defined a child that was just born as a person, which is not a radical concept. It's radical to think that some people wouldn't agree with that definition.

That bill passed in 2002, passed the Senate unanimously. So Democrats all agreed that, yeah, this is obvious. This is a common sense piece of legislation. This is something that we all agree on. This is not a partisan issue. This is a compassion issue. This is a practical issue has nothing to do with politics and whether your pro choice or pro life.

This is about protecting born children. Democrats agreed on that in 2002. And now just 17 years later, you don't have a single Democrat. Well, actually some Democrats did agree most Democrats. The vast majority of Democrats, except for a few, I think it was three Democrats who actually voted for the piece of legislation.

The vast majority of Democrats voted against it. That is yet another sign of just how radical and how radically left the left and Democrats have gone.

...