This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program originally aired on January 27, 2021. To listen to the program, please click HERE.

Sam Rohrer:                      Well, when it comes to the consideration of life. Life, that’s what we have when we breathe in and out and live, right. How do you establish the value of that? There’s inherent worth in being a person created by God or his value a relative value, determined by someone’s subjective opinion as to your ability to contribute to their definition of society. What’s the difference, if any, between inherent worth of a preborn baby as compared to a functioning adult in the prime of life. Is there a standard to determine whether one opinion or another about this or other issues is morally right or morally wrong, and in the end, does it make any difference?

                                             Well, hello, I’m Sam Rohrer. Welcome you today to Stand in the Gap Today. I’ll be here today with you. Co-hosting today is Dr. Gary Dull, and our theme is going to revolve around this matter of life.

                                             I’ve entitled it, It’s a Matter of Life or Death. And while we’re still in the month of January, it’s a month designated to observe the value of life. I wanted to focus on this issue as we are witnessing right now a major shift in US national policy toward the issue of life. You’re noticing it, and I am righteously angry as I see the change. And I can say with certainty that God looks down at the changes, and He does not promise blessing. No, He promises judgment as a result. How do I know that? Because He makes it very clear in God’s word. Our special guest today has been with us before, but we wanted him back on this topic here in early 2021. His name is Scott Klusendorf. He is the president and the founder of Pro-Life Training Institute. They have a website at

                                             So I encourage you to go there. But with that, let me welcome right now, calling in from the State of Georgia, Scott Klusendorf. Scott, thanks for being with us.

Scott Klusendor…:            Sam, Gary, good to be with you gentlemen.

Sam Rohrer:                      Well, it’s great to have you with us, Scott. We’ve entered a new year. All of us know it. All of our listeners. We know that. And we’re seeing national policy being flipped upside down from what it was at the stroke of a pen. And I won’t go into all of this, but we mentioned it yesterday. Now 37 executive orders signed by Joe Biden. That’s changing everything from energy independence to energy dependence. From protected borders to open borders. From diminishing or lowering unemployment to now increasing, perhaps a million Americans going to be out of work just by canceling the Keystone Pipeline. I [inaudible 00:02:46] a few things. But one of them that caught my attention was. It didn’t take this president long to also alter the Mexico City policy that will now permit, once again, the usage of US taxpayer dollars to further abortion overseas.

                                             And I know that issue is close to your heart. That’s close to my heart and Gary’s heart. That’s why I wanted to talk about this and the matter of life today. And Scott, before I go, I just wanted to mention one other thing. For our listeners, we hear numbers all the time about people with case numbers, case numbers of COVID, right. Everybody’s all whipped up, and it is an issue. But not the cases [inaudible 00:03:23] not the issue. It’s really not the cases.

                                             The real issue, though, and it doesn’t get any attention. It’s the fact that last year in 2020, 42.6 million, 42.6 million pre-born babies were murdered worldwide. That’s by far, and away, the leading cause of death throughout the entire world, and yet, where is the word from the United Nations or the World Health Organization or our Dr. Fauci or CDC? No one mentions it it seems, but we are today. Scott, let me go right here with you, set some general terms, and then we’ll get into specifics. Why does a nation’s culture, its degree of civil freedom, its level of true justice. Why does that hinge on how that nation and its people actually deal or view the matter of life?

Scott Klusendor…:            Well, a nation’s well-being in a constitutional Republic like ours hinges on to what extent the government recognizes natural rights. Natural rights are pre-political. The government does not invent them. The government does not decree them. The government’s job is to recognize and protect them. And the right to life is the foremost natural right. Without it, there is no other right that follows. So when a government tramples on the natural rights of the unborn or any other human being’s right to life. What happens is the very foundation for that Republic, which is grounded on natural rights, gets eroded. And that’s what we see happening in our nation today.

Gary Dull:                           Scott, it’s a delight to have you back with us here on Stand in the Gap. And my question is this. From a historical perspective, can you identify or name any nation which was known for justice and freedom and prosperity, private property, the freedom of speech and religion, and so forth, as we are known of here in the United States of America, that also did not hold to the sacredness of individual life?

Scott Klusendor…:            Well, I’m not aware of any. The closest would be the United Kingdom, but here’s the problem. Again, as soon as you decide that natural rights are a fiction and you decide that it’s the government’s place to decide who counts and who doesn’t, nobody has rights that are secure. I think back to the 1992 Casey Supreme Court decision where a majority of justices bought into this notion of the so-called mystery passage to justify abortion. And that mystery passage essentially said the following. “It is up to each individual to decide for themselves the meaning of the universe, the meaning of human life and the meaning of existence,” to paraphrase that passage.

                                             Well, what does that do to the foundation of human rights? Well, it absolutely erodes it because the same court that recognizes you as having a right to life now can decide 10 years from now, “Oh, you know what? It no longer fits with our notion of existence and the meaning of the universe to admit you.” So only a nation that is settled and deeply settled on the notion of natural rights that precede government is going to survive and prosper in the long haul.

Sam Rohrer:                      And Scott, you’re going to set that up perfectly, what you’re answering there for our next segment.

__________________________________________________________________________________ Ladies and gentlemen, now we’re going to talk about… the theme today is, It’s a Matter of Life or Death. We do it in a general sense. Scott just told us that the value of life and then the culture and freedom. And it hinges on that thing called natural rights. In the next segment, we’re going to go into more of the issue about underneath this view is the concept of truth. And he referred to that. We’re going to go more into depth. The truth about what right or wrong is. Is it something always right, always wrong? We’re going to connect these together because it firmly undergirds a person’s belief and understanding of life and whether it has value or whether it doesn’t have value. Stay with us. We’ll be back in just a moment.

                                             When it comes to determining the truth, which is really up in the air, it seems like today, doesn’t it? That when it comes to knowing the truth about the value of life and how a culture should view the value of individual lives. The way that a culture determines the honor and the respect it gives to individual lives, irrespective of ethnicity, or age, or station in life and the degree to which the justice system protects all those lives, those individual lives. All of that arises from how that culture determines what is morally right, acceptable or wrong, and therefore unacceptable. In the end, whether one embraces lying or honesty, corruption, or integrity, theft or the opposition to theft, murder of the innocent, or the protection of the innocent. It all revolves not around the merit of theft or murder or lying, for example, but around the larger issue of whether there is even a moral right to consider such things as lying or theft or corruption or murder.

                                             So Scott, let me go here because on these kinds of issues, you and your ministry organization that you lead, the Pro-Life Training Institute at, you get into all of these issues. And I know you teach a lot of young people and I really commend you for that because it’s so important. But when it comes to developing a defense of life. And when you teach young people to consider the embracing of a life position. I know you must deal with the question of morality and whether one can actually answer the question of, is there such a thing as truth and right and wrong? I know you’ve got to do that and deal with it. So can you share a bit of the points that you make on this issue as you present the need or the reason to support life?

Scott Klusendor…:            Sure. I will often begin a presentation by asking students this question. “Tell me the difference between these two types of statements? Statement one, chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.” And of course, you’ll get a lot of buzz in the room and a lot of discussion on that. Statement number two, “It is wrong to torture toddlers for fun.” And then I’ll ask the students. “What’s the difference between those two statements?” Well, obviously, the first statement about ice cream is about likes and dislikes. It’s a subjective truth that’s true for me, the subject, but may not be true for you, Sam, or you, Gary. Meanwhile, the second statement. Is it wrong to torture toddlers for fun is not about likes and dislikes. It doesn’t hinge on personal preferences. It’s making the claim that it’s wrong to do that regardless of my feelings. And the problem we have in the culture today, Sam and Gary, is that a lot of people don’t know the difference between an objective truth claim and a subjective truth claim, especially in the area of ethics.

                                             Hence, you get these bumper stickers that read, “Don’t like abortion? Well, don’t have one.” Well, notice what that just did to the pro-lifer’s argument. Pro-lifers argue that it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Abortion does that, therefore it’s wrong. That’s an objective truth claim. It exists independent of me liking it or disliking it. Meanwhile, what the bumper sticker does, though, is change that objective claim into a subjective one that our critics like better as if we were talking about our favorite flavor of ice cream, but that won’t do. I mean, Sam, imagine somebody saying to you, “Don’t like slavery, well don’t own a slave. Don’t like spousal abuse. Don’t beat your spouse.” We would immediately recognize they do not understand the nature of the kind of claim being made. So when we talk to students about abortion, one of the things we do is make the case for objective morality. Meaning right and wrong are real, and we can recognize them as such, as opposed to subjective morality, which is merely about my likes or dislikes.

Gary Dull:                           That is excellent, Scott. And I think that that is something that needs to be taught not only in the areas of life. But, of course, in many other areas and every other area of our Christian life and ministry. So I appreciate you bringing that out. And certainly, as we study and understand the word of God, we will understand the concept of objective truth. But from your experience, Scott, what are you really seeing in the lives of young people today, as it relates to truth and to what is right and to what is wrong in connection to this concept of life? For instance, how does the current high school person vary, if at all, from the college young person to those who are millennials?

Scott Klusendor…:            Well, both groups suffer, especially if they have their roots in Christian institutions. They suffer from having heard conclusions shouted to them but not arguments established. And that’s a real problem. A lot of our students come out of our churches. They go off to college, and they haven’t been grounded in the reasons for the Christian faith. And so they get to college, and they think, “Well, my faith is strong.” But they’ve never encountered the intellectual challenges. They haven’t been inoculated against the kinds of things they’re going to hear when they leave the safety of their Christian high school or the safety of their church youth group. And then they get to college, and they think, “Whoa, I’ve been bamboozled all these years. Nobody ever told me about these things. And boy, I’ve been brainwashed.” And then they end up rejecting their faith. The model we need to embrace is one that inoculates them against those ideas.

                                             And the pro-life view is a perfect place to begin that because when you start talking about objective truth, as it relates to abortion, those same principles carry over into other areas. For example, when Christians say, “Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.” We are not claiming subjectively that we feel good about that. And it makes us feel happy. We’re claiming it’s true, regardless of how anybody feels about it. The Christian truth claims are objective and real, and knowable just like our claims about the pro-life issue. So it’s important that students understand the objective nature of moral reasoning. And it’s something that they largely have not been exposed to.

Sam Rohrer:                      And Scott, this is all very, very excellent. I know our listeners are listening right now, and we’ve got parents of children who are in school. We have a lot of grandparents listening, and this is a real issue. And you mentioned young people from churches go away, and they walk away from the faith. That is so sad that it happens. One of the areas I’d like you to speak to when you talk to young people, I am curious when you speak to them, do they generally hold the concept as you’re finding, that there are some things that are true and some things that are always false, and wrap this into it, because I know that this is an issue of a lot of very young people. They may believe that, yes, there are some things that are always true, but they feel for whatever reason that they cannot take and extend that same standard beyond themselves, kind of back to what you’re saying. It’s not right for me, but I can’t expect it or extend it to anyone else. What have you seen in that regard?

Scott Klusendor…:            I think you’re right, Sam. That is where they are. They are willing to accept truth in the hard sciences, but not in religion and ethics. And the reason for that really goes back 400 years-

Sam Rohrer:                      Okay.

Scott Klusendor…:            Enlightenment.

Sam Rohrer:                      I’m going to ask you to say that again. Restate that sentence where you just said, “They can accept it in science, but not in religion and ethics.” Is that what you said?

Scott Klusendor…:            Yeah. They can accept objective truth in the hard sciences, but not in religion and ethics, which they view as being deeply subjective. And the reason for that, Sam, goes back 400 years to the enlightenment. In the enlightenment, you had a divorce from moral knowledge and real knowledge. Up until the enlightenment moral knowledge from the old Testament all the way through classical times, the New Testament, the middle ages was thought to be real and knowable. But with the enlightenment, if you couldn’t taste it, touch it, feel it, see it, or hear it empirically. It wasn’t an item of real knowledge. And as a result, morals, which can’t be measured empirically, got relegated to the subjective realm. We often think that this is a relatively new thing that’s happened. Actually, it’s not. It’s been a problem for hundreds of years. It’s just we’re seeing the full fruit of it now in the 21st century.

                                             And so students have been indoctrinated conditioned to believe that moral truth can’t be known objectively the way you can know science objectively. But when we reawaken their moral intuitions on abortion, by showing them imagery of abortion, by making good arguments for the pro-life case, their mouths drop open Sam. They’ve never heard these arguments. I’ve often heard people say, “Well, the pro-life view has been tried and heard, and people reject it.” No, they haven’t. They haven’t heard it. They’ve heard people say things like, “Well, the church says abortion is wrong. Or the catechism of the Catholic church says it’s wrong.” But they haven’t heard arguments that lay out the humanity of the unborn and the inhumanity of abortion. And when students hear these logical arguments that my speaking team makes to them. And they hear the rational case we present for life they’re absolutely taken by it. And that’s our problem. Our case hasn’t been heard enough.

Sam Rohrer:                      And Scott, again, I think what you’re saying here is so perfect. Ladies and gentlemen, as you’re listening, you may be a grandma and granddad or mom and dad with children at home. It really [inaudible 00:18:01] very, very important. And I have six children, and I have 14 grandchildren. So I’m speaking in that perspective. What we teach them about what is, is really, really important. But why it is, is really or perhaps even more important. Why is something true? Why did God lay out these truth in His word? So anyways, that’s very, very critical. Scott, thank you for speaking to that issue. When we comes back, we’re going to go a little bit further into this matter. I’m going to pick up the concept. We’ll talk to Scott about the idea of establishing value. Once you establish there’s some things right and wrong. Let’s go to the matter of life now and the value of life. How is it determined? Is it determined by age? Is it determined by other things? We’ll talk about that next.


                                             Well, welcome back to Stand in the Gap Today. We’re right in the middle of the program. And the theme today is this an important one. Really an important theme, particularly as we see some tremendously shifting national policies coming out of Washington, and it’s a matter of life. Our theme is It’s a Matter of Life or Death. And our special guest is Scott Klusendorf. He is the president, and he’s the founder of a group Pro-life Training Institute. They actually go out and they speak, and they train, primarily young people and college-age, but certainly not limited to that number. And they have a website at, and we’re walking through some underlying core principles to help us in our thinking in regard to life. And so we’ve talked about life and its connectivity to objective truth and natural law and some things being always right and always wrong.

                                             And these important concepts that if our young people do not get it, when they get into their college years and so forth, they’d leave. And that has to change if God is going to ever bless this nation again. Because we have walked so far away from Him, and it starts really whether or not we value life, or we despise life. So once the foundation of morality, right and wrong, absolute truth, or ever-changing truth is established, then the consideration of such critical issues as the value of life then can be established. And once an understanding of foundational law built on unchanging moral standard is identified and embraced. Then you can have a consistent public policy we would call laws or regulations. And at that point, then you can have an equitable law enforcement system that can be put in place to protect that life. And a just system of justice can be expected when there is a breaking of that law.

                                             So under such a worldview and result [inaudible 00:20:49] civil system. And again, most of us listening right now are living here in the United States. We compare it to what we’ve had, which has been based upon that mentality. But what ultimately is the basis for establishing the value of life and for the intrinsic value of each life? Scott, I am sure that for many people, who your organization teaches, the approach to determining the value of life is likely well-received. And it wouldn’t surprise me if many young people, as you referred to in the last segment when they hear such things, they say, “Well, wow, we never heard that before.” So in regard to this matter of determining the value of life, how do you establish and present that foundation for all life being valuable?

Scott Klusendor…:            There are two rival views right now in the culture, Sam, and it’s important we establish the right one. Here are the two rival views. First, there’s the endowment view of human value. The endowment view of human value says this. “Each and every human being has an equal right to life in virtue of their common human nature that’s made in the image of God.” The declaration of independence, for example, recognizes the endowment view of human value. The rival view to that is what we call the performance view of human value. And that worldview says that, “No, it’s not our common human nature made in the image of God that gives us our value. Rather, it’s our functional abilities like self-awareness or the ability to feel pain or the ability to interact with others.” Your human nature, according to this performance view, means nothing. It’s only your immediately exercisable functions.

                                             So, how do we establish that it’s really the endowment view that is more persuasive over the performance view? And especially with students, how do we do that? Well, one way we do that is to make an argument from equality. I will have students look around the room and say, “Stare at a few people, go ahead, just look around the room.” And I’ll make a joke. I’ll say something like, “Guys, if there’s a cute girl in the room you’ve been dying to make eye contact with, this is your God-ordained moment to do it.” You know that kind of thing. And after they’re done chuckling, I say, “Now look back up here. You were staring around the room at several hundred people a moment ago. What makes us equal?” And they don’t know the answer to that. They value equality. They’re in a society that worships equality.

                                             I mean, our society wants marriage equality. You can marry anything you want. It wants income equality. It wants social equality. There’s a reason why guys like Bernie Sanders are wildly popular. Our culture is obsessed with equality. But when you ask the question, what makes us equal in the first place? They don’t know the answer. And then I’ll say to them, “Are we all physically equal in this room? Well, of course not. Some of us have athletic skills, and some don’t. Are we all equally self-aware? Of course not.” And then I’ll say, “There’s only one thing we share equally in this room. We all have the same human nature.” And you had that human nature from the moment you began to exist. And if you ground human equality in anything other than our common human nature. For example, if you ground it in self-awareness, which can come and go, which none of us share equally, you lose the foundation for human value.

                                             It’s only the endowment view that can [inaudible 00:24:19] give a foundation for what makes us valuable in the first place. And then we can go on to argue as we do that there’s no essential difference between you, the embryo, and you, the adult that would justify killing you back then. You were smaller back then, but large people don’t have a bigger right to life than small ones. You were less developed back then. So, two-year-olds are less developed than 20-year-olds. We don’t think the two-year-old has less of a right to life. You were in a different location back then. But why does where you are determined who you are? You don’t stop being you when you move from home to the schoolroom. And finally, you were more dependent back then. But how does dependency on another human being mean that we can kill you? And once we’ve laid the foundation for human value, that it’s grounded in our common human nature, not our abilities. Then students start listening.

Gary Dull:                           Scott, one of the issues that has always been with us and is continually brought up by those who are on the side of abortion, as it relates to this whole debate on life, is that they will say that some lives are really not lives and therefore they must not have any value. And of course, I’m talking about their thoughts concerning the preborn baby, the baby in the womb. So how do you address this argument when teaching young people about life and death?

Scott Klusendor…:            Well, when people say to me that the unborn are not human lives, I ask a very simple question. How is it possible for two human parents to create offspring that isn’t human but later become so? How is that even possible? In other words, they bear a horrible burden of proof at that point to quote my favorite philosopher, Ricky Ricardo, “They’ve got some splainin to do.” How is it even possible for two human parents to create offspring that isn’t human? And, of course, you get blank stares. Usually, what people mean though, is that the unborn differ from us. And they differ from us in ways that somehow justified killing them, which they never really argue for. It’s just assumed. And this is where, as Christian apologists, we need to be very careful and very committed to making our opponents prove their points.

                                             When they say that the unborn differ from us, our answer should be, “Yes, they do. But why does that matter? That’s not the question.” The question is do they differ from us in ways that justify killing them. And as I mentioned a moment ago, those four differences of size, level of development, environment, meaning where we’re located, and degree of dependency. They are differences between us as embryos and us as adults, but they’re not differences with any moral significance whatsoever. I mean, think about it for a moment. Why were racism and slavery wrong? Wasn’t it because they picked out surface differences that don’t really matter while ignoring our common underlying humanity. And people are doing the same thing with abortion.

Sam Rohrer:                      And Scott, let me follow up on this. I think all that’s just excellent. Logical, of course, truth is logical, and you’ve made a logical argument. When it comes to matter of life. There’s a threat out there with certain people who say, “Well, there’s value to all life, matter of fact.” Where they may not say its value to all life, but they try to extend that and say, “Well, these animals out here, animal cruelty.” And we don’t want to get into all of that because the Bible speaks against that too. But how do you define and describe the difference in the value of life of a person, a human, and the life of another created entity, an animal? How do you describe that?

Scott Klusendor…:            Yeah, I go right for their moral intuitions, and I say to the critic. “Listen, are you telling me there is no difference between a hit and run with a squirrel and a hit and run with a newborn, even a disabled one? Is there really no difference between eating a hamburger and eating a Harold burger? Even if Harold’s development is less than the average individual.” I mean, come on. Think for a moment, guys, if you remember Michael Vick, the former NFL quarterback that was thrown in federal prison for dogfighting. What he would do. Here he was a rich NFL quarterback, didn’t need any more money, but he developed this hobby of dogfighting, and dogs that would lose their fights would be soaked in kerosene and set on fire, horrific animal cruelty.

                                             And we put Michael Vick in jail, and the public roundly condemned him. Why? They didn’t condemn the dogs. Why did they condemn Michael Vick? Well, the answer’s pretty easy. We expect better of Michael Vick as a man. Dogs don’t have a functioning conscience. They do what comes by instinct. Humans are beyond their instincts. They know right from wrong. Pets don’t make excuses for their behavior. People do. So we recognize the difference between humans and non-humans, and you make a good point. That’s no argument for treating animals unjustly, but it’s precisely because I have human exceptionalism that I treat animals charitably.

Sam Rohrer:                      Ladies and gentlemen, there is a difference between those who are made in the image of God, you and me, and the others. And you just heard it. When we come back, we’re going to talk about worldview because all of these things we’re talking about, these different views, it really comes down to one’s worldview.

Sam Rohrer:                      Well, just before we move into our final segment, I just want to, again, thank all of you who are listening to us right now for being a part of the Stand in the Gap Today family. Many of you on the stations you’re listening, or however you’re picking up this program, know that we have Stand in the Gap Minute program, which you heard that in this program just a little before. A weekend program called, Stand in the Gap Weekend where we take one of the selected programs of the week and do some repackaging to it. And it’s played on about 300 stations across the country. And then we also have Stand in the Gap TV program, which is a half-hour weekly and it’s available. No matter where you live, you can find that at least on the internet. It’s on many networks across the country, all across Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, VCY America out of Wisconsin and Minnesota up in that area.

                                             And there’s a number of others across the country that carry that program. All dealing with similar things as we’re talking about today. Areas of value and things that impact the culture, and we come at it from a biblical and constitutional perspective to help give evidence and demonstrate that God’s word does indeed hold all of the answers to all issues of life. And we try to put it together and use, oftentimes, expert guests like we have today on this matter of life with our special guest, Scott Klusendorf. So if you’re new to the program, I’d encourage you to go to our website would be one good place to go. And there you can sign up. We have a weekly email. We update on regular things. We encourage you to like us on Facebook because we’re there. American Pastors Stand in the Gap Radio.

                                             You can find us in number of places and find us, like us there, your friends, encourage them to be a part. And I would also encourage you to consider, prayerfully, consider partnering with us in prayer, the most important thing, but then, also, to partner with us financially. Being on your station that you’re listening to and doing what we’re doing does require means. And we don’t have deep pockets. We depend on you who are listening. So consider being a part of our ministry. I think God will bless you greatly. And you can do all of that on the website.

                                             Okay. Let’s move into the final segment here right now. The public policy debate surrounding the issue of life and death, which is how I started today. Talking about major policy changes being enacted by the Biden administration. The issue of productive justice or the contrast in changing injustice or the view of life, faith, God, right and wrong. The value of all life, or as referred to earlier, perhaps the sliding scale value of life, depending on someone’s performance, their ability to do something that in somebodies opinion is more valuable to society than another.

                                             Well, the idea is if I got here through accident. Through the process of Darwinian evolution, then really what inherent value does life have? I’m here by accident, right. But on the other hand, if I’m here because God created me, unique, individual, valuable, sacred, then all of life has value. Life has purpose. Life, therefore, must be protected. The differences in these two contrasts I’ve shared is a worldview, and it makes all the difference in the world. It is, in fact, a matter of life and death. So, Scott, I know again, you and your organization, you’ve talked about, you’ve really laid out some wonderful illustrations of how you effectively communicate the concept of life. But you talk a lot about worldview too. I know you have to do that. How do you relate and illustrate the power of worldviews and helping to shape the minds of the younger generation in particular, as they are forming their opinions about life and death and the value of life and so forth? So how do you integrate and bring them into the concept of worldview?

Scott Klusendor…:            Well, you help them recognize the consequences, the cost of holding their ultimate assumptions. If you believe that this universe was created by an intelligent being who infused man with intrinsic purposes, you can explain human rights. You can explain human dignity. You can give a grounding for freedom and responsibility. But if you believe that human beings are the product of a mindless universe, an accidental universe that was created by nothing and caused by nothing. Well, then, obviously, human beings are also cosmic accidents with no intrinsic purposes. And the sad thing is, Sam, a lot of Christians, though they won’t declare themselves to be atheist function that way without even giving it much thought.

                                             When I hear a Christian say things like, “Well, if someone feels they’re a different gender than their body, we shouldn’t make them feel trapped in their own biology. We should let them be authentic to themselves.” Now, wait a minute. That is not a Christian worldview. That is an atheistic world view that says, “My body is mere matter in motion. And the real me has nothing to do with my body. And therefore, I am free to manipulate my body and use it however I wish according to my own thought constructs.” Well, that doesn’t fly in a Christian universe where there is a God who created us with intrinsic purposes that we are to fulfill. And a lot of Christians, sad to say, don’t think deeply enough about their ultimate grounding points.

Gary Dull:                           Scott, if you could identify the one or two most commonly asked questions by our young people today, as it relates to life and the value of life, what would those questions be? And in short, how would you answer them?

Scott Klusendor…:            Well, the first question we get almost always is, “Aren’t we being mean if we restrict abortion? Aren’t we somehow hurting women?” And notice this argument assumes the unborn aren’t human. Nobody thinks it’s mean to pass laws saying, “You can’t intentionally kill a toddler.” But they do think that you can pass laws or shouldn’t pass laws restricting abortion. Why is that? Because they assume the unborn aren’t human. So the first thing we do is help them to see that they’re making an assumption they haven’t argued for. It would be like me, Gary saying to you, “Have you stopped cheating on your taxes yet?” And you say to me, “Wait a minute. I haven’t cheated on my taxes.” And I say, “Well, that’s not what I asked you.”

                                             Well, that would be an unfair question because I’d be assuming the very thing I’m trying to prove. And people do this with abortion all the time. They assume the unborn aren’t human, but they don’t argue for it. They talk about choice, and privacy, and trusting women. Arguments they would never make if we were talking about killing toddlers or teenagers, but they do make, if we’re talking about the unborn. Why? Because they assume the unborn aren’t human. So the way we respond is to point out they’re making that assumption and politely say to them, “Listen, maybe you’re right. Maybe the unborn aren’t human, but I need you to argue for that, not merely assume it.”

Sam Rohrer:                      And Scott, so very practical of why I could ask you more. We only have a little bit left, so let’s do this. If someone goes to your website at, what are they going to find?

Scott Klusendor…:            Well, they’ll find information on how to book our speakers, how to get them scheduled in your area. But there’s also a place on the website, which I would encourage your readers or listeners to look at. It’s a link that says, “Resources.” And if you click on that resource link, one of the things that will pop up as an option for The Case For life. Click on that, and you’ll get a full explanation and defense of the pro-life view in bite-size doses that you can digest without being overwhelmed. And you’ll have a good foundation for defending your pro-life views.

Sam Rohrer:                      Scott, thank you so very, very much. And ladies and gentlemen, I hope that you do that. We are here to help shine the light on other ministries, in addition to ours, that are in critical spaces. This is one today. And so go there to that site and then also to our website where you can pick up a copy and archive form of this program. You can communicate it back to your friends abroad, afar, and wide. I hope that you do. Well, thanks for being with us today, here on Stand in the Gap Today. Tomorrow will be a constitutional update with David New. And I hope that you will be back with us for another Stand in the Gap Today [inaudible 00:38:51].