Topics this week:

  • New federal law targets the removal of deepfakes and non-consensual intimate imagery online.
  • Colorado law sparks controversy over parental rights and biblical views on sex and gender.
  • Georgia hospital keeps a brain-dead woman on life support due to state laws.
  • The world's first gene-editing treatment used to heal a one-week-old baby.



Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] A new law protects victims of deepfakes and other unsolicited images that appear online. A Colorado law threatens parents' rights to raise their kids according to a biblical view of sex and gender. A 30-year-old woman is declared brain dead, and yet kept alive by a hospital in Georgia because of state laws defining the unborn as persons. And a one-week-old baby is apparently healed with the world's first gene-editing treatment. These are the stories we will discuss, and we will also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.

Scott Rae: And I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.

Sean McDowell: This is the Think Biblically weekly cultural update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Scott, before we jump in, just a warning again for parents that we're going to-

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell: ... Continue the conversation on pornography, because two big stories dropped this week. And the first one is, somewhat amazingly, all things considered, that The New York Times is continuing their discussion in-- as an op-ed about the harm of pornography, and this is called "The Delusion of Porn's Harmlessness." And apparently, the story starts off with... The article starts off with talking about how far pornography has come, so extreme that there was a British OnlyFans creator that slept with 100 men in one day, and in part, this is how far pornography has come for people to get attention. They're talking about how Gen Z is really the first generation raised with just unmitigated access to pornography. According to a 2023 Brigham Young University study, 12% of websites have pornography on it. Honestly, [chuckles] that strikes me as low, but nonetheless, that's still remarkable. They say in this article that porn will become even more addictive and effective, and they use the word teacher, which reminds me how Plato talks about how the law is a teacher, but they're right. Pornography has become, for Gen Z, the primary teacher about sex. And then there's a line in this article in The New York Times that, to me, is the most obvious thing ever that could be said, but to its audience, I guess it's a revelation. It says, "Porn hasn't been good for us." Now, why is this so significant? Because of the ethos behind much of the readership of pornography, that they says-- they say is a kind of norm against being judgmental, a focus on individualism, and there's been a curious refusal, especially in progressive circles, to publicly admit the disapproval of porn. In fact, they say the only ones who've openly criticized it tend to be right-leaning or religious people who've been disparaged for doing so. In the end, it says, "We should be brave enough to simply admit this and speak out." Now, the other story that's tied to this, Scott, that's really interesting is what's called this law that was passed. It's the Take It Down law, and President Trump signed this bipartisan act into law, and it's an effort to combat non-consensual intimate imagery. Whether it's an image of somebody taken that they knew about or willingly, or a deepfake that they want down, must now be taken down. The bill was passed [chuckles] in the Senate in February, in the House, with a vote of 409 to two, and apparently, two Republican representatives, Thomas Massie from Kentucky and Burleson from Missouri, are the two who voted against it, interestingly enough. And it requires social media platforms and similar websites to remove what's called revenge pornography within 48 hours of notice from a victim. Ted Cruz, who is behind this, says it was-- is inspired by Elliston Barry and her mother after the popular social media platform, Snapchat, refused to remove an AI-generated deepfake of a, of a individual who was 14 years old at that time, of a girl who was 14. Now, I think this is remarkable that The New York Times is pushing forward the continued damage of pornography, and I think it's also remarkable that this law passed, and it comes as incredible liberation to a whole lot of people who say they've been continually harmed by these images that keep appearing, and porn, you know, companies refuse to take them down. What's your take from these two stories, or one in particular?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, my first reaction to this is, who were the two people who opposed this, and on what grounds [chuckles] do they oppose this law?

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: Because this seems like such common sense, and I'm a big fan of this law, and the reason for that is because it is not uncommon to criminalize... In fact, I think it's more the norm, to criminalize non-consensual intimate acts. You know, and regardless of, you know, of who's involved, 'cause we take consent to be sort of the gold standard. Now, we-- I think we would suggest that that's kind of a low bar, but at a minimum, consent has to be given for any kind of intimate act with another person. I think it's right to go after revenge porn. I think is one of the evils of our day, the use of deepfakes, AI-generated images, that, Sean, we have to be honest, these are ruining people's lives.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: We've talked about some of the, some of the stories of some of these women who, you know, when they were teenagers, you know, they just did, they did something that they regret. You know, it sounded fun at the time to, you know, maybe send a nude photo to a-... To a boyfriend or someone they have a crush on, never inv- never envisioning that it will be spread all over the world and get hundreds of thousands of views with the shame and the stigma that's attached to that. And I find that that's a little bit ironic, because we, you know, pornography has become so accepted, yet when it's non-consensual, it ru- it ruins people's lives. And here, the, you know, the story on the law points out that there is, you know, there is such a thing as, quote, "ethical porn." And I admit, I'm still not exactly sure what that means- [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: Right

Scott Rae: ... But it strikes me as a bit of an oxymoron, and at least I think the point you made in the intro to this story shows how far pornography has come, that there is some that is considered way over the line and some that's considered within acceptable boundaries. My guess is that what a lot of people are watching is not, is not under the heading of whatever qualifies as ethical porn. Because what we've, what we've shown, the data shows that the audiences for, you know, sadomasochism, for rape, for child abuse, for human trafficking, you know, those are the things-- those are soaring in terms of the number of views that they are getting. I mean, those are in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of views on this. Here's my... The other takeaway, I think, is the-- one of the points that The New York Times piece pointed out, which I thought was so insightful and something that I don't think has been much in front and center in the discussion about pornography, it's pointed out how objectifying women has become normalized today-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm. That's right

Scott Rae: ... Because of pornography. And they put it like this. I love the way they put this: "The rise of easy-to-access, hardcore pornography, which has trained a good amount of our popular culture to see women as objects, as things to silence, restrain, fetishize, or brutalize, and it's helped train women, too. Normalization of pornographic extremes has made even lurid acts fashionable." And here's how the author describes it, like s- "I wanted to understand how a generation of young women came to believe that sex was our only currency and our objectification was empowering." That, Sean, that summarizes, I think, the damage of pornography to women who are increasingly being objectified through this and the impact it has on them. You know, people who think that, portraying themselves as sexual objects is somehow actually empowering- ... I think has become, has become more of a cultural trend. But it, but with the way it's gone to these more extremes, I think that really undercuts that point, and I think the idea that seeing women as objects has become much more normal for guys, especially guys who have grown up with the ubiquity of pornography the way it is. Now, one other just, point on this-

Sean McDowell: Sure

Scott Rae: ... The Bible, the Bible is r- I think, really clear that our input affects our output. The Proverbs talk about this. Jesus talks about this. "Out of the mouth speaks that which fills the heart," and what you take in mentally and emotionally, that's what shapes you and potentially defiles you. That's the point I think Jesus is making in his debate with the Pharisees about what defiles people. It's not what you eat, it's what you take in mentally and spiritually that reflects the th- what you, what you, what you give out reflects that. That's ultimately what is defiling. And I think this normalization of women as objects, that's really damaging. I mean, if, I, you know, I've got three boys, but if I had daughters, I mean, this would be heartbreaking for me to think that the, that the average guy looks at them as an object to be, you know, to be used for their own pleasure and benefit. Now, I've-- we've tried really hard to talk to our, to my, to my boys, and I know you're talking to your boys about this, too, that women are to be treasured as God's good gift. They are not objects to be used for our own pleasure, and what goes on in your mind is just as, is just as much adultery as what goes on, what goes on physically. Anyway, end of, end of sermon here. I'll get, I'll get off my-

Sean McDowell: Oh.

Scott Rae: I'll, I'll stop pounding the pulpit here, and let you weigh in. I know you got a lot to say about this, too.

Sean McDowell: No, I love it. That's a great take, Scott. I had a few things. You know, it's interesting, this is in The New York Times. In the past year or so, they've had massive pieces on shifting on, say, DEI, and talking about the problems that it's caused at Michigan. Pamela Paul did a deep dive on the concerns about gender-affirming care. They had a massive piece on marijuana and its effects on society. On so many of these social issues, The New York Times, I give them credit for posting this, but I do have to say that people who are much more conservative have been talking about these things for a long time. In the '90s, I started talking about the damaging-

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell: ... The damages of pornography when the internet hit and how much it affects us. And this article says it's only going to get worse because of artificial intelligence, and I agree 100% with this, with that, with that assessment. Now, this-... This piece here that's really interesting about the Take It Down Act is positive. And there's a friend of mine, Joshua Broome, who in 2012, was the Male Performer of the Year in the porn industry, 13 years ago.

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell: He's now a Christian pastor. We haven't had him on the podcast here. I've had him twice on my YouTube channel. We've done a deep dive. But when he got out of the porn industry, he worked for about a decade with Congress and other places for laws like this, trying to get down all the images of him. I think he did up to about 1,000 videos before, and they were damaging to him, he said, damaging to others. Took a decade for this, his work and others, to have this law passed. And so, this is a moment of celebration, where people are recognizing the damage of porn, and at least using the law to a degree, to empower people who have been victimized by this, including deepfakes. I mean, people have done this with people like Taylor Swift and with other stars. They make these deepfakes that aren't even real, and it's still damaging to them. So the concern from a couple of the senator- the congressmen that voted against this, that I read, was they're afraid it would go too far in the other direction. And to me, I think that's a completely misplaced concern, [chuckles] especially given that everybody else, left and right, voted against this, a recognition that these images are damaging and destroying lives on somebody's mental health. So I think this is really positive. One other point I draw out about this, is why are we so concerned about these images related to sex? This is not a bill about take it down when a photo is taken with somebody who's having dinner. Take it down when you have a photo of somebody who you catch walking in a park. Why are we concerned about this? Because we know sex is unique, and it's different, and it's sacred, and it means something, and it's not meant to be public. One of the lies of the sexual revolution is that, you know what? Having sex is just another biological act, like, well, you know, having a glass of water. This is what some people have said. And from the beginning, Christians have pushed back and said, "No, it's not the unforgivable sin, it's not the worst, but it's sacred, and it should not be abused, and it means something." In some ways, this is a recognition of the failure of the sexual [chuckles] revolution, and that God got it right all along in a biblical view of sex. So I rejoice with this. Hopefully, it's a sign of more to come, when even the New York Times is calling out the damage of pornography. Scott, this next law, I'm not exactly sure what to make sense of this, but if I'm understanding it correctly, it actually really deeply concerns me. And before I get to the law, you sent me an article, I believe, that's about how in England, there's been a move away from accepting gender-affirming care, and the British public is moving against what's often called transgender rights. So this article in YouGov says, "The most recent study from December is the growing resistance on transgender rights among those groups typically more permissive on the issue, like young people and women." So they point that out. So a majority of those, would say, in the UK, that gender assignment surgery should not be provided by the NHS. It should not be publicly funded. A majority of Britons, 55%, say they believe allowing transgender women, biological males, to use spaces reserved for women, such as toilets and changing room, presents a genuine risk or harm to women. 74% are against trans women, against, again, biological men competing in women's sports. So we see this shift in the UK, against what's often called transgender rights. At the same time, this law apparently passes in Colorado. It was passed, through the State House sponsorship and Senate sponsorship. It's a bill, and it's House Bill 25-1312. And here's what it says, Section 2. It says more than this. It says that, "When making child custody decisions and determining the best interests of a child for purpose of parenting time, a court shall consider deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual's gender-affirming healthcare as a... Services, as a type of coercive control." Now, a couple more things. What, what is deadnaming, according to this? Well, I'm gonna give a definition here in a moment, but deadnaming is, "purposefully, and with the intent to disregard the individual's gender identity or gender expression, refer to an individual by their birth name rather than their chosen name." So a teacher or a parent says, "I'm not going to identify you as your birth name. I'm gonna I'm not gonna identify you as your chosen name. I'm going to identify you as your birth name," this is now in law in California, if I understand it... I'm sorry, in Colorado, if I understand it correctly, a form of discrimination. Misgender is "to purposefully, and with the, again, the intent to disregard the individual's gender identity or gender expression, refer to an individual using an honorific or pronoun that conflicts with the individual's gender identity or gender expression."... Some of the other things in here, it says, "Defi- deadnaming and misgendering," this is Section 8.9, "are, discriminatory acts in the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act." It says, "The court shall determine the allocation of parental responsibilities, including parenting time and decision-making responsibilities, in accordance with the best interests of the child, giving paramount security to the child's safety and physical, emotional, and mental well-being." Now, I've got some thoughts about this and some serious concerns. Give me your take, Scott.

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, just in a, in a word, the big takeaway here is that Colorado, I think, is reflecting some of what took place, across the United States when the Cass Report that we referred to first came out. And the US doubled down, and Colorado in specific, is doubling down on what Europe is distancing itself from.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: And Colorado has become the trans sanctuary, and the o- the other bill that was passed along with this is that, gender-affirming treatments are now taxpayer-funded in Co-

Sean McDowell: That's right

Scott Rae: ... In Colorado. Now, the Cass Report, which we've talked about on several occasions, suggests that the sort of the bottom line is that with minors, when this is done without a thorough psychiatric assessment, constitutes medical malpractice, and in no other field of medicine would such radical treatments be provided to someone without looking at some of the underlying causes for this. And I think it points out that in most cases with minors, gender dysphoria is a symptom rather than the cause, and it's a symptom that is-- that has deeper psychological causes that ha- that have to be assessed, and in many cases, treated in ways that make the gender reassignment treatments unnecessary. So I, you know, I think we'll see... I suspect this will get, this law will get a court challenge.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: So I think we'll s- I think this story is not over by any stretch, and we'll see, we'll see what the court rules on the constitutionality of this. This is a s- in my view, a serious threat to parents' rights- ... Over minor children, and the parent, the parents' rights to ha- to make decisions that are in the best interests of their minor children. And I think the data is becoming clearer and clearer, and this is you mentioned Pam Paul's piece in The New York Times. She's-- she talk-- she wrote about the detransitioners and how when they underwent these treatments as minors, now that they're young adults in their 20s, are increasingly looking back with a view of, "Well, what on earth did I do?" because the outcome, this, and the Cass Report verifies it, the outcomes don't change. You know, the gender dysphoria doesn't go away in most cases. So I think with adults, that's a, that's a different story. Adults have autonomy over their own bodies. They can... If they wanna, if they wanna do this, I'm still not crazy about taxpayers funding this, but it's really with minors, Sean, that I am m- I'm most worried about, and the evidence, I think, is becoming clearer and clearer of the harm that's coming to minors who undergo these treatments without addressing the underlying conditions. Now, I'm, I'm very encouraged about these recent surveys from the UK, and there's, you know, I'd say general r- support for some of the tr- I think trans extremes are eroding, changing their legal gender, playing women's sports, treatment for minor-- treatment for minors is overwhelmingly opposed, so is public funding, using, women's restrooms and changing rooms for trans folks. There's al- I mean, a major... That's a majority of folks oppose those things. So I think, you know, we'll, we'll have to see where this goes in the long term, but I think these are, these are very encouraging signs from the UK, which I suspect would be replicated in other parts of Europe that have... Where government has distanced themselves from what I would call the tr- the trans ideology. So I think the jury's still out, maybe literally, on, what will happen to this law in the long term. I'd encourage our listeners to stay tuned for that. We'll, we'll bring updates on this as we're aware of them, but, watch the news yourself to see what kind of court challenges come about with this particular law.

Sean McDowell: I think you're right in terms of that tension, that we've seen the Trump administration, in particular, passing some executive bills against certain gender-affirming care, even going as far as in the military, trying to have transgender individuals kicked out. So they've gone the other direction, while the state of Colorado [chuckles] goes the opposite direction. So we're seeing this brewing together of some kind of conflict, where these issues are gonna have to be resolved at some point in our country as they are moving in a direction of being resolved in the UK. You know, it is interesting, as you read this study in Colorado, one of these bills that we're talking about, the name of the bill is Kelly Loving Act, which is interesting. I don't know the whole backstory on that, but the whole bill is framed as, "We're doing what's best for kids. We're doing what's best for parents." I think those who passed this bill are really sincere that they think this is going to help kids.... I don't disparage their intentions, but the facts are emerging that it frankly doesn't. The Cass report shows, even as it comes to social transitioning in terms of names, there's no positive evidence that this helps the child psychologically. There's the massive study we talked about a few weeks ago out of the NHS in the US that's called Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria, and this is from the Department of Health and Human Services, May 1, 2025, that supports a lot of the findings of the Cass, the Cass report as well. So the medical evidence seems to be moving in a direction against gender-affirming care, and it's gonna have to come to some point of a, really, a collision and a settlement in a matter of time. You know, I've been reading the Gospel of John, and you might think this is a little bit of a stretch, but Jesus is speaking to a lot of his disciples at the end in his, you know, his final speech as you move towards his crucifixion in John 12 through John 17. He says to his apostles, he says, "People will harm you and persecute you and kill you, thinking that they're doing that which is good." [chuckles] And as I was reading this report, I thought, "Here's people thinking they're doing what is good," and it's profoundly doesn't align up with the facts and isn't actually doing that which is good. And so I think there's a little bit of a biblical crossover there, that we have to be committed to objectively doing what is good for somebody, following the evidence where it leads, even if it's not popular. So we'll see how this story plays out and where it goes. [lips smack] but it, you know, I... There's a huge conversation here, Scott. At what point do people in Colorado start moving out of the state, [chuckles] you know? And we don't have to answer that.

Scott Rae: Good question.

Sean McDowell: Right now, I think we could minimally wait until the Supreme Court weighs in on this, and it's challenged. But there does come a point where if this affects you personally, even if it doesn't, for the sake of other Christians, that it'll be affected, you have to start making difficult choices like that. Maybe at some point we'll do more of a deep dive there, but any quick thoughts on that question?

Scott Rae: [lips smack] Well, I think if parents are being forced to,

Scott Rae: give in to the trans ideology in the way they parent their children, that's, that's a violation of a pretty fundamental right. And I think you can make a good argument here that the best interest of my children and my responsibility to my family outweighs where I work, where I live, who my neighbors are- ... What state I live in, all of that. That, I mean, I think those-- the things that, the things that concern my family, that trumps just about everything else. So I think, I think a, actually, a good, pretty good argument can be made, that, if, you know, if you have children who will be affected by this, and you believe you are acting clearly in their best interests, that's, yeah, that's your biblical obligation to continue to be able to parent your children in ways that you believe God is calling you to.

Sean McDowell: That's a good word. Good, good perspective. Well, we'll track this 'cause this has huge implications. There's other states that seem to be watching this and may take a similar route that Colorado does, and of course, California has been right on the cusp of these kinds of rules as well. [lips smack] All right, Scott, we'll shift stories here. This one is about... This one was in The Washington Post, kind of a remarkable story, that you sent to me, and it's a pregnant woman who's 30 years old. A nurse in Atlanta was declared brain dead a few months ago, but she's being kept alive on life support in Georgia until her baby can be delivered. According to the article, it's the decision doctors made to obey the state's strict abortion ban, according to her family, and it seems that her family does not like the decision that's being made here and thinks they should be able to make that decision themselves. Part of it is the state's law, again, in Georgia, defines a fetus as a person with legal rights, and they plan to keep her alive until the fetus is at least 32 weeks old. Now, The Washington Post says they could not find any medical-- the medical experts they talked with, do not know of any cases in which a child is born healthy when a woman is pregnant in a brain-dead state so early. And they say, "The core debate is over Smith's care reflects uncertainty about who can decide whether to continue a pregnancy when the mother cannot decide." I guess she's been on life support for more than 90 days, three months, and at the time of this report, was about 21 weeks, pregnant. K- gosh, there's so many angles to go here, but the last quote I just want to read I thought was really interesting. It says, "We're seeing this pregnant person being used as a means to an end in a really heartbreaking way." That's the last line in the article, which shows the angle of The Washington Post. Your thoughts on this one, Scott?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I consulted on a couple cases like this-

Sean McDowell: Oh

Scott Rae: ... When I was doing hospital consulting, for a coup- a couple hospitals in the, in the valley, so several years ago. One, one was where they were following the wishes of the mother, which she had expressed shortly before she died, where she begged her husband, "Please keep my baby alive." A second one-... Was they followed the wishes of the husband when the wife could no longer make decisions for herself. The first one was a case of brain death. The second one was a case of a, where the woman was in a permanent vegetative state, which, you know, basically means that the brain stem was the only thing that was working. And we-- the protocol we followed, and our physicians, our obstetricians guided us on this, given the likelihood of the baby's survival, that the protocol we came up with was that we would not do this in the first trimester, because the likely- the likelihood of the baby surviving all the way to term was, in their, in their view, exceedingly low. In the third trimester, we would definitely do this in the third trimester because, you know, they-- we only have to do this for a matter of, you know, maybe a month, before the baby could be delivered successfully. And it was a little, iffy in the second trimester, which we, if they pushed hard enough, we would generally do that. And I think for our listeners, too, there are lots of other things besides nutrition and respiration that need to be provided when a, when a w- a woman is brain dead or in a vegetative state. There are hormones, there are all sorts of other things that need to be provided medically. And the-- I think the difference here in the Georgia case, 'cause this was in California, when I consulted on these, where the law, the law didn't have anything to say about this. And we were, you know, we probably would've been prohibited from doing something that was against the parents' wishes. But here, I think the difference is the hospital actually believed that the law requires it, though interestingly, the Georgia Attorney General, that the-- denied that the law was actually forcing this on them, since what they were doing did not constitute a legally prohibited abortion. It was just-- it would've been just taking the person off life support and allowing the unborn child to die. So they-- the Georgia AG basically said, "This is, this doesn't fall under the heading of what the law prohibits," right? Now, the hospital actually believed that the fetal personhood status, of, or, statute in the law, actually required them to do this. And the hospital, I think, is considering here that they have two patients, not one, and even though one is brain dead, she's technically no longer a patient, strictly speaking. The parallel to this, the article points out, is a case in Florida that happened not too long ago, where the w- the woman died at 22 weeks and was delivered at 31. And as far as I know, the baby was delivered successfully. Now, here's... So that's, I think-- so we just need to be clear about what the, what the law actually requires. I think the hospital believes something different than what the Georgia Attorney General, holds that the law actually mandates them to do.

Sean McDowell: So let me ask you this, Scott. That's, that's really helpful, and when they pointed out in this article that there's such an exceedingly low chance that it would survive, we know an abortion ends its life 100%, or letting the mom die does. So you have this slight chance of life versus guaranteed death. Why wouldn't the chance of life just override this as technology gets better and keep the mother alive? I mean, is the argument made that, yes, there's an expense to this, like you pointed out, so there's, you could say, a financial expense on one side?

Scott Rae: It's pretty-

Sean McDowell: But are we-

Scott Rae: ... Pretty substantial.

Sean McDowell: It is pretty substantial, okay. But this also isn't super common, right?

Scott Rae: Also true.

Sean McDowell: I mean, this doesn't happen often, and so are we harming the mother who's brain dead or using her the way it's suggested at the end? If not, it would seem to me that morally, we'd err on the side of life.

Scott Rae: I th- I think the key term there is the success at-- not just success at life, but success at a relatively normal life. Because generally, what comes with, a pregnancy that's sustained like this, that's so early, are a number of other potential birth defects that could be quite burdensome for the child and actually may be incompatible with the child's survival. So I, you know, I don't, I don't have strong feelings about this, but I would... You know, I didn't, I didn't have a great objection to the protocol that the hospital I consulted with, put together. And I think here, the question, Sean, it seems to me, is, does fetal personhood require these measures in the law? And I think that's, that's really the key question, and I'd say here's-- I'd wanna remind our listeners, and I'd be interested to hear your take on this. You may disagree with me on this, but, this is where I think morality and public policy are different arenas. [lips smack] and I think this may be, this may be similar to the issue of: Should the law provide an exception for pregnancy in the case of sexual assault or incest?

Scott Rae: And I think because morality and public policy are different arenas, public policy is, by definition, an area of limited objectives and inevitable compromises in order to satisfy a diverse and pluralistic culture. It may be that the, to get the best outcome for the unborn in general, some middle grounds need to be the case in order to get the most, the most protective laws possible passed. I think that would be my argument for allow-- the law allowing for an exception for sexual assault and incest, even though, um-... How a woman conceives a child is irrelevant to what kind of thing it actually is. I think the likelihood of a law, any law restricting abortion, which we would generally be in favor of, passing and having widespread public support without that exception for sexual assault or incest, I think is exceedingly low. There are some states that have passed that. I'm not sure that those are gonna be long-term, long-term will be, will be sustainable. So I think I would say it's on prudential grounds. I would say not, these are not principled grounds, on prudential ones. I think you could- you might be able to make an argument that maybe this is one area that in the first trimester, we say that we're not obligated to do that legally, even though morally we might be in terms of the public policy.

Sean McDowell: I think in principle, I agree with you. Exactly where I would draw the line, it would probably be on a case-by-case basis. But if it was a matter of, let's pass a pro-life law that makes exceptions in cases of sexual abuse, or we don't get a pro-life law passed at all, for, a- just on matter of principle, most of me [chuckles] wants to say, "Yeah, I'm not gonna die on principle and refuse to save many lives that could be saved," even though if we pass this prudential law, I'm going to keep fighting for all-

Scott Rae: Correct

Sean McDowell: ... Of the unborn-

Scott Rae: Correct

Sean McDowell: ... On top of that. I think that's a recognition and the reality that we live in a fallen world and need to save those that we can. And it's not always black and white. So I think in principle, I would agree with you on that. I did... You know, one thing that is interesting to me, at the end of this article, it says, "We're seeing this pregnant person," which is interesting they call them a pregnant person instead of a pregnant woman, "being used as a means to an end in a really heartbreaking way." Part of my question is, why is it wrong to use persons and human beings as a means to an end? Now, Kant argued that humans should be treated as if they have dignity, as ends in themselves, not as means. But I don't know how you ground that, apart from a Judeo-Christian tradition that says human beings have intrinsic value within them. So part of the defense of this is to use certain biblical ideas that we shouldn't use people as a means to an end, to arguably deny for the life of the unborn, which is also made in God's image and has value within itself. I wonder if there's some inconsistency that's there. I don't know, but that jumps out to me. There's so many times that ethics appear that I wonder, where does this come from, and why do we assume that? And I think it's borrowing from a Christian tradition, arguably. To me, I just, on a personal note, I can't understand why anybody... I mean, if this happened to my wife, I would be absolutely devastated. But it's such a no-brainer [chuckles] that you've got an unborn, precious human being, that I would want everything to give it the chance for life, barring some extreme damage to it in the way that you described. That seems so obvious to me, that I'm just surprised at some of the pushback at some of the family here. But maybe there's just more particulars that I don't know tied to this story. Anything else you'd add?

Scott Rae: I think it may be that, you know, there's a feminist pushback because this sort of reinforces the notion of women as baby breeders or human incubators. But, you know, surrogacy's been doing that for a long time- ... And we don't get much feminist pushback on that. So that seems a little contradictory to me- ... To make that argument.

Sean McDowell: All right, well, we're gonna- we've been going up and down, I think, emotionally [chuckles] on this one.

Scott Rae: Right.

Sean McDowell: This last one is a positive story that's kind of exciting. I'm really glad you sent this over. This was in The New York Times, and it says, "Baby is healed with world's first personalized gene-editing treatment." this baby, named KJ, was a week old, had a rare genetic disorder that affects, 1 in 1.3 million babies. So that's just a few hundred, babies-

Scott Rae: Right

Sean McDowell: ... Entirely in the US, roughly. If he survived, he would have severe mental and developmental delays, would need a liver transplant, and, mo- half the babies with this disorder die within a week. He's the first patient of any age to have a custom- ... Gene-editing treatment, received an infusion made just for him and designed to fix his precise mutation. Now, you can probably explain this better than I can in the article, but the way in which [chuckles] they did this is really stunning, and they suggest it could have eventual help for common other genetic disorders, like sickle cell anemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease, muscular dystrophy. So if this is true, at the end, they kinda said it looks positive. There's not complete healing. They don't think there will be a liver transplant, and they're still tracking this child. But give me your take on this, Scott.

Scott Rae: Well, this is great news, Sean. For patients with rare genetic diseases, there aren't, there aren't enough of them around the world to justify, pharmaceutical companies and research facilities providing treatments for these very rare diseases. It's just, it's, it's, the cost is way-... Way too expensive to do this. Here's basically what this is: it's a tailor-made gene edit for a single gene disease. That means there's a, there's a single glitch in the genetic code, and the gene editing is basically, it's a pair of genetic scissors with a GPS locator on it that enables it to pinpoint exactly the right place, in the genetic code that needs to be cut and paste. It enables-- they say it enables, it enables the genetic scissors to crawl along the person's DNA until it finds the exact letter that needs to be changed. It's just un-

Sean McDowell: Amazing

Scott Rae: ... I mean, staggering.

Sean McDowell: Yeah. [chuckles]

Scott Rae: I mean, this would normally take years to develop through a tr- a traditional gene therapy treatment. But it was, it was so customized that the same method can be used over and over again to fix other single gene mutations. So th- I mean, this is just, it's just incredibly good news for people with these rare genetic diseases who will most likely die from them because there just aren't any other treatments available for them. And this is just, I think, just wonderful news. It's, it's God's, God's common grace- ... That, has enabled scientists to unlock some of the things that God's embedded into his world. And it's just, it's wonderful stuff. It does raise a question, and this, maybe we can... This would be the one point to be careful about, designer babies. But, des- I think we need to be careful here that lots of, quote, "designer traits" are the, are not single gene. Now, some of them are, but mo- many of them that are valued by prospective parents are the, re- involve the interaction between multiple genes. It's much more [chuckles] complex to be able to try and do that, and I think as long as we maintain the distinction between treatment and enhancement of otherwise normal traits, I think we'll be okay. In the long run, we'll just have to see, but, this is pretty exciting stuff. What I would look out for are the folks like the transhumanists- ... Who want to transcend our bodily limitations, seeing the possibilities for human enhancement, that goes well beyond treating disease. Right now, listen, you know, the technology is so new, and the application is going to be to these other single-gene diseases, like sickle cell anemia, which disproportionately affects African American kids. And I think it will be, it will be awesome to see the application of this come in the, in the months and years to come.

Sean McDowell: Scott, one question for you. I was expecting this article to have something about artificial intelligence, but they don't mention anything here. As far as you're aware, is that relevant to this, or they're just able to make this technology apart from AI, and maybe AI would make it even that much more potentially effective, or has that just not been really tested and done yet?

Scott Rae: To my knowledge, that has, AI has not been applied to this, and I don't... I think there's probably a good reason why there was no hint of that, is because there was no hint of that in the process. I could be wrong about that- ... But that's certainly s- certainly another thing to watch for.

Sean McDowell: Okay, fair enough. One thing that jumped out to me, 'cause I wrote a book in 2008 with William Dembski on intelligent design, and when I read this, that certain sicknesses and diseases are the result of one incorrect DNA letter among three billion in the human genome, and that one tweak causes such negative effects, such as sickle cell anemia or some of the other kinds of conditions that are mentioned here, it makes me think, "So I'm supposed to believe that this entire genetic code was written, so to speak, through an accidental process, not intelligent design?" I don't have enough faith, as Frank Turek would say, to believe that. So I think the genetic code was built by intelligence, and it also takes intelligence to fix it. In some ways, that's not the point here, but it's kind of a backhanded recognition of the complexity and intricacy and how remarkable our genetic system is in the first place that I think points towards design. So that jumped out to me in this article. I'm really glad that you shared it. This is, this is a fascinating one. Well, as always, we've got some great questions here, Scott, and the first one is directed, definitely [chuckles] at me, so I'll take a stab at it. This person appreciated my discussion with Tim Muehlhoff on empathy, and, he especially appreciated Tim's encouragement, asking- wondering if we've lost, having empathy for those in our culture. He says, "My question is what to do with passages in the Old Testament where God commanded the Israelites to show kindness and understanding and even embrace the foreigner because you were once foreigners in Egypt?" Now, partly what was happening is I was, there's been some books that have come out recently talking about kind of the sin of empathy, so to speak, that conservatives and Christians are being manipulated to adopt certain left-leaning positions, morally speaking, because we're naturally compassionate, and empathy is being wielded against us. So Tim and I talked about what's the bigger concern, that we're being manipulated by people using empathy against us, or the Christian church has lost empathy towards the wider-... Culture. Now, one thing I asked Tim for, 'cause he thinks by far we've lost empathy, and that's a much bigger concern, is a biblical precedent. And he pointed towards an example in Hebrews, where it talks about, caring for those who are in prison as if you were there yourself, like, deep empathy for them. And he said, "Therefore, we should have empathy for non-believers." And I said, "Okay, hang on. That is specifically to Christians showing empathy for Christians. Where is the biblical precedent that we should show the same kind of empathy towards non-Christians?" I'm not saying we shouldn't. I was just asking for biblical precedent to do so in the same way, because as you know, Scott, there's certain commandments about judgment that apply to Christians, that 1 Corinthians 2 says does not apply to non-Christians. So that was the question that I was asking. And this person said, "Well, in the Old Testament, when Israelites are, you know, commanded to show kindness and understanding to foreigners." I would just say a couple things. I'm definitely not going to unhitch us from the [chuckles] Old Testament, but merely citing a law for Israel under the theocracy does not necessarily apply to today in the same way. Some of those principles do. Many of those laws, of course, do not, so I think that's only gonna take us so far. But I also think there's a difference between the commandment to show kindness, to have different, you know, like, fruits available for people to glean. That's an action, whether you feel empathy towards outsiders or not. So it's a commandment for certain actions, not a commandment of empathy, unless there are certain verses that I'm missing. So again, I'm not saying we shouldn't have empathy towards outsiders. That's not my point. I was just pressing for specific biblical precedent to do so in the same way as with Christians. M- let's jump to the second one here, Scott, 'cause I think this deals with both of us. This was also related to my, conversation with Tim, and Tim referenced that we shouldn't dismiss someone's expertise on a topic, even if they have moral failings. And this person says, "This reminded me of Ravi Zacharias." And the question is, "His books are good, his sermons are good, but after his moral failings, should I recommend his books to people? How do I not dismiss them because of what he did?" Here's my take, Scott. You might see it totally differently than I do, but I would not recommend Ravi's videos or his books whatsoever, under almost any circumstances. Almost any circumstances. Why? Number one, I don't trust him at all. He lied about his credentials. He lied about his moral life. He... Nothing's false just because he said it. That's not my point, but I don't trust any story that he told. He is an unreliable character witness to me, and so I wouldn't read any of his stuff and trust him as a source. That's one concern for me, so I would not recommend it, but I also would be concerned about the victims. There's a whole lot of people still alive. If I'm recommending Ravi's material, and there's people out there going, "Hang on a minute. Do you know how much he abused and took advantage of me?" I wonder if that's just rubbing salt in the wounds of the people. And by the way, you might say, "What about David? David did terrible things." Yeah, well, David repented. [chuckles] We see this-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... In the Bible. There's not a shred of evidence that I've ever seen that Ravi ever repented, so I just simply would not recommend any of his stuff. What's your take?

Scott Rae: Well, it's not like that you can't get good resources on apologetics in other places. [laughs]

Sean McDowell: Exactly. [laughs]

Scott Rae: There, there are lots of other places to find this, and I find the argument that, you know, so our respect for the victims is really compelling. And I think that, I think that is disrespectful to the people he victimized to recommend his stuff. Uh- ... I don't think that doesn't render his stuff false, or maybe not... I mean, it's still re- it's still... I think it still can be useful, but I'm not, I'm not gonna be in the business of recommending that.

Sean McDowell: Good for you. I think the last point, too, is we need some standards in the church, like the outside world that's looking in, that we take this stuff seriously, because there is somewhat of a cultural reckoning about abuse, and I think the Church needs to pay a lot of attention to this and show the world that it matters, and we care about it, and to me, this is one way to do so.

Scott Rae: Yeah, and we do, we do offer second chances, but it's conditioned on repentance.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: And it says-

Sean McDowell: Yeah, conditioned on repentance.

Scott Rae: Right.

Sean McDowell: And I would argue that I don't think Ravi, even if he did repent, should ever be back in ministry. He crossed a line, so he can be forgiven, he can be loved, welcome in the Church, but there's a line we're gonna have to talk about right now where you go too far, and you are out of ever being in ministry, as far as I see it. But that probably raises more [chuckles] questions than it does answers right now. All right, so this is a question actually about forgiveness, and there's a few layers to this, but really the questions are: "Can I forgive someone if I still hold them accountable or want them to be held accountable? Can I forgive and still require compensation for the wrong? If I want somebody to be legally held responsible for what I... What they've done, have I really forgiven them?" So does forgiveness mean somebody's absolved of all the consequences of their actions?

Scott Rae: I say absolutely not. [chuckles] They are... Those are unrelated. God forgave David-... For what he did with Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, but the consequences of that lasted for a long time and affected his family, and were devastating consequences. So I think forgiveness actually presumes that you hold people accountable for their actions. And in fact, I would say if you don't hold them accountable, that's false forgiveness. And I think you can still require, compensation if you have been wronged. I think that's, that's not out of bounds. And I think it's still possible to held them- hold them legally responsible for what they've done. Now, I'm not sure what the issue is here that they, that they want to hold people responsible for. But what forgiveness means, Sean, is that they're... That you don't require anything of the person in order to have a clean slate with you, relationally. That doesn't mean that you have to trust them again. I mean, I can forgive you for wrecking my car, but I'm not letting you drive my other one. You know, and there's... And so I think you have to, you use discretion, and I think it's fine. If somebody's really wronged you, I think you can forgive them, but you can still distance yourself from the person at the, at the same time. It doesn't mean that the relationship goes back to when it- to where it was before the wrong was committed. Because forgiveness is not for the other person's benefit, it's for ours. Forgiveness, the reason we're to forgive people is so that we don't live our lives within the prison of resentment. And it's, I'd say it's, it's for your benefit to clear the slate and not require that they do anything, e- and, I think it's still possible you can, you can, legally have compensation for what's been done. But, I think forgiveness generally sort of wipes the slate clean on that. But it doesn't mean that you have to return to the previous state before the wrong was committed. Does that make sense?

Sean McDowell: Yeah, it does. And, in some ways, I think we could argue it's wronging somebody to not require that they actually pay the consequences of something. I mean, to use an extreme example, that if somebody sexually abuses one of my kids, as a Christian, I can forgive them, but for the betterment of society and that individual, they still should be in prison and still should pay the consequences for what they did. So it... I don't think it's one or the other in this case. I mean, if my kid, you know, one of my kids [chuckles] years ago broke one of our windows, he's like, "Gosh, Dad, I'm really sorry." And I said, "You know what? I forgive you. I'm not gonna hold it against you. I know you didn't mean to. I'm not happy that you didn't listen, and I had told you about this." [chuckles] "But I forgive you, and you owe us $90 to fix the window." That's a piece of it. Now, I could have wiped that slate entirely clean if I wanted to, but to forgive doesn't require that in that case. "I'm not gonna hold that against you-

Scott Rae: That's correct

Sean McDowell: ... Is, I think, the key point. You know, there's a difference between personal forgiveness and I think societal debt as well. So I can forgive somebody personally also for a debt that they owe me, but that doesn't absolve a societal debt, because we're not individuals acting apart from affecting one another. We live in a society. By the way, there's a great book by Tim Keller, last book he wrote, just called Forgive, that goes into debt-

Scott Rae: It's a great book

Sean McDowell: ... On a lot of this. So good one for this person to check out. Good stuff, Scott. I'm looking forward to our next, weekly cultural update.

Scott Rae: Good stuff, and enjoyable as usual.

Sean McDowell: [chuckles] This has been an episode of the podcast, Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, where both Scott and I work. We've got master's programs in theology, Bible, apologetics, marriage, spiritual formation, Old Testament, leadership, and more, online and in person. Please keep your excellent comments and questions coming. You can send them to thinkbiblically@biola.edu. [upbeat music] And can we personally ask you to pause and give us a rating on your podcast app? Each rating significantly helps us equip more people to think biblically. And consider sharing this with a friend, even with... If you disagree with us, share this and have a conversation with a friend about it. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you Tuesday when we do a deep dive on the state of the persecuted church today in the world. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]