← Breakpoint
Breakpoint
Trump’s IVF Policy, a New Statement on Superintelligence, and the NBA Betting Scandal
00:59:22
President Trump released his new policy on in vitro fertilization this week. It is not getting good reviews. A diverse group released a statement on Artificial Intelligence and the future of AI. And gambling-related arrests rock the sports...
Loading summary
Transcript44 lines
- [00:02]
A
You're listening to breakpoint this week where we're talking about the top stories of the week from a Christian perspective. Today we're going to talk about a new announcement from the Trump administration expanding access to in vitro fertilization. We're also going to talk about a statement warning against the barreling forward into artificial intelligence. We have a lot to get to this week. We're so glad you're with us. Stick around. Welcome to breakpoint. This week from the Coulson center for Christian Worldview, I'm Maria Baer alongside John Stonestreet, president of the Coulson Center. John, I don't know when your anniversary with Sarah is, but if it's coming up, I would avoid the pawn shops if you're looking for jewelry, because word on the street is that all the precious jewels from the Louvre museum in Paris are making their way to being broken up into bits and pieces. And I don't think you want to end up with a bit of stolen merchandise. Did you see this news about this?
- [00:55]
B
This is a wild story. It's like a mov in real life. The best part of it was the, the French detective who was on the scene, somebody took a picture of. He'd look like he was straight out of the 40s with the, you know, kind of the, the, the, the, the cane and the sweater vest and he's like, you know, it was something. But, yeah, I mean, right in the middle of the day, just, just really crazy. There's not really a worldview analysis of this other than it was bizarre.
- [01:24]
A
It's just crazy. It's just wild. You don't think about. That's the part of it that's not like a movie. Middle of the morning, museum is open. Man, it's just so weird. Yeah, I just got a kick out of that. You're right. I don't know any worldview angle other than, you know, don't steal. It's in the Bible. There are some other stories, though, that I wanna chat with you about this morning. The first being that the White House held a press conference this week with President Trump about expanding access to in vitro fertilization. This was a campaign promise that President Trump made, much to the dismay of many of us who have deep ethical concerns about the way IVF is currently practiced in the US Ryan Anderson wrote a helpful piece. I'm kind of breaking this press conference down a little bit at first things. And he kind of said, it's not as bad as it could have been, but it's still not great. And essentially what the White House is doing is committing to trying to lower the cost of ivf, basically through lowering the cost and renegotiating the cost of the medications involved in that process, and then also offering a widespread option for health insurance to cover the process. So as far as we know, there's no mandate yet for anybody to cover this. It's not like Obama's contraceptive mandate, for example, but still troubling. How do you read this announcement? Is it a nothing burger or are you concerned?
- [02:44]
B
No, it's not nothing. I mean, the language was. Was pretty grandiose during the press conference, not only from the president, but from rfk, from the Alabama senator who's really been pushing this. She's the one who gave the response to President Biden's presidential address a couple years ago and emphasized this. She did it from, you know, kind of the kitchen, and it kind of at her home. And it had this kind of whole, you know, you know, we can have it all kind of feel at the same time, and the Democrats aren't giving it to us. So. But on. On the IVF point, there is a little disparity from the, from the, the promises and the language that was used not only in this press conference, but also in the initial executive order that kind of told us this kind of thing was coming and what is actually being done. So what's actually being done, as you said, can be divided up into two categories. One has to do with the cost of drugs that, that go along with the process to lower the process, make it more accessible to Americans, and then also the insurance coverage option. Now, it's important to note that the insurance coverage option does not mandate that insurance plans cover IVF or that if you cover reproductive services, that you will cover ivf. It's customizable, as far as we can see. And it should also include, by the way, expanding coverage or at least initiating coverage. I don't know anybody that covers it. For something we've talked about recently on the program. I think it was my recommendation either last week or the week before to these what's called restorative reproductive of health care. And this is what Maddie Kearns, for example, wrote about in the Free Press several months ago about her own experience. And there's not a whole lot of these service providers around the country, but there are a few, and they tend to be Roman Catholic, and they tend to focus on healing as opposed to the kind of technological workaround that is ivf. So, listen, it is troubling. I think what's interesting, too, is that this week, and I'll read this, was the anniversary and the remembrance of something that started during President Trump's first term, and that was the. What's called the Geneva Consensus Declaration. The Geneva Consensus Declaration was something that was launched during President Trump's first term. It kind of governed international policy and aid for women's healthcare and opportunity to be pro life instead of pro abortion, which has really been the case through our international aid programs, has oftentimes come with a whole lot of conditions. And one of those conditions has been the promotion of abortion. There are dozens of countries that have signed on to the Geneva Consensus Declaration. And it's really a wonderful thing that's out there. But let me just read President Trump's words. This was a letter that he wrote to those who were working on this. During my first term as president, I was proud to commit the United States of America to the Geneva Consensus Declaration for the first time now since returning to the presidency, I'm just as proud to exercise American leadership by rejoining the Declaration after the previous administration withdrew. I will never waver in protecting the sanctity of every human life. I will always be a voice for the voiceless and a defender for the most vulnerable among us. My administration is steadfastly devoted to restoring a culture that values the inherent dignity of every child and to upholding the eternal truth that every person is created in the holy image and likeness of God with infinite worth and boundless potential. Together with our allies and partners across the world, we will continue to build a future rooted in faith, family and freedom. Now, think about the incongruity, let's say the inconsistency between those words and what IVF and expanding IVF is. And I mean in particular what needed to happen from this White House is a set of regulations that are put on IVF because it is under regulated and leads to more abortions than all the Planned Parenthoods in America combined. On an annual basis, the number of embryos that are created through IVF for the purpose of never being brought to life, for the purpose of ensuring a couple gets at least one child. I mean, we're talking about a pretty radical formula here of creating somewhere between 12 to 15 embryos, typically today, and many of them being screened out right off the bat for being non viable. That might be because of. Of genetic conditions. That might be because they're boys instead of girls or girls instead of boys based on sex selection or other sorts of traits. And then, of course, you also have the reality that if once the embryos begin to be implanted, that if pregnancy is achieved early, you have excess embryos. The fact that they're called excess embryos, which is industry standard, and then leads to whatever happens to them being frozen and it's suspended in time, being destroyed or discarded or being donated to medical research, the most common results of that is in direct contrast to this line, isn't it? My administration is steadfastly devoted to restoring a culture that values the inherent dignity of every child and to upholding the eternal truth that every person is created in the holy image and likeness of God. There is a great disparity here and the push for ivf. Now, it does seem that whatever IVF policy we got the other day, it could have been a lot worse. It could have had a mandate. It could have required insurance coverages for it. It could have done all kinds of things, and it did not. But what it will do is lead to more babies that are destroyed in the process. And that's a very, very painful truth. We posted about it this week. We get a lot of feedback every time, like, you don't understand what it's like to go through infertility. And I do not know what it's like to go through infertility. What I do know is how IVF is practiced. What I do know is how it is practiced leads to an awful lot of embryonic deaths. That is an undeniable fact. There are ways to do it more ethically than others. I'm not sure that there's a way right now that it's being done completely ethically, but there are better ways than others. And what we need are regulations that bring this practice, first and foremost, back to some sort of ethical standard. Because right now, that's not what's happening.
- [09:53]
A
You know, in a few minutes, we're gonna talk about just a statement that people are signing on to. This is one of those declaration kind of things, kind of similar to the Geneva Consensus. This one is about artificial intelligence. And this came out of the tech community. But, you know, several faith leaders have signed onto it as well. It's basically. It's calling for hesitancy, I guess, as we approach something that they're calling superintelligence. And we'll get into that in a minute. But I'm thinking about this in the context of this discussion, because technology like this, including ivf, not only has real, tangible implications for each embryo, for each little human person that's created, but it also impacts the cultural imagination about reproduction and babies and marriage. And sex and life and all of it. And one of the really nefarious things, I think that impacts of IVF as it's now widely practiced and it's, you know, I think one of the things Madeline Kern's piece pointed out and what these practitioners of restorative reproductive medicine are saying is that it's now kind of the first option that people go to because of how lucrative, frankly, it is. It's like one of the first options that OB GYNs will give people. And unfortunately, I believe one of the problems it's created is it's creating the problem that it's pretending to solve in a lot of instances. And what I mean is people are waiting and waiting and waiting to start their families and then finding that their chances of reproduction go down with age, which is natural. And one of the reasons people are waiting is because they're being told that they can have this option in their back pocket. Like, okay, even if it is a little bit later in your life and you've waited, you could always go to ivf and that will help you reproduce. Now, we know, though, that the majority of attempts at in vitro fertilization are not successful. It is less than 50%. I think it's a lot less than 50% of the number of babies that are born successfully after an attempted ivf. Most women who go through it go through multiple rounds of it, which is extremely hard on the body and expensive, and as you said, leads to the discarding of multiple embryos. But it is because of our embrace of this technology. It shaped our imaginations about what we can and should do and how we should structure our lives. And I have no doubt it has encouraged many women and families to put off having children, which is then creating the problem that it promises to solve, which is just another reminder that we have to think every time we meddle in, in processes that God made we could not, we usually are not able to imagine all of the implications of it, including the way it shapes our imaginations about life.
- [12:42]
B
Yeah, I mean, I mean, of course, at one level, all medicine, all healthcare is meddling and, you know, practices to some degree. But there is a difference between restoration and technological workarounds. And I think, you know, what we're going to talk about later with AI is a great example of this. But this is. Was a great example first. There's no question too, the success of IVF dramatically decreases age by age by age. But the whole thing is framed around adult desire. And this is one of the things it's like well, oh, you want kids? You want kids? When? Now? Okay, here's what it'll cost you to get kids. But it is a low success rate. I think there's probably an ability to know when a couple is more likely or not more likely to be successful in that. But what's not being talked about here is the kids. The other thing that has to be brought into the conversation too is not only as you brought up the cultural factors of seeing children as options, of seeing the inherent connection between marriage and procreation severed, you know, kind of post sexual revolution, but also alternative sexual relationships. So now we have a technological workaround not only to legitimate infertility. Now we have a technological workaround that's being used and being driven, frankly, the demand of, it's being driven by same sex couples, alternative, you know, relationships that portray themselves as marriage and then demand the rights, you know, thereunto, of course, that then requires surrogacy. And what you're doing there is not only involving yourself into a process that leads to a lot of dead embryos, but you're also involving yourself into a process that immediately robs the child of either mom or dad. So it's an orphaning process in that case. And all of this, of course, reveals what Jacques Elul wrote years ago in the technological society, this belief, this fundamental belief in technique, right? It's not an idea like how do we get around those things that keep us from the potential that God created human beings with. It's that through technique we can actually solve any and all of our problems. And that's been a value of a modern society for a really long time. It elevates values such as choice as being first and foremost. And of course, as you know, we've talked about here with multiple issues of reproductive technologies, that choice is always the adult's choice. It's never the child's choice. The child doesn't have a say in this. That, of course, is the case for abortion. This is why some people, I think, have said that there's a lot of similarities here in terms of abortion. And it's interesting because you read the language or hear the language of the Geneva Consensus Declaration. I don't think anyone thinks President Trump wrote those words. Right? I don't think anyone thinks that these are concepts that were, that he came up with. These are concepts that many people in the administration hold to this pro life view. But also there are people in the administration that do not. And there are ways to get wins. He certainly wants to get wins with rfk. And the, you know, make America healthy again movement, particularly to lower drug cost and to, you know, be really clear on that. And this is a way to get a win, win, I think in his mind, while still kind of portraying itself as, quote, unquote, pro life, you know, as he puts it, pro fertility. And this is, this is not the way to do it. But, you know, again, we'll say, and it could be worse. I am grateful, by the way, I did list in the Breakpoint commentary. I think that there are four, four things that are really positive here are good news, you know, a, that it's not a mandate, that he's not binding people of conscience. I think it's a good thing, you know, given what we've had from previous administrations, that the people with conscience concerns were not mocked during this, this announcement. They weren't mocked. And, you know, you think about how the government has mocked people with bioethical concerns in years past, that actually was a. Was something that's worth noting. And the fact that whatever this insurance coverage looks like can be customizable to say, as a company organization of conscience, like ours could say, you know, yes, we do want to help young couples achieve pregnancies, but we don't want to do it through IVF because of the ethical limitations. We do want to help young couples with something like restorative reproductive medicine. Ryan Anderson, in his First Things piece said he's looking forward to the eppc, which he leads, you know, including this coverage. I am, too. I. We actually already kind of started the investigation. Like, is there a way we can participate here and advance what is good and not participate in what is not good? And so we'll see if that leads indeed, maybe to fertility in this, you know, in the end. But the ethical, you know, listen, at one level, the technology has outpaced our ethics. I mean, how many times do we talk about that? We're going to talk about that here in about three minutes. The technology has outpaced our ethics and, you know, here we are again.
- [18:19]
A
Well, I hate to continue a theme, but in the trend of me being more cynical than you, I'm glad that you saw the silver linings, but I. It's hard that. It's hard not to see this as a slippery slope. Like, yeah, not being mocked feels like a low bar to me. And, you know, I mean it. Yeah. I just hate to say that.
- [18:38]
B
I agree it's a low bar, but it's a bar. It's been set.
- [18:41]
A
It's a bar. Might as well mention it. Okay. Let's take a break and then I want to talk with you about superintelligence. I want to hear what jockey Lewell would say about this statement. We'll be right back with more Breakpoint this week.
- [18:56]
B
Hey, John Stonestreet here. This is your official invite. Join us at the 2026 Colson Center National Conference. It'll be held in Knoxville, Tennessee, May 29 to the 31st. Again, Knoxville, Tennessee, May 29 through the 31st. The theme this year is you are here. You might remember those large, now largely empty buildings called shopping malls where you had all kinds of stores and you were trying to find the one you were looking for and you had to go to the map. And not only did you need to find the store, you needed to find that yellow arrow or the star that said you are here. Our culture today changes so fast and at such a profound civilizational level. And that, of course, is because we've abandoned the truth and we're reaping the consequences. So a conference like this is absolutely necessary to get the lay of the land, to kind of figure out what's happening in culture and at what moment we're really in. If you've ever wondered if your faithfulness and obedience can make a difference in this civilizational moment that we're in, this is the conference for you. So join us at the Colson Center National Conference. You'll be hearing from fantastic speakers like the one and only Os Guinness, the remarkable story of Chloe Cole, Abdu Murray, and many more that will be announced soon. If you register before November 29th, you can receive up to 50% off tickets. For more details and secure your spot for the Colson Center National Conference May 29th through the 31st, go to colson conference conference.org that's colson conference.org.
- [20:27]
A
We'Re back on Breakpoint this week. So, John, several public figures have signed this, as I said, statement on superintelligence, including notably Steve Wozniak, who is, you know, Steve Jobs, partner in crime and founding apple Geoffrey Hinton, who's called like the godfather of AI. It's a super short statement. Our friend Andrew Walker has signed it. Several other faith leaders have signed onto it. I once again, my cynical side, it feels a little bit pie in the sky at this point, but here are the very short and succinct objectives of the statement. We call for a prohibition on the development of superintelligence, which my rudimentary understanding of that is just high powered AI, which they state earlier in the statement, has the possibility of Basically rendering obsolete human cognition in most of the economy, if not general human life. We call for the prohibition on the development of superintelligence and not lifted before there is first broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably. And number two, strong public buy in. I just don't see how. I mean, I feel like I read the statement, I'm like, okay, so we're never going to have superintelligence. Got it. And maybe that's the best course. Do you think this is important, this statement? Like, will it have a cultural impact if not a literal, you know, success rate?
- [21:51]
B
No. I mean, listen, I think it's. There's nothing wrong with saying this. I think it's stating the ethical concerns or kind of an actual goal. Putting it out there is better than it never being stated. And. And that is the difference between, you know, trying to make some progress, I guess, and just rejecting it and walking away. There's a lot of interesting things about this statement. I think, first of all, as someone who is asked to sign lots of statements, I wasn't asked initially to sign this one, but as one who I am just really grateful for how short it is. I mean, some of these statements are so long that you're asking. This is literally what they're like, don't.
- [22:26]
A
Make it longer than a tweet, because that's the world we're in. It's gotta be tweet length or shorter.
- [22:32]
B
It's pretty remarkable. So I was grateful for that. The other thing which is fascinating is there has not been a statement in recent memory, maybe ever, with the diversity of signers. And what I mean by that is the diversity across cultural spheres. If you go to the website, which is superintelligence-statement.org There is a categorization of the different signers. Faith leaders, policymakers, arts and media, researchers, businesses, nonprofit. I mean, when have you seen a statement signed by both Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, as well as Steve Wozniak and Susan Rice? I mean, when have you seen a statement that was signed by somebody like Johnny Moore and Andrew Walker on one end and Walter Kim and Gabe Salgaro on the other end? If you don't know those names, they're on kind of opposite sides of the evangelical spectrum. It is a interesting list. And there is agreement on this. And the agreement is like, look, whether they're concerns fundamentally or for the future of work or just kind of our humanness or, you know, unleashing things that we can't put back in the bottle. All, you know, these various signers, at least the ones that I've heard of and I haven't heard of most of them, particularly in the scientific and research realm, have various concerns with superintelligence. But they're all saying, look, let's. Let's stop until we actually get some boundaries. Let's stop until we actually know where we need to say no and what sort of, you know, leashes need to be put on this technology that has incredible promises. It is a interesting, interesting, you know, pretty simple thing like, look, can we just agree to say this? Let's not go further until we. We decide what safety is and we decide what control is. So I think that's pretty. A pretty interesting part of it. I think they're up to almost 32,000 signatures. It didn't come out with a lot of fanfare, which I, you know, with something like this. And the, you know, you have Glenn Beck and Steve Bannon here, along with Susan Rice. I mean, what a bizarre signing. You know, list of signers here. It's just incredible.
- [24:54]
A
And I see that as a strength of it, but also a potential hindrance. Because one of the things they're going to have to do, the, you know, the proverbial they are going to have to do in order to accomplish this, is to come to an agreement about what it means to be human and what is good. And I think that's gonna be a challenge because of the ideological diversity. But I am thrilled that we're bringing that question up, because that's really the question under the question here. They say in the paragraph leading up to their demands, kind of, that this intelligence, this technology has the capacity to. To do everything that humans do, as we contribute to the economy, faster and more effectively. And that is my understanding of artificial intelligence, is that speed and accuracy are kind of the central offerings of it. It is fascinating how it works, but what's important about it and kind of unprecedented is how fast it can do this and how effectively it can do. Is able to do, to, like, synthesize data faster and more accurately than the human brain can do it. And that is extremely impactful in all kinds of different areas. So at some level, we're gonna have to make the philosophical decision that efficiency and success are not the most important things. And it depends on what situation we're referring to. Like, if you tell me that they build a machine that can use superintelligence that can come be a plumber at my house, and. And it can do the work faster and more Accurately, I have a hard time saying, no, please don't do that. But if you're talking about machines that can do all the learning for me, so there's no reason for me to send my kids to school anymore because they can accomplish anything you'd need to accomplish with, you know, knowing mathematics without having to sit through and learn it, then I'm going to say, no, I don't want to do that. But that's because I have a predetermined explanation of what it means to be human. And one of the facets of that explanation is the capacity to know and to study the world and the fact that God made the world knowable and that God called us to cultivate it. But I don't know if we can get a group as large as the 8 billion people that live on the planet to agree on those definitions. But it seems to me like we're going to have to get to some kind of consensus or else all the arguments for this thing are going to be very plausible. Does that make sense?
- [27:34]
B
Well, it's not just the arguments, the difference or the added factor in your analogy or illustration about your whether you send your kids to school or not. It's not just whether you believe it. It's that the educational process has been already designed around the crunching of data, the repetition of facts. Not to become creative, critical and independent thinkers, but to regurgitate, to jump through hoops. As one Duke University student quoted in Steve Garber's book on education talked about it. The so called line between fact and faith or science and religion that has been deeply embedded at every level of the educational process from the beginning to the end. And it's really a misnomer because there's a different faith that's been put into place there. But when you start drawing that hard, fast line, then you are reductionistic about what it means to be human. You are reductionistic about what human knowledge entails. You're reductionistic about what the educational enterprise and what the whole purpose of it all is. That said, I think that from various worldview perspectives, there are enough shared fears when it comes to superintelligence that maybe we can just get to something like this. I'm, I guess I'm less concerned that we're for this to be effective, that we have to get to a shared vision of what it means to be human. Because as you said, that's absolutely crazy. I think it's fascinating. I mean, you got people who've signed on to this who are transhumanists Right. I mean, they actually believed, they believe that the goal of science and technology is to take us beyond our humanness. The real problem here is China. Right. The real problem here is the mutually assured destruction approach that we've taken to since World War II. And it's applied now to, if we do not go forward, China will go forward. We know China will go forward. So we have to go forward. And that's going to be an incredibly limiting factor to get any sort of international success or policy proposals that can, you know, bring some regulation around it. When it comes to us getting what we want, and this was the theme of our first segment, when it comes to us getting what we want, we don't want moral regulations or legal regulations or legal limits on it. We just don't. There is a vision of the human life that we have embraced not by policy, not by law, not perfectly, not universally. But the ethos of a culture that centers human desire over everything else separates the world from its God given design. Because design inherently brings limits. And when we separate those things, then technology basically serves our wants and it serves what we want to get out of something. We know we don't want regulations on us getting what we want. This promises speed. As you said, speed and accuracy haven't always gone hand in hand. They still don't quite yet with super intelligence, but one can see that it might. And there's certainly things that it can do and there's certain things that super intelligence or artificial intelligence, whatever we want to say, will be able to dramatically assist human beings with and wouldn't violate what it means to be human. This isn't just turn off the switch, unplug the machine and so on.
- [31:14]
A
It already is. I mean, there was a piece about Palantir.
- [31:17]
B
Oh, all over the place.
- [31:18]
A
I mean, they found Osama bin Laden because artificial intelligence can analyze patterns faster and more accurately than human beings can. And they can analyze people's movements when they're being surveilled. And I'm reading this story with my jaw on the ground, like that's how they found him was because this machine did it. I mean, it's hard to be angry at that.
- [31:40]
B
Our ability, ourselves as individuals to navigate this. I mean, you have the what are the nations going to do? And we've got the China problem. You've got what are the policies going to be here? And that has to do with the differences in beliefs about what it means to be human. And what were those lines between serving human and replacement human, but our own lines that we have to decide whether we're engaging GROK and whether we're having it write our term papers and whether we are, you know, letting it answer our questions about meaning and existence right, and whether or not we believe all the things that it says. Still, my favorite line about AI is from Bill Maher. He goes, the real problem is, is that it's such a. It tells people who are stupid that they're not. You know, you ask a stupid question like that's a great question, is how many, how many, how many people that are real smart are being told they're smart every day by AI and you don't need that kind of false positive reinforcement. But we all have to decide too. And our challenges are going to be a thinking it can do more than it can do because at the end of the day, it crunches data and it crunches data in a human like fashion. But that's not all of human intelligence. That's not human emotional intelligence. That's not, you know, we are not just computers made of flash. Our brains aren't just pieces of meat. But we're also going to struggle if we underestimate the power that humans have to create things and build things. Again, I say this a lot, but I'm just stunned by the pronouncement that God gave at Babel that if as one people think speaking the same language, they put their minds to it, nothing will be impossible for them. In other words, they'll be able to do everything that comes into their minds. And so we will have an incredible capacity and this will get better and better and better, and we'll have to figure out, you know, like we have with other technologies. But I do think this one's different. It's at a level of integration, it brings unique challenges, and we've got the global reality that really we haven't had to the same degree since Babel, you know, all people speaking the same language. Here we're talking about AI language, but that, that, that's a real interesting thing. So, you know, to me, this is a pretty low bar on the statement, but the fact that it is a. You know, let's go back to. This is the bar. Yes, this is the bar. Let's just, let's just slow down until we figure out what's right and wrong. I mean, that's a pretty low bar, but that's the bar.
- [34:16]
A
Well, I want to end the segment on a positive note. There was a video that you shared with me this morning of a young girl at the Annunciation Catholic School in Minnesota, who had been a victim of the shooting there. She was shot in the head. Her name is Sophia Fortis. I hope I'm saying that correctly. Shot in the head and immediately put into a medically induced coma was by all accounts, not expected to survive. And there's this video now of her just returning to school. And I think it was her birthday. She gets out of the car and all of her classmates are there and it's an absolute party. And John, it's so incredible. Thank you for sharing it with me. I mean, I highly recommend that people watch it, but. Yeah, what an incredible story.
- [34:59]
B
Yeah, it's worth mentioning just to celebrate, to thank the Lord for his kindness. I don't know. Listen, it's beautiful. And the fact that it's beautiful just betrays the fact that evil has won. It hasn't. The fact that it's so wonderful and beautiful is. The doctors themselves in this story, and certainly the parents and the community there are calling it a miracle that God did something here, that God intervened. And I think that's something that a lot of times. Listen, the question why doesn't God do more to stop evil? Is a legitimate question of the human experience, if you're going to ask that question. And by the way, the psalms encourage you to ask that question. The psalms are full of David going, God, why don't you do more to stop my enemies and to stop those who are evil and so on. But then you have to put this into the equation too, because this is additional evil that was limited. Praise God.
- [36:02]
A
One of the comments on the videos, that broke my heart as well. And it was someone, I don't know if they were personally involved, but saying, I really struggling with this language you're using because I think the parents said something to that effect, that the Lord miraculously spared this girl, John. He didn't miraculously spare other kids in that instance. And how, you know, does saying something like that about Sophia Harshen you know, the pain of the loss?
- [36:30]
B
It does, of course. Yeah. And that's it. Because loss is personal, right? It's not just a math game. So I fully understand someone who cares about the other victims deeply. Not in a cynics way. I still think proverbs distinction between seekers and mockers applies here. But those who really care about somebody who was lost on that terrible day by this terrible shooting at the hands of this terrible person. But then if that's a legitimate category, it's like, well, you can't call that a miracle because this was a personal loss for me. Then it's just as valid to turn that around and say, you can't question my rejoicing and calling in a miracle, because this is personal to me. Right. And the personality side of this is actually one of the things that really matters as we wrestle with God. And why does he do what he does? Listen, I'm not saying it solves the problem. I'm not saying that it fully tucks all the socks into the theological suitcase or solves our existential realities that there's evil in the world. But it's saying that in this particular case, there's not a medical, scientific explanation for why this girl was spared. That is from the words of the doctors, and that's from the words of the parents. And when you realize how critical a very, very small oversight or mistake would have been, even at the hands of the medical care that she received and God brought her to life. I get the questions. The questions are legitimate. The psalmist encourages us to ask the questions. But you have to put this into the math if this makes you question. And let's celebrate the fact that this girl's alive.
- [38:28]
A
There was a song several years ago by Nicole Nordeman, a Christian artist that I always loved. And it was called Miles. She had shared at some point. It was about a family friend or somebody that she knew. And there was a little boy who had collapsed of a heart failure. There was some kind of medical incident and that boy passed away, and his heart was then able to be transplanted into another little boy who then lived because of that. And it's just like a mind shattering confrontation with this concept because both moms are praying for the same outcome. One mom gets the life of her son because the other mom didn't. I mean, it's just gutting and beautiful and horrible all at the same time. And the only thing it makes me think of is this quote from the great divorce when C.S. lewis is basically talking about how these things confuse us because we look at them within the constraints of time and we don't see how everything fits together. But if you take Romans 8 seriously, that the future glory is made richer by, in part, the suffering that we experience here, he says, at the end of all things, when the sun rises here and the twilight turns to blackness down there, the blessed will say, we have never lived anywhere except in heaven. The lost will say we were always in hell. And what he's saying is that goodness and beauty and redemption, you know, he makes this mystical claim, it will reach back into time and it will redeem every ounce of pain and suffering and blackness that you experienced. And at the same moment, all of the pleasure that you thought you obtained through sin and darkness, you will find has been tainted by evil. And that is strangely comforting to me when these kinds of questions come up. But let's take a quick break, John. We'll be right back with more break points. This week.
- [40:37]
B
Truth Rising is making waves in the church, mobilizing Christians to step into their God given calling. If you haven't seen this courage building film, now's the time. Truth Rising is streaming for free@truthrising.com Colson and God is using it to equip his people with courageous faith. Invite your friends, family and church members to join you in streaming Truth Rising for free. You'll get insights from global thought leaders about the current state of our civilization. And you'll also be inspired by Christians just like you who are choosing to take steps of courageous faith and making a difference where God has placed them. Join the movement Stream Truth rising today@truthrising.com Colson that's truthrising.com Colson.
- [41:23]
A
We'Re back on Breakpoint this week. John, you're a big basketball fan. So news broke yesterday. My husband can't stop talking about it. I don't recognize the names of these people, but they are big names in basketball. As he's been teaching me, two big names. One of them, Chauncey Billups, who is the coach of the Portland Trail Blazers and himself a very prominent player before that. And then another player. Who's the other guy? Can you pronounce his name for me? I don't know how to pronounce his last name. Rozier.
- [41:52]
B
Terry Rozier.
- [41:52]
A
Terry Rozier. They were indicted by the FBI for gambling. Okay. It related to the NBA. One of them is was supposedly involved with some kind of mafia related gambling ring. The other was more straightforward. It sounds like sports gambling, like offering inside information about the Lakers here and there and who might be injured and who will be sitting this game. But both have been officially indicted. This is a big deal. The NBA is obviously trying to do some cover up stuff here. I'm reading news stories this morning about all these teams saying, you know, immediately the higher ups from the NBA are down in our locker rooms just kind of reading their bullet points of how we're not allowed to gamble and we're not allowed to share inside information about the game. It's hard not to see this as yet another chapter in the story of how legalized sports betting has just perverted sport and will Continue to do so. I mean, do you see it that way, too?
- [42:47]
B
Well, I think the critics of this will say, well, we're not talking about legalized sports gambling. We're not talking about DraftKings or anything like that. We're talking about betting on your own sport, fixing games, insider information, you know, basically setting things up that predates legalized sports betting. You know, there are crazy stories of the mob being involved, which is what makes the Chauncey Billups part of this story so crazy. A fixed poker games with five crime families with all Italian last names. I mean, again, it goes.
- [43:22]
A
I don't want to make light of it, but I really want to watch a movie about this.
- [43:26]
B
This is it. It's like the, you know, heist at the Louvre, you know, so we got two movies coming out of this, out of this episode of Breakpoint this week. But what is interesting is that the goalposts have clearly moved. Pete Rose got in trouble not for fixing and betting his own gains, just for sports gambling in general. You know, there was that line that. Now is the line that if that line had been in place with Pete Rose, he would not have been in trouble. But you also have just kind of what's in the water. What's in the water is that the explosion of sports gambling and involving more and more people, particularly young men. All the people in the story will be, at least at one, you know, at one point, young men, when they got involved in this. And it's a. It's crazy. It's not over. Right now, what we're hearing from the FBI is that, you know, this is gone from, I think, four or five players. And overall there's 30, 35 players that are implicated or people that are implicated. And question is, if they participate, then who else are they going to implicate? This is not. Charles Barkley said last night on Inside the NBA. There's a lot of players, a lot of people that are going to have sleepless nights. You know, are they coming for me? Are they coming, you know, for me? It's. It's. It's a tragic thing. It's a tragic thing because gambling is an addiction. Addiction makes you do silly things or, or. Or stupid things, and that's one. But addictions don't alleviate the fact that people made decisions, the decisions to do it the first time, the second time, and even after that, that. That impulse is there. And you can go deep down the rabbit hole. I mean, but you can also think they were talking about this last night. We talk about kind of addiction. And I think proverbs just, you know, can be summed up as sin makes you do stupid things, is, you know, here you have people making 20, 25 million, 30 million, 40 million a year, and they're going to blow up their lives over $100,000 bet. You know, it's just a remarkable disparity.
- [45:39]
A
And I think, I mean, I have heard some conspiratorial thinking there though, too. Like what it can't, that can't be. So there must be something, there's some kind of blackmail or something at play. I, oh yeah, it is hard. It's hard to understand for sure.
- [45:53]
B
Some of those early kind of mob related stories, there's a 30 for 30 about that. But I, you know, I, you know that there's kind of pressure that's put on, but the player makes a decision to kind of step into that arena, to get into that car, to have that conversation, to do it the first time, and then there's no getting out. That's not what we're talking about here. We are talking about a culture that is pervasive. We're talking about people trying, you know, like all addictions, to fill that, that hole in their heart with something. And it's really hard to, to fill. And calling in an addiction doesn't alleviate the moral guilt. I think that's one of the things in our therapeutic culture is you call it an addiction and then someone's not personally guilty of it. That's not the way I don't think a Christian vision of things would understand it. But this is not over. This is gonna get bigger before it gets resolved.
- [46:44]
A
It was jarring to see the coverage of it on espn. And then everybody's kind of sober minded and very austere talking about it with good reason. And then it's like, we're gonna go to commercial break. Oh, it's a DraftKings commercial.
- [46:57]
B
And then it's a DraftKings commercial.
- [46:59]
A
I know it's not the same thing.
- [47:02]
B
But it feels like the same.
- [47:03]
A
It's a world. And you know, there's a piece at the Free Press today about what sports gambling, even the legal kind, now has taken from the sport. And it's a really dark irony because as you mentioned, you know, a lot of times people turn to things that cause an addiction out of a sense of emptiness or longing that's going unmet. And this man that was interviewed in this piece was saying, you know, it is obviously a big problem for young men in particular, the sense of isolation and social Isolation and loss of meaning and all of that. And one of the places that young men traditionally could find that was in sports was in rooting for a team together and having that sort of camaraderie. And this guy was talking about, once I started betting, I stopped caring about teams and it wasn't fun watching games with my friends anymore because we weren't, you know, I was rooting for that quarterback to make that throw and for that guy to do that thing as opposed to rooting for a team. And it destroyed the camaraderie of it.
- [48:07]
B
Well, it also says something about the law. I mean, the law's really clear on this. They broke the law, but they were allowed to break the law for a really long time. You know, there was a glossing over from the league, there was a glossing over from others. And, you know, right now you have people then pushing back, going, the only reason this is an issue is because the NBA has been critical of President Trump. And so he's weaponizing his, you know, Department of Justice against them. Which there's probably some truth to that. I mean, I'm sure that that's, there's some motivation, but there's, there's smoke there because there's actual fire. Like they actually broke the law. They actually corrupted the sport. And, you know, and I don't think we should dismiss the fact that this is a culture that allows this. This kind of falls into the Wonderful line from C.S. lewis. You know, you, we, we encourage this kind of thing and then we're shocked by the behavior, right? We, we mock virtue and then we are surprised that there are traitors among us. You know, it shouldn't really surprise anyone that, you know, this is kind of what's in the water, because it is in the water and we all see it that it's in the water. And if it looks a particular way for young 20 somethings gambling away their futures, then it looks much different at that level when you have that level of access and that level of money to throw at it. And so we'll see where it goes. But there's one other thing to say, and that is this is why libertarianism doesn't match the human condition. You have to have laws to govern. If people can't govern their instinct, that's the role of the laws to govern that behavior. What you want as a long term solution is not law. What you want is virtue. That's what we don't have.
- [49:58]
A
Yeah. And that libertarian push is what's behind most of this. My husband does a lot of advocacy work at the State House here in Ohio. And as he's gone through kind of opposing the legalization of sports betting and gambling expansion generally, he said that is always their best argument is like, well, we should just they're not arguing it's like marijuana, right? They're not arguing for the merits of the thing. They're just saying, well, people should be free to be able to do X, Y and Z. And as we're seeing, that just doesn't hold up. Well, John, can we get to some questions now that we've had some listeners of breakpoint send in? We talked earlier in the show about the president's press conference on expanding access to ivf. And we heard from somebody who says the author of this, they're referring to a breakpoint that you shared earlier this week, I believe, about ivf. The author of this has clearly never dealt with infertility that was beyond any technology other than IVF to treat. And this questioner says, you know, infertility is usually a women's health thing, which she, you know, suggests that people don't put as much resources or energy into solving women's health issues as opposed to, I guess, men's issues or human issues. She says IVF is really a last ditch, heartbreaking, desperate attempt at having a family that does fail more often than it succeeds. The cures for endometriosis and PCOS and other infertility issues that purportedly the restorative reproductive medicine tackles would always be people's preference, but is usually not available, I think, is what this questioner is suggesting. So how do you respond to that?
- [51:41]
B
Well, first, as I said earlier, the questioner's right. I haven't experienced the pain of infertility even as a man, much less as a woman. Second, there are many things that were said here that do not reflect the reality on the ground. IVF is oftentimes not offered as a last ditch effort after everything has been tried. As many women are reporting now, this is actually the first place people go not only by the way, as a means to deal with a woman's struggle to have a child, but also in order to accommodate the wants and desires of celebrities who want to hold off or professional women or people who have that kind of capacity to hold off in time when they want to have children and to have children when they want to have it, freezing eggs and that sort of stuff, or encouraging surrogacy. It's way more ethically fraught than just a quote unquote, women's health care issue. It also is not a treatment for infertile fertility. That is the ethical analysis that many Catholic feminist authors have brought to this, which I think is a very important point, that it does not actually treat infertility. It's a technological workaround. There's a fundamental difference between these two things, and I agree fully with the questioner that this restorative reproductive medicine is not tried enough. This is a field, I guess is the best way to say it, a field of medicine that is growing and expanding and is way overdue. And the reason that there hasn't been sufficient investment in that is because of the punting immediately to some of these technological workarounds, including to ivf. So we need more investment in this. We need. I think that. Which is why I celebrated that part of the announcement that insurance coverage that allows that sort of thing to be subsidized would be wonderful and a wonderful step in the right direction. That's not what any of this is about. Now, I'll say even if I grant the many assumptions in this question, which obviously I think are flawed, which is why I went through them at the beginning, but even if I grant all of them, we still have to come to the punchline of what IVF actually is, which is by and large the way that it is practiced. Creating a vast number of. It's creating far more embryos than will ever be brought to life. It is a technology that is creating a human rights crisis. If you think life begins at conception. And once you bring in another human being into the conversation which IVF does, that's the whole process. Now, you cannot just ask what's best for the woman. You have to ask what is the moral responsibility we have to this child. It's the same conversation we have when it comes to things like abortion, because we're not just talking about what's right for the woman. We have to ask what's right for the child. This is the same conversation. And IVF creates this moral crisis. So I think the questioner is short sighted on that point, and that is the ultimate point. Again, there are more ethical ways to do it. Limiting the number of embryos, for example. I think it's the Heritage foundation that has put out recommendations saying that regulation should say no more than three embryos created in a cycle. I don't think that solves your ethical problems at all, but it's far more ethical than you know, 15 and knowing you're going to have, quote, unquote, excess that are either going to be eliminated or frozen forever. Kind of suspended in time. Like we're not even close to an ethical framing of this. Right. So there's so much more to this conversation than the way this question has been framed. And so, you know, some of the assumptions here are just incorrect. The others don't take into account. The fundamental question that we have to ask on these things is what is the embryo? If the moral nature of the embryo is that it's a human being and therefore has the same rights as all human beings should have. Now you can't just ask what's best for the woman. You have to actually bring both into the conversation.
- [56:20]
A
On that note, we also got a note from someone named Kevin who said, what if we encouraged the Trump administration who wants to purportedly expand access to ivf, stipulate that all they mean is expanding IVF through snowflake adoption. Do you want to explain what snowflake adoption is and do you think this is a feasible strategy?
- [56:41]
B
Well, I do think that the Trump order so far, you know, doesn't limit one as opposed to the other. You know, and I think that is, as I said, I think there's some creativity and customizability to encourage that thing. And I think that you're going to have to see that take place within employers themselves. For example, we have an adoption benefit at the Colson center for our staff, and that includes snowflake adoptions because we think that that is a life giving way to solve this problem. In terms of the questions, snowflake adoption is not ivf. Snowflake adoption is adopting out an embryo. However they were formed. Now, all of them right now are formed through IVF and left to, to be frozen and suspended in time. And the idea of snowflake adoption is let's at least give some of them a right to life. That, that, that's great and that's why I'm for it. That's better than any of the alternatives that I can think of right now, you know, donating to medical research or destruction. And I think that it would be wonderful and I think it's actually built into this order that a benefit can be customized to encourage this sort of thing. It's just, we're talking about whether in covering IVF or covering an embryo already produced by ivf. So language wise, I'm not a policy wonk, so how you write that policy would be a challenge. But I understand the question fully supportive of snowflake adoption, and I think more people should know that it is an alternative. Well, we had other questions to get to, but we lost Maria and that's because she is vacationing somewhere and and graciously gave us some time this morning to do the program. But you always rely on hotel Internet and that is not always a reliable thing to do. But thanks for joining us for Breakpoint this week. Typically we would do recommendations at this time and I will just recommend that you look at the video that has been widely released of this survivor of the Minnesota shooting, this beautiful young girl who was not expected to live and just see the joy on the face of, of those celebrating her life. It really is something that will restore hopefully at least to some degree, your faith and humanity. It certainly did that for me. For Maria Baer, I'm John Stonestreet. Thanks for joining us for Breakpoint this week. You can always find more resources at our website, breakpoint.org if you have not seen the new film Truth Rising, please do that and share it with others. TruthRising.com Truth Rising.com com is where you can find that. And thanks for joining us. We'll see you next time.